Additional Information Released

The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia recently ordered the release of additional information on records relating to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The 37 lines of text were released today, April 15.

"The court agreed with the position of the government on the vast majority of records," said Justice Minister Jamie Muir. "In order to make informed decisions, cabinet must get advice from officials and lawyers, and they must be free to discuss that advice in confidence."

About 110 pages of text were involved. Only 37 lines of text were ordered released. The government claimed exemptions under Sections 13, 14 and 16 of the act, relating to solicitor/client privilege, advice to public bodies and cabinet confidentiality, which the court upheld.

The original request related to information surrounding government's decision to increase the fees for users of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The administrative costs of the act are estimated at about $700,000, while fees collected for 2001-02 totalled about $9,000. The review office has an additional budget of $200,000. Fees were increased to recover a more realistic amount of the costs incurred.

"We have one of the most open and accessible acts in the country," said Mr. Muir. "The act requires a significant amount of resources to administer. Our only motive in increasing fees was to be fiscally responsible."

NOTE: The original transcript of the following document contains 37 lines of text. However, due to formatting for release there may be a difference in the line count.

Additional Information Ordered for Disclosure

Note: The following is the additional information which Justice Pickup ordered for disclosure as result of the court decision in Fuller vs. Her Majesty the Queen. The full text of the records from which this information was extracted is available on request.

From Document #1 (e-mail)

All of these will be submitted to Executive Council, at is regular meeting of March 14th.

From: Document #2 (e-mail)

Robert:
Option #4 seems to capture the requirements...however, look at you RECOMMENDATIONS section...are you recommending Option #3 or Option #4...did you forget to change this part from earlier drafts? Bob

From: Document #3 (e-mail)

Yes...and will make the change and send it over electronically

Bob Abbott 03/01/02 6:59 p.m. Robert: Option #4 seems to capture the requirements...however, look at you RECOMMENDATIONS section...are you recommending Option #3 or Option #4...did you forget to change this part from earlier drafts? Bob

From: Document #4 (e-mail)

Robert Doherty-Memorandum re FOIPOP Page 1

From: Robert Doherty To: Abbott, Bob Date: 3/3/02 8:17 p.m. Subject: Memorandum re FOIPOP Revised version attached.

From: Document #5 (e-mail)

Robert Doherty-FOIPOP Memorandum and associted Documents Page 1

From: Robert Doherty
To: Abbott, Bob
Date: 3/5/02 1:13 p.m.
Subject: FOIPOP Memorandum and associted documents

From: Document #6 (handwritten notes)

Admin Meeting

effective date

• When DOJ wants it to come into effect

can come into effect April 1, retroactive

??

date in effect

margaret awaiting drafting int on effective date

April 1 Dates ass to by Lt / Date procl Lt Gov

From: Document #7 (handwritten notes)

no comments on why or process