|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
PO-3154
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
PA10-30
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
The appellant submitted a request to the Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation for access to records pertaining to the reduction of General Motors Canada Limited’s dealerships in Ontario. The ministry denied access to the information under the mandatory third party information exemption under section 17(1) and the discretionary solicitor-client exemption in sections 19(a) and 19(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The appellant appealed the decision, also claiming that there was a compelling public interest in the disclosure of the records as contemplated by section 23. In this order the adjudicator finds that while some of the information does qualify for exemption under sections 17(1)(a) and 19(a) of the Act, other information does not meet the third party test under section 17(1) and the common interest exception to waiver of privilege does not apply to some of the information claimed to be subject to solicitor-client privilege. In addition, the adjudicator finds no compelling pubic interest in the disclosure of the records that are determined to be subject to section 17(1)(a).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
Section 23
-
17(1)(a)
-
17(1)(b)
-
17(1)(c)
-
19(a)
-
19(b)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Steve Faughnan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Jan 18, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orders and Reports Considered
|
|
MO-1338
MO-1452
MO-1476
MO-1678
MO-1994
MO-2274
P-48
P-532
P-568
PO-1973
PO-1803
PO-1983
PO-2435
PO-2490
PO-2569
PO-2626
PO-2734
PO-2827
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cases Considered
|
|
Air Atonabee Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Transport), [1989] 27 F.T.R. 194 (F.C.T.D); Ottawa Football Club v. Canada (Minister of Fitness & Amateur Sports), [1989] 2 F.C. 480 (F.C.T.D.); Archean Energy Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue (1997), 98 D.T.C. 6456 (Alta. Q.B.); Stevens v. The Prime Minister of Canada (the Privy Council), [1997] 2 F.C. 759 (F.C.T.D.) affirmed at [1998] 4 F.C. 89 (F.C.A); General Accident Assurance Co. v. Chrusz (1999), 45 O.R. (3d) 321 (C.A.); CC & L Dedicated Enterprise Fund (trustee of) v. Fisherman, [2001] O.J. No. 637 (S.C.J.); College of Physicians of B.C. v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Comm’r), 2002 BCCA 665 [leave to appeal refused at [2003] S.C.C.A. No. 83], Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), 2002 BCSC 1344; Astrazeneca Canada Inc. v. Health Canada, 2005 FC 1451 (F.C.T.D.); Pitney Bowes of Canada Ltd. v. Canada (2003), 225 D.L.R. (4th) 747 (F.C.T.D.); Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission) [2004] 1 S.C.R. 809, 2004 SCC 31; H.J. Heinz Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2006 FCA 378; Ontario (Attorney General) v. Big Canoe, [2006] O.J. No. 1812 (Div. Ct.); Maximum Ventures Inc. v. De Graaf, 2007 BCCA 510; Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyers' Association, 2010 SCC 23.
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|