Order 97-003: Summary
ORDER NUMBER: 97-003
DATE: August 26, 1997
PUBLIC BODY: Credit Union Deposit Guarantee Corporation
FOIP REQUEST: The applicants made five separate requests for access to the policies of the Credit Union Deposit Guarantee Corporation (CUDGC) and the Corporation's records. The applicants were not satisfied with CUDGC's response and asked the Information and Privacy Commissioner to review the matter.
ISSUES: CUDGC submitted that the Credit Union Act prevented it from releasing some records and that the remaining records were properly withheld under the FOIP Act. CUDGC also submitted that one of the requests was not for personal information and, as a result, that CUDGC could charge fees for processing that request.
DECISION AND REASONS:
- The Commissioner decided that CUDGC correctly applied the FOIP Act's exclusion for records of a credit union in the custody or under the control of CUDGC (section 4(1)(n)).
- The Commissioner found that CUDGC correctly applied the FOIP Act's provision for that Act's relationship to other Acts (section 5(1)) to 171 of the 176 records. Section 16(1) of the Credit Union Act requires CUDGC to keep confidential all information about the affairs of a third party obtained as a result of administering or enforcing the Credit Union Act. If section 16(1) applies to a record, the FOIP Act's provision for relationship to other Acts says that CUDGC must not disclose that record. After a thorough review of section 16(1) of the Credit Union Act, the Commissioner concluded that it applied to all but five of the records to which CUDGC claimed that the Credit Union Act, not the FOIP Act, applied.
- The Commissioner found that CUDGC correctly applied the exception for personal privacy (section 16). CUDGC withheld the names of individuals, handwriting that could identify an individual, and opinions relating to individuals. The presumption that it is an unreasonable invasion to disclose the names of individuals in combination with other personal information about the individual (section 16(2)(g)(i)) applied to this information. As the applicants failed to prove that disclosure of this information would not be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of the third parties, the information was properly withheld.
- Citing Order 96-017, the Commissioner found that CUDGC correctly applied the exception for privileged information (section 26). CUDGC claimed solicitor-client privilege to withhold letters sent by or to its lawyer, a working paper sent by its lawyer, and letters from a credit union's lawyer. CUDGC claimed litigation privilege to withhold information prepared for the Corporation's lawyer relating to a matter involving the provision of legal services.
- The Commissioner decided that CUDGC correctly charged fees for the record it disclosed in response to an individual applicant's request. The Commissioner reasoned that, if a request can be characterized as a request for access to personal information, a public body may not charge a service fee for any record that contains the applicant's personal information. On the other hand, if records are characterized as not being within the category of a request for personal information, a public body may charge service fees in relation to records responsive to the request even if they contain the applicant's personal information. In this case, the records requested by the individual applicant could not be characterized as a request for that applicant's personal information.
The decision of the Credit Union Deposit Guarantee Corporation to withhold the information was upheld.
SECTOR: Government - Other