Access to Information Orders
Decision Information
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: Centennial College of Applied Arts and Technology (the College) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to: Details of the contract(s) regarding the acquisition and implementation of the Fully Relational Enterprise Database (FRED) including the HRIS, FIS and SIS systems and more specifically: (a) all companies and contract individuals, agents and other third parties involved in the purchase and implementation of the systems (b) details of all deliverables and schedule of delivery (c) cost of acquisition and cost of implementation including capital and operational expenditures (d) source of funding for the expenditures including details of any borrowed money and repayment schedule (e) schedule of payments to companies and individuals involved in the purchase and implementation of the above systems The College identified a number of responsive records and, pursuant to section 28 of the Act , notified a total of seven companies and individuals who may have an interest in the disclosure of the records (the affected parties). Two of the affected parties contacted by the College objected to the disclosure of the records. The College then issued a decision letter to the appellant denying access to the responsive records in their entirety, claiming the application of the mandatory exemption in section 17 of the Act (third party information) and the discretionary exemption in section 18 of the Act (economic and other interests of an institution). The requester (now the appellant) appealed the decision. During the mediation stage of the appeal, the College specified that it is relying on sections 18(1)(c) and (e) to deny access to the records at issue in this appeal, in addition to section 17(1). Also during mediation, one of the affected parties consented to the disclosure of portions of Record 1 to the appellant. The College disclosed this information to the appellant. Following the conclusion of the mediation stage, the College advised that it had located two additional records (Records 13 and 14) responsive to part (d) of the appellant's request. Access to these records was denied pursuant to sections 17(1), 18(1)(c) and (e) and 12(1) (Cabinet records) of the Act . The appellant indicated that he is interested in appealing the College's decision respecting access to these records as well. As further mediation was not possible, the matter was moved into the adjudication stage of the appeal process. I decided to first seek representations from the College and seven affected parties. I received representations from the College and one of the affected parties and shared them, in their entirety, with the appellant, along with a Notice of Inquiry. The appellant also made representations that were shared with the College, referring to a possible public interest in the disclosure of the information contained in the records. I then invited the College to respond to the appellant's arguments, asking that it specifically address the application of section 23 of the Act, the "public interest override" provision to the records. In response, the College made additional submissions. I note that the College has not made representations with respect to the application of any exemptions to Records 9, 10 and 11. I have reviewed these documents and find that they do not contain information that is subject to a mandatory exemption. As a result, I will order that they be disclosed to the appellant. RECORDS: The records at issue in this appeal are described below. The undisclosed portions of Professional Services Statement of Work for Fixed Price Deliverables Change Request Amendment to Maintenance Agreement Statement of Work for Server Relocation IDT Contract - Consulting Work Order - Service Agreement IDT Contract - Consulting Consulting Master Agreement Employee contract Employee contract Offer of employment Project and Operating Cost Details Action and Recommendation Form May 22, 2002 Minutes of Board of Governors Meeting DISCUSSION: CABINET RECORDS The College argues that Records 13 and 14 are exempt from disclosure under the mandatory exemptions in sections 12(1)(b) and (a) respectively. It submits that the College's Board of Governors should be considered to be an "Executive Council" for the purposes of the Act as it represents the "governing body" of the College. In my view, the position taken by the College is not in accordance with a plain reading of section 12. The Executive Council referred to in sections 12(1)(a) and (b) is the Cabinet of the Government of Ontario and cannot be considered to extend to the College's Board of Governors. Accordingly, I find that the mandatory exemption in section 12 has no application in the present appeal. THIRD PARTY INFORMATION General principles Section 17(1) is designed to protect the confidential "informational assets" of businesses or other organizations that provide information to government institutions. Although one of the central purposes of the Act is to shed light on the operations of government, section 17(1) serves to limit disclosure of confidential information of third parties that could be exploited by a competitor in the marketplace [Orders PO-1805, PO-2018, PO-2184, MO-1706]. For section 17(1) to apply, the College and/or the affected parties must satisfy each part of the following three-part test: the record must reveal information that is a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information; and the information must have been supplied to the institution in confidence, either implicitly or explicitly; and the prospect of disclosure of the record must give rise to a reasonable expectation that one of the harms specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c) and/or (d) of section 17(1) will occur. Part one: type of information Representations of the parties The College submits that: Records 1, 5, 7 and 8 represent contracts between the institution and the affected third parties. Records 2 and 3 represent amendments to the original contracts. Record 4 is a 'statement of work' prepared by the affected third party (relating to Record 1) to describe the work to be done for the College. It does not represent a contract. Record 6 is an invoice. It does not represent a contract. Records 12 and 14, while generated by the institution will reveal the substance of pricing information relating to third parties. The Commissioner has previously found that records relating to the sale and purchase of goods/services by an institution are 'commercial information' (see Orders P-91 and P-408). The Commissioner has also found that records generated by an institution which reveal the substance of third party information are subject to the section (see Order P-1085). In the alternative it should be noted that Record 4 (statement of work) does not represent a negotiated contract per se but rather
Decision Content
NATURE OF THE APPEAL:
Centennial College of Applied Arts and Technology (the College) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to:
Details of the contract(s) regarding the acquisition and implementation of the Fully Relational Enterprise Database (FRED) including the HRIS, FIS and SIS systems and more specifically:
(a) all companies and contract individuals, agents and other third parties involved in the purchase and implementation of the systems
(b) details of all deliverables and schedule of delivery
(c) cost of acquisition and cost of implementation including capital and operational expenditures
(d) source of funding for the expenditures including details of any borrowed money and repayment schedule
(e) schedule of payments to companies and individuals involved in the purchase and implementation of the above systems