|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-219
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
Appeal 890366
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
O R D E R This appeal was 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 information under subsection 24(1) a right to appeal any decision of a head under the Act to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. On January 5, 1990, the undersigned was appointed Assistant Commissioner and received a delegation of the power to conduct inquiries and make Orders under the Act . The facts of this case and the procedures employed in making this Order are as follows: 1. On October 15, 1989, the requester wrote to the Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited (the "institution") and requested the following information: Documents on all arrangements between consortium members where agreement has been reached whereby one consortium member is granted exclusive rights to specific products/promotions that another consortium member produces/sells. 2. On November 21, 1989, the institution responded to the requester as follows: The Preferred Supplier Rights Agreements... set out the specific product rights held by each Consortium member. We do not have any records on arrangements between Consortium members whereby one Consortium member is granted exclusive rights to specific products that another Consortium member produces or sells. 3. On November 29, 1989, the requester appealed the head's decision to this office, and stated: Letters previously provided to consortium members do lay out specific product exclusivity, and waive other members right to this area where they have a product. (eg Bell-CNR, or fruit drinks under Coke - also Weston has fruit drinks). I want the data not between members but from SkyDome to members on product exclusivity. 4. Upon assignment of the file, the Appeals Officer contacted the appellant to determine whether clarification of the subject matter of the appeal would be helpful. The appellant explained that the records which he had requested are letters of agreement between members of the Consortium and the Stadium Corporation, and not between the members themselves. These letters of agreement complement but are not the same as the Preferred Supplier Rights Agreements. The letters are sometimes covering letters to the Preferred Supplier Rights Agreements, and they sometimes amend the Agreements, or clarify the terms. Some of the letters resolve later arising conflicts. They have been issued from 1986 to the present. The appellant stated that he already has copies of the letters from 1986 to 1988. He would like copies of the letters from 1988 to the present and also any letters amending the terms of the 1986 to 1988 letters. 5. The Appeals Officer conveyed this information as to the scope of the request to the institution. The institution issued a reformulated response to the request on February 19, 1990, as follows: ...your request for access was for letters of agreement between Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited and Consortium members that amend or clarify Preferred Supplier Rights Agreements. The documents will not be disclosed as: Subsection 17(1) - the record reveals trade secrets or scientific, technical, commercial, financial, or labour relations information, supplied in confidence implicitly or explicitly, where disclosure could reasonably be expected to, i) prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of a person, group of persons, or organization; ii) result in similar information no longer being supplied to the Corporation where it is in the public interest that similar information continues to be so supplied; or iii) result in undue loss or gain to any person, group, committee or financial institution or agency. Subsection 18(1)(a) - It contains trade secrets or financial commercial, scientific or technical information that belongs to StadCo and has monetary value or potential monetary value. Subsection 18(1)(c) - The record contains information where disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the economic interests of StadCo or the competitive position of StadCo. Subsection 18(1)(d) - The record contains information where the disclosure could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the financial interest of StadCo. Subsection 18(1)(e) - The record contains positions, plans, procedures, criteria or instructions to be applied to negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of StadCo or the Government of Ontario. 6. The appellant confirmed with the Appeals Officer that he wished to appeal this reformulated decision. 7. The following records which are the subject of this appeal were forwarded by the institution to the Appeals Officer - "copies of Supplier Rights letters since 1988 and copies of letters amending the Supplier Rights terms of the 1986 to 1988 letters." 8. By letter dated April 22, 1990, the institution wrote to this office and stated that it was concerned that some of the records at issue in this appeal might also be the subject of another appeal. The matter was clarified and as a result, the institution indicated that it wished to deal with one other record in the context of this appeal. The additional record is a Supplier Rights letter to Bitove Corporation, dated June 1988. The appellant was notified and acquiesced in the decision to include the record in this appeal. 9. Settlement was not achieved in this appeal and the matter proceeded to inquiry. By letters dated July 24, 1990, the institution, the appellant and the nine corporations (the affected parties) whose interests might be affected by the outcome of the appeal were notified that an inquiry was being conducted to review the decision of the institution. The Notice of Inquiry was accompanied by a report prepared by the Appeals Officer. This report is intended to assist the parties in making their representations concerning the subject matter of the appeal. The Appeals Officer's Report outlines the facts of the appeal 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 appeal. This report indicates that the parties, in making representations, need not limit themselves to the questions set out in the report. 10. Writt
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
10(2)
-
17(1)(a), (b) & (c)
-
18(1)(a)
-
18(1)(c)
-
18(1)(d)
-
18(1)(e)
-
17(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Tom Wright
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Jan 31, 1991
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|