|
Summary
|
|
ORDER BACKGROUND: The Ministry of the Environment (now the Ministry of Environment and Energy) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a range of documents relating to solid waste disposal proposals for Metropolitan Toronto. The Ministry transferred this request to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (the Municipality), which then dealt with the request as one made under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). The Municipality disclosed to the requester all of the documents requested, except portions of a 1990 consultant's report identifying, describing and subjecting to technical analysis a "long list" of potential landfill sites. The Municipality denied access to this information pursuant to sections 10, 11 and 14 of the Act . The requester appealed the Municipality's decision. Mediation of the appeal was not successful, and notice that an inquiry was being conducted to review the Municipality's decision was sent to the appellant, the Municipality and fifteen affected persons who had been identified as having an interest in sites on the long list. Representations were received from the appellant, the Municipality and seven of the affected persons. THE RECORDS: The records at issue are identified as Pages 154, 162, 163-64 (part), 165-69, 170-73 (part), 174-207, 208 (part), 209-10 and 211 (part). They fall into two categories: 1. those relating to a systematic site search within Metropolitan Toronto, which was conducted by the consultants and which resulted in the identification of three sites, identified as LM1, LM2 and LM3. 2. those relating to sites in the remainder of the Province which were offered by "willing hosts" in response to the Municipality's request for offers of potential landfill sites. These sites, identified as LH1 to LH27, were then analyzed by the consultants to determine their suitability for landfill purposes. ISSUES: The issues arising in this appeal are: A. Whether the mandatory exemption provided by section 10(1)(c) of the Act applies. B. Whether the discretionary exemption provided by section 11 of the Act applies. C. Whether any of the information contained in the record qualifies as personal information as defined in section 2(1) of the Act . D. If the answer to Issue C is yes, whether the mandatory exemption provided by section 14 of the Act applies. SUBMISSIONS/CONCLUSIONS: ISSUE A: Whether the mandatory exemption provided by section 10(1)(c) of the Act applies. Section 10(1)(c) states: A head shall refuse to disclose a record that reveals a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information, supplied in confidence implicitly or explicitly, if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to, result in undue loss or gain to any person, group, committee or financial institution or agency; Each part of the following three-part test must be satisfied in order for a record to be exempt from disclosure under section 10(1)(c) of the Act : 1. the record must reveal information that is a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information; and 2. the information must have been supplied to the institution in confidence, either implicitly or explicitly; and 3. the prospect of disclosure of the record must give rise to a reasonable expectation that one of the types of harm specified in (c) of section 10(1) will occur. [Orders 36 and M-10] Turning to part two of the test, having examined the records and the representations provided to me, I am satisfied that the information in the records was supplied to the Municipality by either the willing hosts or the consultants. The location of the sites and the fact that they are being offered for consideration by the Municipality constitutes information supplied by the landowners. The descriptive and analytical information was compiled or created by the consultants, and supplied by them to the Municipality. In regards to whether the information was supplied in confidence , part two of the test for exemption under section 10(1) requires the demonstration of a reasonable expectation of confidentiality on the part of the supplier at the time the information was provided. It is not sufficient that the affected persons had an expectation of confidentiality with respect to the information supplied to the Municipality. Such an expectation must have been reasonable, and must have an objective basis. The expectation of confidentiality may have arisen implicitly or explicitly. The Municipality submits: ... the institution explicitly stated to a number of landowners offering their land for sale that the landfill site selection process includes public consultation and input and, therefore, site offers could not remain confidential. However, although confidentiality throughout the process could not be provided by the institution, the long-term site selection process anticipated a structured disclosure of the sites as part of a formal public consultation process managed by the institution, with confidentiality prior to that structured disclosure. For the historical reasons set out above in Part II of these submissions, that disclosure never took place due to provincial intervention in the process. Therefore, the temporary period of confidentiality afforded to landowners who made offers subject to disclosure as part of the formal public consultation process has never actually ended. ... Therefore, it is submitted that the information was implicitly, and in some cases explicitly, supplied in confidence to the institution, despite the fact that the confidential nature of the information would eventually be terminated as part of the site selection process. Three of the affected persons who submitted representations state that they offered their properties in confidence to the Municipality for consideration as potential landfill sites. One states that its offer was not made in confidence. The remaining three respondents, while objecting to disclosure, do not make specific reference to this issue. The Municipality, supported by some of the affected persons, is therefore stating that "temporary confiden
|