|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
M-2
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
M-910005
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Town of Ancaster
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
On January 8, 1991, the appellant requested two legal opinions supplied to the Town of Ancaster (the "institution") relating to the noise impact of the Hamilton Airport on surrounding residents. In response, the institution sent two opinions to the appellant on January 16, 1991: the first, dated June 3, 1988 by Raymond Plant of the firm of Ross & McBride, and the second, dated February 1, 1991, by Lee Pinelli of the firm of Evans, Philp. The opinions were in the form of letters. The appellant then requested access to a further opinion by Mr. Plant, relating to the same issue, dated April 20, 1988. The institution denied access to this record on the basis that it was subject to solicitor-client privilege and exempt from disclosure under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1989 (the " Act "). Pursuant to section 39 of the Act , the appellant filed an appeal of the institution's decision. Notice of the appeal was sent to the appellant and the institution. The record was obtained and examined by the Appeals Officer. The Appeals Officer attempted mediation but a settlement was not achieved and the matter proceeded to an inquiry. A Notice of Inquiry was sent to the appellant and the institution, enclosing a report prepared by the Appeals Officer. This report was prepared in order to assist the parties in making their representations to this office 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. The Appeals Officer's Report indicates that the parties, in making their representations, need not limit themselves to the questions set out in the report. Representations were received from both the institution and the appellant and I have considered them in making this Order. Section 42 of the Act provides that the burden of proof that a record, or part thereof, falls within one of the specified exemptions in the Act lies with the head of the institution. Therefore, in this appeal, the institution must prove that the record falls within the exemption provided for in section 12 of the Act .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Tom Wright
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Aug 15, 1991
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|