|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-557
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
P-9200419
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Agriculture and Food
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
ORDER BACKGROUND: The Ministry of Agriculture and Food (the Ministry) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to "copies of the reports detailing numbers and species of animals used for every registered research facility in Ontario, for the past three years, as collected under the Animals for Research Act (the ARA ) Chap. 22, Sec 5. or their equivalent." The Ministry provided the requester with a copy of a chart entitled "Animals Used in Registered Research Facilities" which shows the total numbers and species of animals used by all research facilities in the past three years. The requester indicated that she sought access to the reports submitted by each research facility listing the number and species of animals it used for research. The Ministry denied access to these reports, pursuant to sections 14(1)(e) and (i), 20 and 17(1)(c) of the Act . The requester appealed the Ministry's decision. The appeal could not be resolved by mediation and a notice that an inquiry was being conducted to review the decision of the Ministry was sent to the Ministry and the appellant. Representations were received from both parties. The parties have requested that I also refer to the representations they made in two previous appeals - Appeals 890011 and 900201, both of which involved the requester and the Ministry and dealt with records similar to the ones in this appeal. In Appeal 890011, the requester sought access to reports filed under the ARA by commercial research facilities while the request in Appeal 900201 related to the same type of reports filed by fourteen named colleges, universities and hospitals. In Order 169, disposing of the issues raised in Appeal 890011, then Assistant Commissioner Tom Wright upheld the Ministry's application of the exemption in section 14(1)(i) of the Act to the reports. In Appeal 900201, the appellant argued that the facts in the appeal were distinguishable from those in Appeal 890011, on the basis that the records in the former appeal related to research facilities which are publicly funded and which should be subject to a higher level of public scrutiny, whereas the latter appeal involved commercial facilities. In Order P-252, which disposed of the issues in Appeal 900201, former Assistant Commissioner Tom Mitchinson found that no valid distinction could be made between publicly funded bodies and commercial research facilities with respect to the application of section 14(1)(i) of the Act . He found that the concerns for security which were an important factor in Order 169 remained valid in the factual situation addressed in Order P-252 and that the records at issue in that appeal were properly exempt from disclosure under section 14(1)(i) of the Act . RECORDS AT ISSUE: The records at issue are the annual reports filed by 80 facilities in 1989, 82 facilities in 1990, and 87 facilities in 1991, as required by section 4 of Regulation 22, made under the ARA . They contain: (a) the total number of every species of animal used for research in the research facility in the year covered by the report, (b) the total number of dogs and the total number of cats purchased or otherwise acquired from: (i) other research facilities, (ii) pounds, (iii) supply facilities, (iv) other sources; and (c) the total number of dogs and the total number of cats that in any experiment or surgical procedure did not recover from anaesthesia. ISSUES: The issues arising in this appeal are as follows: A. Whether the discretionary exemption provided by section 14(1)(i) of the Act applies to the records. B. Whether the discretionary exemption provided by section 14(1)(e) of the Act applies to the records. C. Whether the discretionary exemption provided by section 20 of the Act applies to the records. D. Whether the mandatory exemption provided by section 17(1)(c) of the Act applies to the records. ISSUE A: Whether the discretionary exemption provided by section 14(1)(i) of the Act applies to the records. Section 14(1)(i) states: 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; In its representations, the Ministry states: If disclosed, reports of the number and types of animals used by individual research facilities could reasonably be expected to be used by animals rights extremists to target facilities for acts of violence. Typical activities carried out by extremists endanger the security of research facilities and vehicles used by the facilities or research staff. In support of its claim, the Ministry has provided very extensive representations and documentary evidence, including photographs, newspaper clippings and articles. In her representations, the appellant submits: The burden of proof is on the institution to demonstrate a causal connection between the release of information and the perceived breach of security, something which the Ministry has not done. Indeed, no breaches of security have occurred since the last release of such information in 1987. ... It is most important to keep in mind that the information requested has already been released through previous freedom of information requests, with no catastrophic results. Access was granted a few years ago to the annual summary reports for all Ontario universities for the period from 1982-1987. Whatever damage that could be wrought based on release of old information could have already been done; the appellant is just asking for an update of the information of a similar nature. The appellant further states that "information supporting the contention that research facilities are conducting experiments on animals is already in the public domain." She states that the location of the research facilities is also publicly available. She submits that "the additional information being requested, that is the number and species of animals, does not in [and] of itself provide reasonable causal grounds to
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
14(1)(i)
-
Section 53
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Asfaw Seife
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Oct 20, 1993
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|