|
|
Document
|
|
P-1406
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
P-9600352
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL:
The Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat (ONAS) received a request under the Freedom of
Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act). The appellant, a representative of a local
landowners association, sought access to records relating to the settlement of the Point Grondine
land claim by the Governments of Canada (Canada) and Ontario and the Wikwemikong Unceded
First Nation (the First Nation). The final details of the settlement have not yet been resolved,
though a deadline for their finalization has been set for April 1998.
ONAS located a large number of responsive records and granted access to some of them, in
whole or in part. ONAS denied access to the remaining records and parts of records, claiming
the application of the following exemptions contained in the Act:
�� Cabinet records - section 12(1)
�� advice or recommendations - section 13(1)
�� relations with other governments - sections 15(a) and (b)
�� valuable government information - section 18(1)(a)
�� economic and other interests - sections 18(1)(d) and (e)
�� proposed policies, plans or projects of an institution - section 18(1)(g)
�� solicitor-client privilege - section 19
The appellant appealed ONAS’ decision to deny access. During the mediation of the appeal, the
appellant advised that he no longer sought access to any personal information which may be
contained in the records, as well as any information which may be subject to the third party
information exemption in section 17(1). The parties agreed that this information would not form
part of this appeal. Accordingly, there remains at issue 482 records (91 in part and 391 in full)
containing 2,663 pages. The records consist of a wide variety of notes, correspondence,
memoranda, briefing notes, e-mails and an assortment of other documents.
ONAS has divided the responsive records into 13 categories, entitled 506 to 515, 517, 521 and
“Other Documents”. Each individual page of each responsive record is also identified by a
number. For example, Page 576 of Record Category 506 is described as Record 506-576. I will
rely on the record numbering system used by ONAS in its representations and will attempt to be
as clear as possible in describing each document in the text of this order.
Records 506-255 to 258, 506-435 to 438, 507-482 to 485, 508-460 to 461, 508-861 to 864, 509-
31 to 36, 509-167 to 171, 509-172 to 178, 513-24 to 30, 513-100, 513-120 to 123 and 514-528
were identified by ONAS as being the subject of another request by the appellant. The appellant
agreed that these records will not, therefore, be addressed in this order.
In addition, ONAS was unable to provide me with copies of Records 508-441 to 442, 593-595
and 871-876, which it identified as being responsive to the appellant’s request. It has not yet
found these documents and I have not been provided with any explanation as to their
whereabouts, despite being requested to do so. I will, accordingly, require ONAS to provide me
with a description of the nature and extent of the searches which it undertook for these
documents in order to satisfy myself as to the reasonableness of its efforts to locate them.
A Notice of Inquiry was provided to the appellant, Canada, ONAS and counsel to the First
Nation. Submissions were received from the appellant, Canada and ONAS. In its
- 2 -
[IPC Order MO-1425/April 30, 2001]
representations, ONAS withdrew its reliance on section 18(1)(g). As this is a discretionary
exemption, it is not necessary that I address its possible application to the records at issue.
ONAS also provided me with a number of additional materials containing background
information on the land claim resolution process, in general, as well as information respecting
the Point Grondine land claim negotiations which gave rise to the creation of the records at issue.
I found this information extremely helpful in understanding the records and how they relate to
this land claim settlement.
In addition, during the inquiry stage of the appeal, ONAS identified a number of additional
records as being responsive to the request and claimed the application of further discretionary
exemptions to the records which it had earlier identified. The Confirmation of Appeal notice
forwarded by this office to ONAS when this appeal was filed advised it that any additional
discretionary exemptions beyond those claimed in its original decision letter must be put forward
before October 31, 1996.
The claim for additional discretionary exemptions was received by this office on May 29, 1997.
I find that this delay is unconscionable, particularly considering the latitude given to ONAS by
this office in not requiring that it strictly comply with the time frames established by this office
for the filing of its representations. While I recognize the difficulty institutions face in
processing an appeal with such a large number of records, a more timely approach to the
application of discretionary exemptions than that taken by ONAS is imperative.
Accordingly, I am not prepared to consider the possible application of any additional
discretionary exemptions to any records beyond those which were identified by ONAS in the
index which was supplied to this office and the appellant. I will, however, review the application
of the exemptions claimed for the additional records identified by ONAS in its correspondence
which was received by this office on May 29, 1997.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Donald Hale
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Jun 12, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order – Interim
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orders and Reports Considered
|
|
R-970003
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judicial Review
|
|
Institution's application abandoned July 15, 1998
Ontario (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), Toronto Doc. 529/97 (Ont. Div. Ct.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|