|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-55
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
Appeals 880083 and 880084
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ontario Waste Management Corporation
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
O R D E R These appeals were received pursuant to subsection 50(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 , (the " Act ") which gives a person who has made a request for access to a record under subsection 24(1) a right to appeal any decision of a head under the Act to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The facts of these cases and the procedures employed in making this Order are as follows: 1. On February 15, 1988, the Ontario Waste Management Corporation (the "institution") received a request for: (a) "meeting minutes of board for 1986 and 1987 and 1988". (b) "briefing, memos, reports on selection and reaction to the South Cayuga site and the type of emissions, controls for this plant site". 2. By letter dated February 18, 1988, the institution agreed to provide access to the following records relating to the request: (a) a report entitled "Stage One Report Hydrogeological Study - South Cayuga Hydrogeological Site". (b) a copy of the Chairman's press conference statement of November 18, 1981 summarizing the reasons for rejecting the South Cayuga site. No fees were charged to the appellant for these records, and they were subsequently forwarded to the requester on April 5, 1988. 3. In the same letter, the institution advised the requester that fees would be charged for the 1986, 1987 and 1988 minutes of the Board of Directors meetings, based on a rate of 20 cents for each page of photocopied material. A fee estimate was to be provided to the requester, and the institution indicated that it would forward the material to the requester upon receipt of the assessed fee. 4. By letter dated March 16, 1988, the institution provided the requester with a fee estimate of $12.60 for photocopying charges, and on March 24, 1988 sent the requester an invoice in that amount. 5. On April 5, 1988, the institution informed the requester that his request for a fee waiver of the $12.60 charge was denied. 6. On April 15, 1988, the requester sent me a letter appealing the decision of the institution to sever information from the minutes of the Board of Directors meetings, and the decision to charge the $12.60 fee. I gave notice of the appeals to the institution. 7. The records at issue were reviewed by an Appeals Officer from my staff. As a result of mediation efforts by the Appeals Officer and the parties, the institution reduced the number of severances to seven, four of which were disputed by the appellant. The institution retained its position regarding fees, and both parties sought resolution of the remaining issues in these appeals by way of an inquiry. 8. On August 10, 1988, I sent notice to the appellant and the institution that I was conducting an inquiry into the decision of the head. Enclosed with this letter was a copy of a report prepared by the Appeals Officer, intended to assist the parties in making their representations concerning the subject matter of these appeals. The Appeals Officer's Report outlines the facts of the appeals and sets out questions which paraphrase those sections of the Act which appear to the Appeals Officer, or any of the parties, to be relevant to the appeals. The Appeals Officer's Report indicates that the parties, in making representations to the Commissioner, need not limit themselves to the questions set out in the Report. The Report is sent to all persons affected by the subject matter of the appeals. 9. By letters dated August 31, 1988, I invited the appellant and the institution to submit written representations to me on the issues arising from the appeals. 10. Written representations were received from the appellant and the institution and I have considered them in making my Order. The purposes of the Act as set out in section 1 should be noted at the outset. Subsection 1(a) provides the right of access to information under the control of institutions in accordance with the principles that information should be available to the public and that necessary exemptions from the right of access should be limited and specific. Subsection 1(b) sets out the counter-balancing privacy protection purpose of the Act . The subsection provides that the Act should protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves held by institutions and should provide individuals with a right of access to their own personal information. Further, section 53 of the Act provides that the burden of proof that a record falls within one of the specified exemptions in this Act lies upon the head. The issues arising in this appeal are as follows: A. Whether the head properly applied the exemptions provided by subsections 13(1) and/or 18(1) of the Act to sever information from the records at issues in these appeals. B. If the answer to Issue A is in the affirmative, whether the public interest override provided by section 23 of the Act applies to any records found eligible for exemption. C. Whether the fees estimate provided by the head was calculated in accordance with the terms of the Act . D. Whether the head's decision not to waive fees under subsection 57(3) of the Act was in accordance with the terms of the Act . ISSUE A : Whether the head properly applied the exemptions provided by subsection 13(1) and/or 18(1) of the Act to sever information from the records at issue in these appeals. These appeals involve the severed minutes of four meetings of the Board of Directors of the institution, and for the purposes of clarity, I will deal with each meeting separately and in chronological order. 1. Minutes of September 23, 1986; Item 5.0 Taken together, the severed and unsevered parts of this record reveal that the institution reviewed a particular joint venture proposal submitted by an identified company on a specific date. The minutes also briefly state a decision by the institution to seek out opportunities to perform a named function in the area discussed. The information severed by the head under subsections 18(1)(e) and (f) of the Act is the name of the company, the date of the proposal, a summary of the nature of the proposed joint venture, and the role the institution intends to perform during the project. Subsections 18
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
13(2)
-
13(2)(i)
-
18(1)(c)
-
18(1)(d)
-
57(1)
-
57(3)
-
Section 23
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Sidney Linden
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Apr 28, 1989
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|