Access to Information Orders
Decision Information
This reconsideration order reviews the disclosure of certain information contained in various Flight Manifest Summaries, Aircraft Journey Logs and Flight Manifests in aircraft operated by the Ministry of Natural Resources. The Ministry is ordered to disclose certain records as long as they do contain specific personal information.
Decision Content
BACKGROUND TO THE RECONSIDERATION
On January 17, 2003, I issued Order PO-2099 in which I ordered the disclosure of certain information contained in various Flight Manifest Summaries, Aircraft Journey Logs and Flight Manifests respecting the use of aircraft operated by the Ministry of Natural Resources (the Ministry). I upheld the Ministry’s decision to deny access to some of the requested information on the basis that it contained personal information and was exempt from disclosure under the mandatory exemption in section 21(1). In addition, I also upheld the Ministry’s decision to deny access to the names of the security personnel and flight crews on the basis that this information was exempt under the discretionary exemptions in sections 14(1)(e) and 20, respectively.
By letter dated February 7, 2003, the Ministry requested that I reconsider my decision in Order PO-2099 on the basis that the disclosure of some additional information in the Flight Manifests and Aircraft Journey Logs would enable one to determine the existence of or the size of the security detail which accompanied the government officials who made use of the Ministry’s aircraft. It argued that even if the names of the security officers were severed under section 14(1)(e) from the records, it is possible to determine the number of such personnel by counting the severances or by subtracting the number of government officials indicated from the total number of passengers on each flight, as listed in the Flight Manifests and Aircraft Journey Logs.
Based on these submissions, I determined that I had been provided with sufficient information to make a preliminary finding that a fundamental defect had occurred in the adjudication process under section 18.01 of the Code of Procedure (the Code). By letter dated February 12, 2003, I stayed on an interim basis the operation of the order provisions of Order PO-2099 pending the outcome of my determination of the reconsideration request. I also invited the parties to the appeal to make submissions, first on whether I should reconsider the decision in Order PO-2099 and second, on the substantive issues raised by the reconsideration request.
Both the appellant and the Ministry made representations in response to this letter. I also received submissions from Cabinet Office, which I will address below.
SHOULD ORDER PO-2099 BE RECONSIDERED?