|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-1347
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
P_9600355
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The appellant is an archaeological researcher who is writing a book onIndian sites in certain regions of the province. He submitted a request to theMinistry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation (the Ministry) under the Freedomof Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to the reports prepared by two named consultants. Thereports dealt with matters the appellant is investigating for his book. Pursuant to section 28 of the Act , the Ministry notified theconsultants of the request. One consultant consented to the release of herreport and this document was disclosed to the appellant. The other consultantdeclined to consent to the disclosure of his reports, claiming that they wereexempt from disclosure under section 17(1) of the Act (third partyinformation). The Ministry then issued a decision to the appellant denying access to thereports on this basis. The appellant filed an appeal of this decision. The Ministry issued asupplementary decision in which it claimed that the reports were also exemptfrom disclosure on the basis of sections 14(1)(l) (facilitate the commission ofan unlawful act) and 18(1)(a)(valuable government information) of the Act . A Notice of Inquiry was sent to the Ministry, the appellant and theconsultant. Representations were received from all three parties. In hisrepresentations, the appellant clarifies that he is not seeking information onthe site locations. He thus indicates that he does not require any informationon the lot and concession of these sites or any maps which identify the sites. However, he continues to seek access to those portions of the reports, includingmaps, which show the details of the site excavations. The records at issue are: (1)Report on Stage II on an Archaeological Resource Assessment of theProposed [named company] NPS 48 Hamilton to Milton Loop Hamilton Take-Off toMilton Tie-In, dated January 1992 and the related appendices. (2)Report on the 1992 Stage III Archaeological Investigations of theProposed [named company] NPS 48 Hamilton to Milton Loop Hamilton Take-Off toMilton Tie-In, dated January 1993 and the related appendices. These reports document an archaeological assessment of a proposed naturalgas pipeline which is the subject of a contract between the consultant and thenamed company. In this order, I will refer to the named company as the "principal"and the records at issue as the "Reports". DISCUSSION: THIRD PARTY INFORMATION Sections 17(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act state as follows: A head shall refuse to disclose a record that reveals a trade secret orscientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information,supplied in confidence implicitly or explicitly, where the disclosure couldreasonably be expected to, (a)prejudice significantly the competitive position or interferesignificantly with the contractual or other negotiations of a person, group ofpersons, or organization; (b)result in similar information no longer being supplied to theinstitution where it is in the public interest that similar information continueto be so supplied; (c)result in undue loss or gain to any person, group, committee orfinancial institution or agency. Type of Information The Ministry submits that the records reveal scientific informationconcerning the archaeological assessments of the sites along the proposed gaspipeline routes. It is the position of the Ministry that "archaeology isrecognized as an organized field of knowledge with natural, physical and socialscience components". The reports and appendices set out the rationale,methods and results of the archaeological fieldwork. The fieldwork wasconducted by the consultants who are the holders of an archaeological consultinglicence. The Ministry states that the information may also be characterized as "technical",as the assessments "contain a significant amount of applied scientificcomponents". Finally, the Ministry notes that the records reveal thecommercial information of the consultant's client. In Order P-454, former Assistant Commissioner Irwin Glasberg set out adefinition of both "scientific" and "technical" information. He commented that "scientific" information is information belongingto an organized field of knowledge in either natural, biological or socialsciences or mathematics. It must relate to the observation and testing ofcertain hypotheses or conclusions and be undertaken by an expert in the field. "Technical" information is information belonging to an organizedfield of knowledge which would fall under the general category of appliedscience or mechanical arts, such as architecture, engineering or electronics. It will usually involve information prepared by a professional in the field anddescribe the construction, operation or maintenance of a structure, process orthing. I agree with these definitions and will apply them to the information inthis appeal. Based on my review of the Reports and the submissions of theMinistry, I find that the Reports contain scientific and technical information,thus meeting one of the requirements for exemption under this section. Supplied in Confidence To meet this aspect of the section 17(1) exemption, it must be demonstratedthat the information in question was supplied to the Ministry, and that it wassupplied in confidence. The Ministry states that the records were supplied by the consultantpursuant to its reporting obligations under section 65 of the OntarioHeritage Act (the OHA ). This requires archaeological licensees,such as the consultant, to furnish the Ministry with a report of their fieldwork containing the details of the work done, details of the artifacts, adescription of the site, stratigraphic information and the location of the site. These reports are known as Assessment and Mitigation Reports. On this basis, Iam satisfied that the information was supplied to the Ministry by theconsultant. I must next determine if the Reports were supplied "in confidence". The appellant reiterates that the Reports are required by law under the OHA and that they contain valuable information which can be used to learn about ourheritage. Information does not automatically lose its confidential charactersimply because it is provided to an institution pursuant to a mandatoryreporting requirement (Order P-345). The appellant continues: ... the only information which now exists is in the reports on file at theMinistry and the field notes and artifacts in [the consultant's] possession. The purpose of archaeological assessments and mitigation is to save artifactsand
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
17(1)(a), (b) & (c)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Anita Fineberg
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Feb 18, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|