ORDER 141
Appeal 890214
Stadium Corporation of Ontario
I N T E R I M O R D E R
This appeal was received pursuant to subsection 50(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987, (the "Act") which gives a person who has made a request for access to a record under subsection 24(1) the right to appeal any decision of a head under the Act to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
The facts of this case and procedures employed in making this Interim Order are as follows:
On June 9, 1989, the requester wrote to the Stadium Corporation of Ontario (the "institution") to request access to "Board minutes from Stadium Corporation of Ontario meetings, June 1988 to present."
On July 12, 1989, the institution's Freedom of Information and Privacy Co_ordinator (the "Co_ordinator") responded to the request by providing partial access to the requested records for a fee in the amount of $9.94. The institution had waived the costs of preparing the records for disclosure and charged for copying and shipping costs only. Access to parts of the records was denied pursuant to sections 13, 17, 18 and 19 of the Act.
On July 17, 1989, the requester wrote to me to appeal the head's decision to sever and withhold parts of the requested records. The requester did not appeal the head's decision to charge a fee. I gave notice of the appeal to the institution and appellant on July 21, 1989.
Upon receipt of the appeal, the Appeals Officer assigned to this case obtained and reviewed a copy of the requested records. The records consist of the minutes of four
meetings of the institution's Board of Directors dated June 15, 1988; August 11, 1988; August 13, 1988 and November 3, 1988. A total of 43 severances were made and withheld from disclosure. Each of the 43 severances was made pursuant to subsection 18(1) of the Act. In addition, 11 of the severances were made pursuant to subsection 17(1) of the Act; four severances were made pursuant to subsection 13(1); and three severances were made pursuant to section 19 of the Act.
Given the number and nature of the exemptions claimed by the institution to deny access to the requested records, the Appeals Officer determined that a mediated settlement was unlikely. Both the appellant and the Co_ordinator were in agreement with this assessment and requested that the matter proceed to an inquiry.
By letters dated September 25, 1989, I gave notice to the institution and the appellant that I was conducting an inquiry to review the decision of the head. In accordance with my usual practice, the Notice of Inquiry was accompanied by a report prepared by the Appeals Officer. This report is intended to assist the parties in making their representations 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 other parties, to be relevant to the appeal. Those sections of the Act paraphrased in the report include the exemption sections cited by the head in refusing access to a record or a part thereof. The report indicates that the parties, in making their representations to the Commissioner, need not limit themselves to the questions set out in the report.
Representations have been received from the institution and have been considered in making this Interim Order.
The issues arising in this appeal are as follows:
A. Whether any information severed from the records and withheld from disclosure falls within the discretionary exemptions provided by subsections 18(1)(a), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of the Act.
B. Whether any information severed from the records and withheld from disclosure falls within the discretionary exemption provided by subsection 13(1) of the Act.
C. Whether any information severed from the record and withheld from disclosure falls within the discretionary exemption provided by section 19 of the Act.
D. Whether any information severed from the records and withheld from disclosure falls within the mandatory exemptions provided by subsections 17(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act.
E. If the answer to either issue A, C or D is answered in the affirmative, whether the head properly exercised his discretion when denying access to the exempted information.
It is important to note at the outset that the purposes of the Act as outlined in subsections 1(a) and (b) are as follows:
- The purposes of this Act are,
(a) to provide a right of access to information under the control of institutions in accordance with the principles that,
(i) information should be available to the public,
(ii) necessary exemptions from the right of access should be limited and specific, and
(iii) decisions on the disclosure of government information should be reviewed independently of government; and
(b) to protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves held by institutions and to provide individuals with a right of access to that information.
Further, section 53 of the Act provides that the burden of proof that a record, or a part thereof, falls within one of the specified exemptions in the Act lies with the head of the institution.
In its representations, the institution advised that certain severances could now be released, thereby reducing the number of severances at issue in this appeal. Attached to this Interim Order are two Appendices. Appendix "A" identifies each of the severances still at issue by a letter of the alphabet and its corresponding page and paragraph number from the records. Appendix "B" lists the severances by page and paragraph which the institution says can now be released.
Given that the severances which remain at issue in this appeal were all made pursuant to at least one of the subparagraphs of subsection 18(1) of the Act, I will deal with this exemption first.
ISSUE A: Whether any information severed from the records and withheld from disclosure falls within the discretionary exemptions provided by subsections 18(1)(a), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of the Act.