|
|
Document
|
|
P-487
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
P-9200298, P-9200395 and P-9200769
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
ORDER BACKGROUND: The Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited (SkyDome) received, from the same individual, three requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to the minutes of specific meetings of SkyDome's Board of Directors. SkyDome denied access in full to the records pursuant to sections 17(1)(a), (b) and (c), and 18(1)(a), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) of the Act for all three requests. In addition, SkyDome also claimed sections 19 and 22(a) and (b) of the Act with respect to Appeals P-9200298 and P-9200395. The requester appealed SkyDome's decisions and three separate appeal files were opened for the following sets of Minutes: P-9200298 - Minutes of the Board of Director's meetings held on November 22 and December 12, 1990 and on February 21, May 29, August 29 and November 14, 1991. P-9200395 - Minutes of the Board of Director's meetings held on May 17 and August 9, 1990 and on November 14 and 28, 1991. (The Minutes for the November 14 session were also requested in Appeal P-9200298). P-9200769 - Minutes of the Board of Director's meetings held on March 3 and May 28, 1992. I will deal with each of these appeals in this order. During the course of mediation, the respective Appeals Officers assigned to these files clarified the records at issue with SkyDome. This process eliminated any duplicate records from the scope of the appeal. Further mediation was not successful and notices that inquiries were being conducted to review SkyDome's decisions were sent to the appellant and to SkyDome. Written representations were received from SkyDome only. SkyDome has not made any representations with respect to the application of sections 18(1)(f), 19, 22(a) and (b) of the Act to the records at issue. Therefore, I will treat these exemptions as being abandoned for the purposes of these appeals. In addition, SkyDome raised section 13(1) as a new exemption at this late date in the appeal. PRELIMINARY ISSUES: Section 17 In its representations, SkyDome appears to refer to the possible application of section 17(1) of the Act to the Minutes by making the following statement: Disclosure of the records can reasonably expected to both: (1) prejudice significantly the competitive position of the institution; and (2) interfere significantly with the negotiations of the institution and such parties. SkyDome, thus, maintains that disclosure of the Minutes would result in harm to its competitive position and its own ability to negotiate with third parties. The potential harm to an institution's own economic and/or competitive interests is properly addressed in the context of section 18 of the Act . On this basis, and following my independent review of the records, I find that section 17(1) of the Act does not apply to the records at issue in these appeals. Personal Information One of excerpts found in the Minutes contains a short statement about the personal plans of a SkyDome employee. The appellant has confirmed that he is not interested in this personal information which is not connected to any business-related matter. Therefore, I find that this information falls outside the scope of these appeals. I have highlighted this information on a copy of the Minutes to be provided to SkyDome with this order. ISSUES: The remaining issues in these appeals may be set out as follows: A. Whether the discretionary exemption provided by section 13(1) of the Act applies to the records. B. Whether the discretionary exemptions provided by sections 18(1)(a), (c), (d), (e) and (g) of the Act apply to the records. SUBMISSIONS/CONCLUSIONS: ISSUE A: Whether the discretionary exemption provided by section 13(1) of the Act applies to the records. Section 13 of the Act provides that: A head may refuse to disclose a record where the disclosure would reveal advice or recommendations of a public servant, any other person employed in the service of an institution or a consultant retained by an institution. "Advice" for the purposes of subsection 13(1) of the Act must contain more than mere information. Generally speaking, advice pertains to the submission of a suggested course of action, which will ultimately be accepted or rejected by its recipient during the deliberative process (Order 118). SkyDome's representations on the application of section 13 are very general in nature. They state: All of the records reveal advice or recommendations of the president, chairman and officers of the Institution, being persons employed in the services of the Institution. The records also deal with advice and/or recommendations to the Board with respect to the proposed method of long term financing and the particulars of such proposed long term financing. It is submitted that all of the records should not be disclosed as they fall within the exemptions contained in subsection 13(1). In these representations, SkyDome has not indicated to which specific parts of the Minutes the section 13(1) exemption applies. In the absence of more detailed representations, I find that only six references in the Minutes contain information which would qualify for exemption under section 13(1). These passages are found in the Minutes of the November 22, 1990, December 12, 1990, February 21, 1991 and May 29, 1991 meetings. I have reviewed the list of mandatory exceptions contained in section 13(2) of the Act and find that none of these apply in the circumstances of these appeals. Because section 13(1) is a discretionary exemption, I have reviewed SkyDome's representations regarding its exercise of discretion in favour of claiming this exemption. While section 13(1) was applied in a very general fashion, I am not, in the circumstances of these appeals, prepared to say that the SkyDome's exercise of discretion was inappropriate. Along with this Order, I have provided SkyDome with a highlighted copy of the relevant Minutes to indicate which portions of these documents are properly exempt under this section. ISSUE B: Whether the discretionary exemptions provided by sections 18(1)(a), (c), (d), (e) or (g) of the A
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
18(1)(a)
-
18(1)(c)
-
18(1)(d)
-
18(1)(e)
-
18(1)(g)
-
13(1)
-
17(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Irwin Glasberg
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Jun 25, 1993
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|