|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
MO-1513
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
City of Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The City of Toronto (the City) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to records relating to the Toronto 2008 Olympic bid. Specifically, the requester sought access to: All documents, reports and contracts produced since January 1, 1998, by the amalgamated City of Toronto pertaining to the Toronto 2008 Olympics bid, including all correspondence with TO Bid officials or sponsors, and Canadian Olympic Association officials; internal financial reviews/audits of TO Bid budget estimates; correspondence with provincial and federal officials, polling data; if any, and legal contracts pertaining to the bid. Initially, the City failed to respond to the request and a "deemed refusal" appeal was begun by the requester. This appeal was resolved following the issuance by the City of a decision letter regarding access to records which it identified as responsive. In that decision, the City granted access to a number of records and denied access to a marketing agreement which it had entered into with the National Olympic Committee of Canada (the NOCC). Access to this document was denied under the third party information exemption in section 10(1) of the Act . The requester, now the appellant, appealed the City's decision to deny access to the marketing agreement and requested that the Commissioner's office review the City's decision to determine whether it had conducted a reasonable search for all records which were responsive to the request. I first provided the City and the NOCC with a Notice of Inquiry, seeking their representations with respect to the issues raised in the appeal. Both parties made submissions which, with one exception, they agreed to share with the appellant. The City objected to the disclosure of a small portion of Page 5 of its representations on the grounds that to do so would disclose a portion of the record at issue in this appeal. I agreed and deleted that portion of the City's submissions in the copy which I provided to the appellant. The City conducted several additional searches for responsive records following its receipt of the Notice of Inquiry. These searches uncovered a large number of records in the city's Legal Department (7 to 10 boxes of documents), the Audit Services Department and the Economic Trade and Development Office (20 boxes of files). In a further decision letter dated October 23, 2001, which was received in this office on October 31, 2001, the City provided the appellant with an interim fee estimate of $1,800 and, based on a sample of the records, advised that some of the information contained in them may be exempt from disclosure under sections 7(1) (advice or recommendations), 11 (economic or other interests of an institution), 12 (solicitor-client privilege) or 14(1) (invasion of privacy). In addition, the City advised the appellant that upon payment of 50% of the fee estimate ($900), it would proceed to process his request with respect to the newly-located records. Further, the City advised the appellant that it would begin to proceed with the search only following a 90-day time extension, beginning on January 21, 2002, pursuant to section 20 of the Act . The appellant advised that he wished to proceed with the adjudication of the issue of access to the Marketing Agreement dated May 9, 2001 between the City of Toronto and the National Olympic Committee of Canada, as well as the reasonableness of the fee estimate of $1,800 which the City provided to him. The appellant also indicates that there is a public interest in the disclosure of the information contained in the Marketing Agreement as contemplated by section 16 of the Act . I then provided a Notice of Inquiry to the appellant seeking his submissions on the application of section 10(1) to the Marketing Agreement. In addition, I requested that both the City and the appellant address the fee estimate issue. I did not seek the representations of the NOCC on this issue. Both the City and the appellant made further submissions which were, in turn shared between them. Both the City and the appellant submitted representations by way of reply. DISCUSSION: THIRD PARTY INFORMATION The City and the NOCC take the position that the Marketing Agreement at issue in this appeal is exempt under section 10(1). For a record to qualify for exemption under sections 10(1)(a), (b) or (c), the City and/or the NOCC must satisfy each part of the following three-part test: the record must reveal information that is a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information; and the information must have been supplied to the institution in confidence, either implicitly or explicitly; and the prospect of disclosure of the record must give rise to a reasonable expectation that one of the harms specified in
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Feb 19, 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|