|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
M-284
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
ORDER The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton (the Region) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to the budget files, including budget submissions and annual financial statements, for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992 for a named day care centre (the affected party). The Region notified the affected party of the request pursuant to section 21 of the Act . The affected party consented to the disclosure of some of the records and objected to the disclosure of others, either in whole or in part. The Region then made a decision on access to the records, providing the requester with access to some in their entirety and denying access to others, either in whole or in part, claiming the exemptions provided by sections 10 and 14(1) of the Act . The requester appealed the decision of the Region only with respect to those records or portions of records withheld under section 10 of the Act . During mediation the appellant withdrew her request for two of the records to which access had been denied under section 10 of the Act and confirmed that she was not interested in pursuing any information which would constitute personal information. Further mediation was not successful and notice that an inquiry was being conducted to review the decision of the Region was sent to the Region, the appellant and the affected party. Representations were received from all three parties. The records at issue may be described as follows: Record 1: 1992 Budget information - handwritten notes (pages 6-7) Record 2: 1992 Budget presented for approval - "1992 Requested" column (pages 22-27) Record 3: Releve Recapitulif du budget traiments, salaires & avantages sociaux - entire pages except for the information under the heading "Depenses Totales Nettes" (pages 8-10) Record 4: RMOC purchase of daycare budget 1992 - per diem rate summary sheet - line E "Net Expenses Requested" (page 11) Record 5: Program budget summary sheets - 1992 Requested/Approved Figures (pages 20-21) Record 6: Salary benefits - 1992 projected benefit costs and 1992 Requested/Approved Figures (pages 12, 15 and 17) Record 7: Wage benefits - 1992 projected benefit costs and 1992 Requested/Approved Figures (pages 13, 14, 16, 18 and 19) In its representations, the Region indicated that it is prepared to disclose the 1991 financial data which appears on pages 8, 9 and 10 of Record 3 but has not yet done so. Counsel for the affected party confirmed that it has no objection to the disclosure of this information. Accordingly, it should be disclosed to the appellant. The sole issue arising in this appeal is whether the mandatory exemption provided by section 10(1)(a) of the Act applies to the records. Section 10(1)(a) of the Act 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, prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of a person, group of persons, or organization; For a record to qualify for exemption under section 10(1)(a) of the Act , the Region and/or the affected party must satisfy each part of the following test: 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 harms specified in (a) of section 10(1) will occur. [Orders 36, M-29 and M-37] If any part of the test is not satisfied, the exemption under section 10(1) will not apply to the records (Orders 36 and M-10). The Region, in its representations, sets out the circumstances under which it obtains the records: The Region requires the information contained in the records at issue from every day care facility in the Region in order to assess and approve government funding of subsidized day care spaces in these centres. The budget approval process is a requirement of the Region and, ultimately, results in a Purchase of Service Agreement being entered into between the Region and the day care centre which wishes to receive subsidization for the children in its care. The Purchase of Service Agreement translates the amount of available subsidy for the specific day care centre into a per diem rate per child per program. Part One The Region submits that all of the records provide a detailed description of the financial affairs of the affected party and represent comprehensive reports and presentations of the financial commitments and expenses of the affected party. I have reviewed the records and I am satisfied that they contain financial information of the affected party. Therefore, part one of the test has been met. I will next address part three of the section 10 test. Part Three To satisfy part three of the test, the Region and/or the affected party must present evidence that is detailed and convincing, and which describes a set of facts and circumstances which would lead to a reasonable expectation that the harm described in section 10(1)(a) of the Act would occur if the information was disclosed (Order 36). The Region submits that it is not in a position to determine whether or not the release of the financial data in the records would prejudice the competitive position of the affected party and makes no representations on this point. The Region does note that, at the time of the original request, the appellant and the affected party were in the process of negotiating a collective agreement and the Region concludes that the release of the financial data could reasonably be expected to interfere significantly with the contractual negotiations of the affected party. The Region, however, presents no evidence in support of its conclusion nor does it describe a set of facts and circumstances which would reasonably lead one to expect that harm to occur. To support its pos
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Mar 11, 1994
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|