|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
880070
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Government Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
The appellant by written request dated March 2, 1988 applied to the
Ministry of Government Services for a copy of "The Metro Toronto
Property Review", a study by Eli Comay of Comay Planning
Consultants. By letter dated March 31, 1988 access to the study
was denied pursuant to subsection 22(b) of the Freedom of
Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 (the Act) on the
basis that there were reasonable grounds to believe the report
would be published and publicly available within ninety (90) days
from the date of the request. The appellant has appealed the
denial of access.
By letter dated April 11, 1988, notice that the Commissioner was
conducting an inquiry to review the decision of the head was sent
to the head and the appellant. The letter of April 11 requested
written submissions from the appellant and the head on the
application of subsection 22(b) of the Act to the request. The
letter of April 11 further requested that submissions be made by
April 26, 1988. Submissions were received from the head but no
submission was received from the appellant.
At the outset it must be noted that the purpose of the Freedom of
Information portion of the Act as defined in subsection 1(a) is "to
provide a right of access to information under the control of
institutions in accordance with the principles that information
should be available to the public, that necessary exemptions from
the rights of access should be limited and specific ...". Further,
subsection 53 of the Act provides that "... the burden of proof
that the record or the part falls within one of the specified
exemptions in this Act lies upon the head".
[IPC Order 1/May 9, 1998]
- 2 -
The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant indicate that the
appellant wishes to receive the report in advance of the expiry of
the 90-day period. The appellant states in the grounds of appeal
that early release of the report will benefit the pubic debate over
the government's housing policy plans. Section 23 provides that
exemptions under sections 13, 15, 17, 18, 20 and 21 do not apply
where a "compelling public interest in the disclosure of the record
clearly outweighs the purpose of the exemption". In this instance
the exemption relied upon by the head is subsection 22(b), and the
Act specifically states that section 23 does not apply to this
exemption.
In the written submission received from the head it is confirmed
that "the information requested will be available" prior to the end
of the 90-day period provided for in subsection 22(b) of the Act,
which period expires on June 2, 1988. The written submission also
indicates that it is the "intention to release the report to all
interested parties on an equal basis, at cost." The head provided
me with a copy of "The Metro Toronto Property Review" as part of
the submission.
In the circumstances the decision of the head not to disclose the
report on the basis that it will be released prior to the end of
the expiry of 90 days from the date of the request is upheld.
[IPC Order 1/May 9, 1998]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Sidney Linden
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
May 09, 1988
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|