Decisions

The Commissioner found that: (i) the requested information is environmental information; (ii) article 7(3) of the Regulations did not apply in the circumstances of the case; (iii) article 9(2)(c) of the Regulations did not provide grounds for refusal of the information as the public interest in disclosure outweighed any interest in refusal; and (iv) the existence of the licensing agreement with OSI did not provide grounds for refusal of the request.

The Commissioner found that the DPC is a public authority within the definition provided by the AIE Regulations and that the information sought was environmental information. He found that refusal of the requested information was not justified under article 8(a)(iv), 9(1)(d), 9(2)(c) or 9(2)(d) of the AIE Regulations. He annulled the decision of the DPC and directed the release of the information sought.

The Commissioner annulled the Department's decision on the ground that it had not conducted adequate searches in an effort to locate all relevant environmental information. He directed it to undertake a fresh decision-making process in respect of the appellant's request.

The Commissioner found that the refusal was not justified for the reasons given. He annulled the decision of the Department and directed release of the information sought. He directed the Department to undertake a fresh decision-making process in respect of one part of the request

The Commissioner found that the interest in withholding limited sections of the draft EIS on the basis of article 9(2)(c) of the AIE Regulations outweighed the public interest in disclosure of the information and upheld daa's reliance on the exception in respect of those limited sections. He found that the public interest in disclosure of the remaining sections of the draft EIS (i.e. the majority of the draft EIS) outweighed the interest served by withholding it and accordingly directed partial release of the draft EIS.

The Commissioner found that the Department failed to comply with the provisions of the AIE Regulations in processing the request and annulled the Department's decision. He did not, however, direct the Department to undertake a fresh decision-making process as the information requested had already been provided to the appellant.

The Commissioner varied the Council's decision. While he affirmed the Council's decision to refuse access to additional information relating to parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 24, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 4a, 5a, 6a, and 7a of the appellant's request under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations, he annulled its decision in respect of part 26 and directed it to undertake a fresh decision making process in respect of that part. He also annulled its decision to refuse access to certain information contained in Documents 4 and 6 under article 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations and directed it to undertake a fresh decision making process in respect of that information.

The Commissioner annulled the Council's decision on the ground that it had not carried out a review of the appellant's request at either stage of the process. He directed it to undertake a fresh decision-making process in respect of the appellant's request.

The Commissioner found that the Council's refusal to provide access to the environmental information was not justified under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations. He directed the Council to undertake a fresh decision-making process.

The Commissioner annulled the decision of the Department and directed that a fresh decision-making process be carried out in respect of the appellant's request.