|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-169
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
Appeal 890011
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Agriculture and Food
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
O R D E R This appeal was received pursuant to subsection 50(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 , as amended (the " Act ") which gives a person who has made a request for access to a record under subsection 24(1) or a request for access to personal information under subsection 48(1) a right to appeal any decision of a head under the Act to the Commissioner. On January 5, 1990, the undersigned was appointed Assistant Commissioner and received a delegation of the power to conduct inquiries and make Orders under the Act . The facts of this case and the procedures employed in making this Order are as follows: 1. On October 6, 1988, the requester wrote to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (the "institution") seeking access to: ...information on fifteen facilities, fourteen of which are on the CCAC [Canadian Council for Animal Care] list and one which is not, Standard Biologicals in Mississauga. Specifically, I am requesting the contents of the annual reports filed by the research facilities as required by Regulation 16, Section 4(1) and Section 1(2). This section as you know details the total number of every species of animal used for research and the names and particulars of the members of the animal care committees. I would like such information as filed for the past three years. 2. On November 29, 1988, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator (the "Co-ordinator") for the institution wrote to the 15 commercial research facilities referred to in the request (the "affected parties"), pursuant to section 28 of the Act , and advised the requester accordingly. The Co-ordinator's letter stated: You are being notified because disclosure of the information contained in the reports could affect the interests of your company as a third party under section 17. 3. On December 30, 1988, the Co-ordinator wrote to the requester, after considering the representations received from 10 of the affected parties, and advised that: 1) The names and particulars of Animal Care Committee members . Access is denied to the names and particulars of Animal Care Committee members under sections 20 and 21. Section 20 Access is denied under Section 20 of the Act because disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to seriously threaten the safety or health of the individuals named. The third parties presented substantial evidence that general availability of the information could have severe consequences. If the information were to be released, it would fall into the public domain and could result in harm or injury to those individuals named. This expectation is based on past acts and threats of violence against individuals in facilities where animals are used for research. Section 21 The identification of the individuals as members of an Animal Care Committee is personal information as defined by section 2 of the Act . This definition includes an individual's name where it appears with other personal information relating to the individual or where the disclosure of the name would reveal other personal information about the individual. Disclosure of the names is denied under section 21 of the Act which provides a mandatory exemption from disclosure of personal information. The provisions in section 21 that apply to the personal information you requested are [21(2)(e), (f), (h) and (i) and 21(3)(d)]. ... 2) Annual Reports of the number of animals used in research . Access to the contents of annual reports of the total number of every species of animal used for research in commercial research facilities is denied under S.14(1)(e)and (i) and S. 20. ... These provisions apply because the type of information contained in the reports has been used by radical groups and individuals to target research facilities and their employees for acts of violence. We are concerned about the information becoming generally available and the potential for its use by other groups or individuals. 4. On January 26, 1989, this office received an appeal from the decision of the institution in which the appellant stated: Ms. McLaren has denied access to this information on the basis that the third parties had expressed concern that, should the [appellant's organization] become privy to this information, they or their institutions would somehow become endangered. No evidence of supposed threats was given. At this time, I am still requesting the information regarding the numbers and species of animals used by these facilities as well as access to the evidence presented to Ms. McLaren's office with regard to potential danger to individuals or institutions. While I would still appreciate the names of the animal care committee members, as I am anxious to open dialogue with them, I am prepared to surrender access on this point in a sincere attempt to allay their fears. I am particularly perplexed that our request for numbers of animals used was denied, considering that we obtained access to virtually identical information as it pertains to university research facilities, only a few months ago. Our [organization] had at that time requested to have access to the annual reports from a number of different facilities, and we met with no opposition. Given that we obtained access to the information at that time, I see no reason why the [organization] should be denied access today, especially if we are no longer seeking the names and particulars of the animal care committee members, a presumed source of contention. 5. The appellant is no longer interested in the names and particulars of members of the Animal Care Committees. Therefore, the annual reports filed by research facilities are the only records at issue in this appeal. The Appeals Officer obtained and reviewed the records at issue in this appeal, which consist of 49 pages withheld in their entirety. 6. As a settlement could not be effected, notice that an inquiry was being conducted to review the decision of the head was sent to the appellant, the institution and the affected parties. Enclosed with each notice letter was a report prepared by the Appeals Officer, intended to assist the parties in making their representations concerning the subject matter of the appeal. The Appeals Officer's Report outlines the facts of the appeal and sets out questions which paraphrase t
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
10(2)
-
14(1)
-
14(1)(e)
-
14(1)(i)
-
28(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Tom Wright
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
May 25, 1990
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|