|
|
Document
|
|
P-248
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
Appeal 900300
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
O R D E R On July 8, 1991, the undersigned was appointed Assistant Commissioner and received a delegation of the power and duty to conduct inquiries and make orders under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 the (" Act "). INTRODUCTION : On May 23, 1990, the requester wrote to the Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited (the "institution") requesting access to documents on the issue of who would own the enhancements made to the SkyDome stadium. The requester indicated that this issue was discussed at the May 22, 1987 meeting of the Board of Directors of the institution. The requester also asked for a fee waiver and stated that he wished to view the records in Ottawa. The institution identified one record which responded to the request and wrote to the requester on June 25, 1990, denying him access to the entire record pursuant to sections 13(1), 17(1)(a), (b) and (c) and 18(1)(a), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of the Act . In addition, the institution issued the following decision regarding fees: Please be advised that in the event that it is determined on any appeal or otherwise that the records are to be disclosed, a fee will be payable pursuant to section 57 of the Act and the regulations prior to disclosure. We estimate costs at this time to be as follows (total cost $43.77): (a) processing of request $35.00; (b) copying cost of $7.60 being $0.20 per page for 38 pages; and (c) shipping costs $1.17. On June 28, 1990, the requester appealed the institution's decision to deny access to the record. He also appealed the institution's refusal to waive the fees on the grounds of financial hardship and asked the Commissioner to review the amount of the fee estimated for "processing of request". The appellant withdrew his request to view the record in Ottawa. The record was received and reviewed by the Appeals Officer. The institution advised the Appeals Officer that it had notified five parties whose interests might be affected by the disclosure of the record. The two parties that responded to this notification declined to give their consent to disclosure of the record. The Appeals Officer was unsuccessful in her attempts to mediate a settlement of this matter. Accordingly, the matter proceeded to an inquiry. Notice that an inquiry was being conducted to review the institution's decision was sent to the appellant, the institution, and the affected parties. An Appeals Officer's Report, which is intended to assist the parties in making any representations to the Commissioner concerning the subject matter of the appeal, accompanied the Notice of Inquiry. Written representations were received from the institution and four of the affected parties, all of whom objected to the disclosure of that portion of the record that might affect their interests. The appellant did not provide any representations. The record at issue is a 38-page document dated May 15, 1987 entitled "Complete Enhancements", prepared for the May 22, 1987 meeting of the Board of Directors of the institution. The record consists of two parts. The first (the "memo" section) is a 2-page introductory memorandum in which the author outlines two possible scenarios regarding the ownership of the enhancements. The second part (the "financial" section) consists of ten-year operating forecasts and financial projections for each of the two scenarios referred to in the memo section. ISSUES: The issues arising in this appeal are as follows: A. Whether the discretionary exemptions provided by sections 18(1)(a), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) apply to the record. B. Whether the mandatory exemption provided by sections 17(1)(a), (b) and (c) applies to the record. C. Whether the discretionary exemption provided by section 13(1) applies to the record. D. Whether the amount of the estimated fee was calculated in accordance with the terms of the Act . E. Whether the head's decision not to waive fees under section 57(3) of the Act was in accordance with the terms of the Act . SUBMISSIONS/CONCLUSIONS : ISSUE A : Whether the discretionary exemptions provided by sections 18(1)(a), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) apply to the record. Sections 18(1)(a), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) state: A head may refuse to disclose a record that contains, (a) trade secrets or financial, commercial, scientific or technical information that belongs to the Government of Ontario or an institution and has monetary value or potential monetary value; (c) information where the disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the economic interests of an institution or the competitive position of an institution; (d) information where the disclosure could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the financial interests of the Government of Ontario or the ability of the Government of Ontario to manage the economy of Ontario; (e) positions, plans, procedures, criteria or instructions to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of an institution or the Government of Ontario; (f) plans relating to the management of personnel or the administration of an institution that have not yet been put into operation or made public; (g) information including the proposed plans, policies or projects of an institution where the disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in premature disclosure of a pending policy decision or undue financial benefit or loss to a person. Before dealing with the specific exemptions provided by the various subsections of section 18, I thought it would be useful to make some comments about the general nature of section 18, and the type of evidence required to support an exemption claimed under sections 18(1)(c), (d) and (g). At page 5 of Order 141, dated January 23, 1990, former Commissioner Sidney B. Linden stated: Broadly speaking, section 18 is designed to protect certain interests, economic and otherwise, of the Government of Ontario and/or institutions. Subsections 18(1) ... (c), (d) and (g) all take into consideration the consequences which would result to an institution if a record were released. Subsections 18(1)(a),(e) and (f) are all concerned wi
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
14(1)(a)
-
17(1)(a), (b) & (c)
-
18(1)(a)
-
18(1)(c)
-
18(1)(d)
-
18(1)(e)
-
18(1)(f)
-
18(1)(g)
-
57(3)
-
13(1)
-
17(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Tom Mitchinson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Nov 05, 1991
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|