|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-1537
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
P-9700219
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs (the Ministry) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to copies of records identified as "Animals Used for Research/Teaching/Testing in a Research Facility" for all Ontario research facilities using animals from 1990 to May 15, 1997 (the date of the request). The appellant specified that the identity of the research facilities and their licence numbers were not required and could be severed. The Ministry identified 212 responsive records, covering the period 1994-96. Each form is titled "Animals Used for Research/Teaching/Testing in a Research Facility during [the specific year]", and consists of listed information under the headings "SPECIES", "TYPE" and "NUMBER USED". The Ministry's return address is included on the bottom of the form. There is also a section for the facility's licence number and, in many instances the facility is identified. How- ever, these two pieces of information are outside the scope of the request and are not at issue in this appeal. The Ministry denied access to all responsive records on the basis of the following exemptions in the Act : endanger life or safety - section 14(1)(e) security - section 14(1)(i) third party information - section 17(1) danger to safety or health - section 20 The Ministry informed the requester that any responsive records prior to 1994 do not exist. The Ministry also advised the requester that "although reports from individual facilities are not available, provincial totals are compiled and released each year so the number and species of animals used for research, teaching and testing in Ontario can be monitored". The provincial totals for 1980 through 1996 were provided to the requester by the Ministry. The requester (now the appellant) appealed the Ministry's decision. During mediation, the appellant confirmed that the licence numbers and identities of the research facilities were outside the scope of the request, and accepted that no further responsive records exist. The appellant indicated that he was raising the possible application of section 23 of the Act , the so-called public interest override. A Notice of Inquiry was sent to the Ministry, the appellant, and the 79 research facilities identified in the responsive records (the affected parties). The Canadian Council of Animal Care (the CCAC) was also added as an affected party. Representations were received from the Ministry, the appellant, 28 affected parties and the CCAC. Ten affected parties consented to disclosure of records pertaining to their facilities, on the understanding that licence numbers and identities would not be disclosed. DISCUSSION: Endanger Security Section 14(1)(i) of the Act reads: A head may refuse to disclose a record where the disclosure could reasonably be expected to, endanger the security of a building or the security of a vehicle carrying items, or of a system or procedure established for the protection of items, for which protection is reasonably required; This section stipulates that the Ministry may refuse to disclose a record where doing so could reasonably be expected to result in a specified type of harm. This harm must not be fanciful, imaginary or contrived but rather one which is based on reason, and the Ministry must offer sufficient evidence to support the position that disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in the harms contemplated by the section. The Ministry states that records very similar to those at issue in this appeal have been the subject of three previous orders (Orders 169, P-252 and P-557), all of which found that they were properly exempt under section 14(l)(i) . The Ministry relies on representations submitted in these previous appeals, and similar arguments in support of its position that disclosure of the numbers and species of animals used by individual facilities could reasonably be expected to endanger the security of these facilities. The Ministry submits that it is reasonable to expect that the records could be used by animal rights extremists to target facilities for acts of violence. Extensive documentary evidence was submitted by the Ministry in support of this position. The appellant submits that Order P-1392, which also involved a request for similar records, was decided differently, and should be followed in this case. In that order, former Inquiry Officer Anita Fineberg found that the number and species of animals did not qualify for exemption under section 14(1)(i). In reaching her decision, the Inquiry Officer relied on the fact that similar information regarding the number of animals used by individual facilities was made publicly available by the CCAC through its practice of releasing the "Animal Use Data Form" (the AUDF). She described the AUDF as follows: ... the AUDF is the form requested by the CCAC for the submission of annual animal use numbers by each facility. At the top of the form is the facility name and code. The form then contains the following categories of information: Protocol Number, Category of Invasiveness, Investigator, Protocol Description, Purpose of Animal Use, Species, Number of Animals Approved and Number of Animals Used/Year. Inquiry Officer Fineberg pointed out that, effective January 1, 1996, information on this form was disclosed to the public by the CCAC. She concluded in her order: Thus, according to the recently-established protocol developed by the CCAC, the name of the research facility along with the type o
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Tom Mitchinson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Mar 04, 1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|