|
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 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 this case and the procedures employed in making this Interim Order are as follows: 1. By letter dated June 25, 1988, the requester wrote to the Stadium Corporation of Ontario (the "institution") to request the following records: [1]..complete Board Meeting minutes held after...April 12/88..., up to and including June 25, 1988. 2. any updated 1988 briefing notes/binders, 3. any financial summaries of the effects of construction delays, including rearranged financing, 4. any memos/records prepared on my two previous FOI requests of Nov. 20/88 (sic) and May/88, and 5. any technical assessments done on the unique roof design/construction since 1985 until the present or any contemplated. 2. By letter dated July 22, 1988, the institution responded by saying: Other than our 1987 Financial Statements, no additional briefing binders or notes have been prepared since you were giving (sic) access to our records during the week of May 16-20, 1988. We are enclosing a copy of Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited Financial Statements of December 31, 1987. There is no charge for our 1987 Financial Statements. In regards to your request for any financial summaries of the effects of construction delays, a review is currently underway. We will be considering your request when the review has been completed and the reports have been prepared. Access to the records or parts of the records was refused under the following provisions: A. - Complete Minutes of Board Meetings denied under subsections 13(1), 17(1(a), (b), (c) and 18(1)(a), (c), (e), (f) and (g). B. - memos prepared on the requester's two previous requests for access to information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act were denied under subsection 13(1) and section 19. C. - technical assessment on the unique roof design was denied under subsections 18(1)(a) and (c). 3. On July 28, 1988, the requester wrote to me appealing the head's decision to refuse access to records responsive to parts 1, 4 and 5 of his request. I gave notice of the appeal to the institution and third parties (the "affected parties") already notified of the request by the institution. 4. Mediation efforts by members of my staff resulted in the disclosure of additional information from the records on September 30, 1988 and January 5, 1989; however, final settlement of the appeal was not effected. 5. On July 13, 1989, notice that I was conducting an inquiry to review the decision of the head was sent to the institution, the appellant and four affected parties. Enclosed with the notice 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 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 appeared to the Appeals Officer, or any of the parties, to be relevant to the appeal. 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 parties affected by the subject matter of the appeal. 6. Representations were received from the institution, two affected parties, and the appellant. I have considered them in making this Interim Order. The records at issue in this appeal consist of Minutes for Board of Directors Meetings, the Technical Assessment of the Unique Roof Design/Construction, and Memos and Letters prepared by employees of the institution or its lawyers regarding the appellant's previous request for access to information under the Act . The issues arising in this appeal are as follows: A. Whether the head properly applied the discretionary exemption provided by subsections 18(1)(a), (c), (e) and (g) of the Act in exempting a record or part of a record. B. Whether the head properly applied the discretionary exemption provided by section 19 of the Act in exempting a record or part of a record. C. Whether the head properly applied the discretionary exemption provided by section 13 of the Act in exempting a record or part of a record. D. Whether the head properly applied the mandatory exemption provided by section 17 of the Act in exempting a record or part of a record. E. If the answer to either Issue A, B or C is in the affirmative, whether the head properly exercised his discretion when denying access to a record or part of a record. F. Whether there is a compelling public interest in the disclosure of the records or parts of the records which clearly outweighs the purpose of the exemptions claimed under sections 13, 17 and 18. In its representations, the institution advised that certain records or parts of records could now be released, thereby reducing the number of records at issue in this appeal. Appendix "A" to this Interim Order is a list of all records or parts of records disclosed by the institution, in whole or in part, in response to the appellant's request and additional records, or parts of records, which the institution says in its representations can now be released. Appendix "B" to this Interim Order numbers and describes each of the records, or parts of records, which are still at issue in this appeal together with the corresponding sections of the Act claimed as exemptions by the institution in its representations. It is important to note at the outset the purposes of the Act as outlined in subsection 1(a) and (b). Subsection 1(a) provides a right of access to information under the control of institutions in accordance with the principles that information should be available
|