• These duties and responsibilities belong to the head alone. Therefore, submissions on an appeal as to the applicability of this section cannot be delegated to anyone other than the head. (Orders #P-65, P-187, P-293, P-482, M-401, P-1175)

• In this case, this section did not to apply to the disclosure of drug quality advisory body minutes. (Order #P-68)

s.11(d)

• Applies to the Report as it contains information having to do with City's ongoing negotiations with the developer, ie. strategies, rates, overhead and options under review by Council. Disclosure of the Report could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the financial interests of the City. (Order #MO-1228)

• In this case, the requester asked for the names of all agencies which have accepted workfare placements and the number of workfare placements each agency had accepted. The City stated tath if the requested records were released , the requester would use the information to subject the participating gencies to negative publicity. This in turen would result in the agencies withdrawing for particpatng in the workfare pregram.. Tis wouold result in a poor performance anof the city and subsequent reductionin provincial funding. . Yhe Commission found a direct coorrelation between the city meeting the targets establisjed by the Provincial governemnt and fincial consequences for the the city. The Commission found that the participaating agneceies would succumb to pressures to withdraw form the program resulting in the City being unable to meet the Provincial targets . The City would then be liable for additional finacial resoponsibility for the program. The Commission found that the City had demonstrated a reasonavle expectation of harm to its finacial interests resulting from disclosure of the requested records. (Order # MO-1254)