3 total
Section 13(1) FIPPA exemption protects deliberative policy options and drafts without requiring proof of delivery.
The requester sought records relating to advice given to the Minister of Finance regarding amendments to the Corporations Tax Act.
The Ministry refused disclosure under s. 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the records contained advice or recommendations.
The adjudicator ordered disclosure, finding no evidence the records went to the final decision-maker and that they did not suggest a single course of action.
The Divisional Court upheld this decision.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the adjudicator's interpretation unreasonable, holding that s. 13(1) protects the deliberative process, including drafts and options, without requiring proof of delivery to the ultimate decision-maker or a single recommended course of action.
Adjudicator's interpretation of 'advice or recommendations' exemption was unreasonable for failing to protect deliberative process.
The requester sought access to documents relating to advice given to the Minister of Finance regarding the effective date of amendments to the Corporations Tax Act.
The adjudicator ordered disclosure, finding that the 'advice or recommendations' exemption under s. 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act did not apply because the documents did not suggest a single course of action and there was no proof they were communicated to the final decision-maker.
The Court of Appeal allowed the Minister's appeal, holding that the adjudicator's interpretation of s. 13(1) was unreasonable as it failed to protect the deliberative process and the range of options presented to a decision-maker.
Judicial review partially granted; one record exempt from disclosure as advice, others released.
The applicant sought judicial review of an Adjudicator's order requiring the disclosure of six records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
The applicant argued the records were exempt under s. 13(1) as they contained advice or recommendations of a public servant.
The Divisional Court upheld the Adjudicator's decision to release Records I to V, finding it reasonable that they did not contain a recommended course of action.
However, the court overturned the decision regarding Record VI, finding that the proposed redactions clearly contained advice and recommendations and were therefore exempt from disclosure.
