|
|
Document
|
|
PO-2241
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
PA-030218-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Management Board Secretariat
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: A lawyer representing two clients submitted a request to Management Board Secretariat (MBS) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for information concerning the abolition of the Coroner's Council in 1998. The requester explained that his clients had made a complaint to the Council in 1995, which was not considered prior the Council's abolition. In submitting the request under the Act , the requester hoped to learn more about how the recommendation to abolish the Council came about, and: … any connection that there may have been between information that may have been discovered during any research related to the recommendations coming about and the fact that my clients were the only ones apparently with a complaint that was still waiting to be heard by the Council. Accordingly, the requester made the following request: We wish to make both a general request as well as a specific request for the release of information relating to the abolishment of the Coroner's Council of Ontario and more specifically the Red Tape Commission's role in bringing that about. This would encompass any information relating to an investigation of the existing role of the Council prior to its abolishment. Therefore, we would specifically ask for production of any and all notes, memos, correspondence, research, recommendations or other documentation made by members of the Red Tape Commission or any such similar documentation that was obtained by them from other sources or Ministries within the Government, that relate in any way to the role of the Council and the recommendations for its proposed abolishment or that contain any information in which my client's names are mentioned or referred to. MBS conducted a search in the Agency Relations Unit of the Corporate Policy Branch and identified three responsive records. None of the records mention or refer to the requester's clients. One record, a copy of a press release, was disclosed in its entirety. MBS denied access to the remaining two records (5 pages), claiming that they qualify for exemption under section 12(1) (Cabinet records) and/or section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Act . MBS also explained that both records contain information that is not responsive to the request, which was withheld on that basis. The requester, now the appellant, appealed the decision. During mediation, the appellant accepted that the non-responsive portions of the records fell outside the scope of the request, but took the position that more responsive records should exist. Mediation was otherwise not successful, and the file was transferred to the adjudication stage. I began my inquiry by sending a Notice of Inquiry to MBS setting out the issues in the appeal and seeking written representations. MBS responded with representations, which were then shared with the appellant. After submitting its representations, MBS conducted a further search and located 11 additional responsive records. MBS issued a new decision letter to the appellant, disclosing four of these records in part. The remaining records and partial records were withheld either on the basis that they contained non-responsive information or that they qualified for exemption under section 12(1). The appellant did not appeal this new decision. The appellant submitted representations in response to the Notice of Inquiry. RECORDS: There are two records at issue in this appeal, referred to by MBS as Record #2 and Record #3. Record #2 is a report dated May 16, 1996 titled "Government Task Force on ABCs, Review of Advisory Agencies", and Record #3 is an appendix to Record #2. Both records consist of recommendations made by the Task Force following its review of a number of advisory agencies, including the Coroner's Council. The only portions of each record responsive to the appellant's request are the sections dealing specifically with the Coroner's Council. DISCUSSION: CABINET RECORDS MBS claims that both records qualify for exemption under the introductory wording of section 12(1), as well as section 12(1)(b). These provisions read: A head shall refuse to disclose a record where the disclosure would reveal the substance of deliberations of the Executive Council or its committees, including, (b) a record containing policy options or recommendations submitted, or prepared for submission, to the Executive Council or its committees; Introductory wording of section 12(1) Previous orders have established that the use of the word "including" in the introductory language of section 12(1) means that any record that would reveal the substance of deliberations of Cabinet or its committees, and not just the types of records enumerated in the various subparagraphs of 12(1), qualifies for exemption under section 12(1) [See Orders P-22, P-331, P-894, P-1570]. The MBS submits: Records #2 and #3 are a report, prepared by the Government Task Force on Agency, Boards and Commissions ("the Task Force"), dated May 16, 1996. Staff in the MBS Agency Relations Unit, of the Corporate Policy Branch has advised that this report was prepared by the Task Force for submission to the Management Board of Cabinet, a committee of Cabinet. MBS submits that on page one of the report, it is evident that the report has been prepared at the direction of Management Board of Cabinet. The report outlines the Task Force findings and recommendations regarding government advisory agencies. MBS submits that it is clear on the face of the record that it was prepared for submission to Management Board of Cabinet, further to the direction of that Cabinet Committee. Staff in the MBS Corporate Policy Branch advise that they believe this record was submitted in May 1996 to Management Board of Cabinet. Consequently, MBS submits that the information contained in the record would have formed the basis of the deliberations of the Executive Council, and is accordingly exempt under the introductory wording of subsection 12(1). The appellant suggests a possible distinction between the contents of the records and the substance of the deliberations made by Cabinet: The [appellant] submits that there is a distinction to be made between the substance of contents (e.g. policy recommendations, etc.) contained in a record or report, and the substance of the deliberations actually made by the Executive Council or its committees. It is not clear from the response of the MBS, Legal Services Branch, that it is necessarily aware of what in fact the substance of the deliberations of the Executive Council with respect to the Records #2 and #3 were, but in any case, the [appellant] submits that the deliberations themselves may well have been, or could be, distinct from the contents of the record or report which forms Records #2 and #3. In order to qualify for exemption under the introductory wording of section 12(1), the actual substance of the deliberations of Cabinet must be reflected in or inferred from the contents of a record. I have carefully reviewed the information contained in Records #2 and #3 here, and I find that its disclosure would reveal the actual deliberations that took place by Managemen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
12(1)
-
12(1)(b)
-
24(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Tom Mitchinson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Feb 16, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|