Openness and privacy in Ontario: an evaluation of the implementation of FIPPA : (The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987, Chapter 25 and Ontario Regulation 532/87) /

Since the early 1970's, Canadians have expressed many concerns about the growth of government and its impact on their daily lives. The public has requested increased access to government documents and improved protection of the personal information which is held in government files and data banks. At the same time, both academics and practitioners in the field of public administration have become more interested in the values that public servants bring to their decisions and recommendations. Certain administrative values, such as accountability and integrity, have taken on greater relative importance. The purpose of this thesis is to examine the implementation of Ontario's access and privacy law. It centres on the question of whether or not the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987, (FIPPA) has answered the demand for open access to government while at the same time protecting the personal privacy of individual citizens. It also assesses the extent to which this relatively new piece of legislation has made a difference to the people of Ontario. The thesis presents an overview of the issues of freedom of information and protection of privacy in Ontario. It begins with the evolution of the legislation and a description of the law itself. It focuses on the structures and processes which have been established to meet the procedural and administrative demands of the Act. These structures and processes are evaluated in two ways. First, the thesis evaluates how open the Ontario government has become and, second, it determines how Ill carefully the privacy rights of individuals are safeguarded. An analytical framework of administrative values is used to evaluate the overall performance of the government in these two areas. The conclusion is drawn that, overall, the Ontario government has effectively implemented the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, particularly by providing access to most government-held documents. The protection of individual privacy has proved to be not only more difficult to achieve, but more difficult to evaluate. However, the administrative culture of the Ontario bureaucracy is shown to be committed to ensuring that the access and privacy rights of citizens are respected.

Physical access for persons with disabilities

For persons with disabilities, the activities that able-bodied people take for granted can be major, often insurmountable challenges. Attempting to enter a restaurant for lunch with friends can result in lengthy and adversarial litigation if the facility is not accessible to a person with a disability or other mobility impairment. This litigation would be initiated after the individual was effectively refused service; a refusal based on hislher personal physical characteristics. If a shopping mall is not equipped with "access amenities", then the disabled person may be excluded from shopping there and thus exercising consumer freedom. If workplaces are not equipped to accommodate the access needs of persons with disabilities, then those people are effectively barred from gainful employment there. If a municipal goveniment building is inaccessible to disabled persons, then they may be excluded from participating in council meetings. These are all activities that the majority of the population enjoys as a matter of course, in that they represent the functions of a free citizen in a free society. If a person is excluded from such activities because of some personal characteristic, then that person is subjected to differential or discr~minatory treatment. The guarantees provided in Canadian feden! and provincial rights legislation, are such that people are not to be discriminated againsL Where buildings and facilities othen\iise open to the public are not accessible for persens with disabilities, then those people are being discriminated against. To challenge these discriminatory practices, individuals initiate complaints through the administrative justice system. To address the extent to which this is a problem, many sources were consulted. Constitutional lawyers, tribunal members, advocates for the disabled and land use planners were interviewed. Case law and legislation were reviewed. Literature on citizenship theory, dispute resolution and dispute avoidance was compiled and assessed. And, the field of land use planning was analyzed (drawing on the WTiter's educational and experiential background) as a possible alternative method for effecting systemic access for persons with disabilities. The conclusion of this study is that there does exist a proactive method for assuring access, a method that can apply the systemic remedy needed to deal with this problem. The current method, which is an adversarial and piecemeal complaint process, has proven ineffective in remedying this discrimination problem~ Failure to provide an appropriate remedy means that persons with disabilities will not enjoy the degree of citizen status enjoyed by the able-bodied. This is the current circumstance, and since equity is the aim of rights legislation, and since such legislative and administrative frameworks have failed in that purpose, then an alternative method is necessary. An alternative model is the one in which land use planning is based. It has conflict avoidance and conflict minimization as underpinnings. And, most importantly, land use planning is already a proyen method of combatting discrimination.

Copyright in the Stacks: The Chilling Effects of Unclear Copyright Interpretations in the Canadian Academic Library

Presented at the Annual Conference of the Canadian Political Science Association, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, May 27, 2014

Dominion Marine Association records, 1972-1986

Established in 1903, the Dominion Marine Association was formed as an association of Canadian shipping companies. The Association had two main objectives. The first was to protect and advance the interests of Canadian shipowners, as well as Canadian consumers and exporters, to the extent that these interests are affected by government legislation and regulations. The second objective was to promote navigational safety through use of the latest technology, and through the continuous progress of vessel design. In 1988, the Association changed its name to the Canadian Shipowners Association.