|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
MO-1319
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
MA-000058-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Township of Frontenac Islands
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
The Township of Frontenac Islands (the Township) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for: All reports, memoranda, correspondence or other documents prepared by [certain specified engineering firms] for the Steering Committee and/or the Township in relation to the Class EA study. Minutes of all Steering Committee meetings held to date. The budget for the Class EA study, and contracts between the above-noted consultants and the Township. The request relates to a study of transportation services for Wolfe Island undertaken by the Township in accordance with the requirements of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects (the Class EA). The Township located the records responsive to the request and provided the appellant with full access to "all of the documents in this office pertaining to this matter." The appellant responded to the Township by questioning whether its decision included all records held by one of the engineering firms, other Township consultants, and Steering Committee members. The appellant did not receive a response from the Township to his inquiry. However, after reviewing the responsive records at the Township, the appellant was advised that the engineering firm was preparing a list of records responsive to the request which were in its possession. The appellant appealed the decision of the Township stating that "the Township's decision to limit access to only those documents in the custody of the Township (i.e. "in this office") amounts to a de facto denial of access to the requested records." The appellant maintained that the "records held by the Township's consultants and sub-consultant are clearly under the "control" of the Township for the purposes of section 4(1) of the Act". This office opened Appeal MA-990333-1. During the mediation stage of that appeal, the Township issued a subsequent decision with respect to the records responsive to the appellant's request which were maintained by the engineering firms on behalf of the Steering Committee. The Township acknowledged that it has control of the responsive records and agreed to make these records available to the appellant, at his request, in the Township's office. Appeal MA-990333-1 was thereby resolved. In a second decision, the Township disclosed six records in their entirety and granted partial access to the three remaining records, claiming the exemption found in section 10(1) to deny access to the undisclosed portions. The appellant appealed the Township's decision on the basis that: • the exemption found in section 10(1) of the Act is not applicable in this case; • there is a compelling public interest in the disclosure of the records (section 16 of the Act ); and • the Township did not conduct a reasonable search for all responsive records (section 17 of the Act ). This office then opened Appeal MA-000058-1. During the mediation stage of this appeal, the appellant advised that he was satisfied that the Township had conducted a reasonable search for the responsive records. The Township also disclosed the Project Meeting Minutes to the appellant. The remaining records at issue consist of: • Appendix A to the Project Work Plan dated May 5, 1999, entitled "Detailed Work Plan" (nine pages); and • Section 5.0 of the Project Proposal dated September 1998, entitled "Resource Assignments, Fees and Disbursements" (one page). I provided the Township and the two engineering firms which prepared the responsive records (the affected parties) with a Notice of Inquiry soliciting their representations on the application of sections 10(1) and 16 to the records. The Township indicated that it would not be submitting representations. One of the affected parties made submissions, which were shared with the appellant, in their entirety. The appellant's representations to his Notice of Inquiry were similarly shared with the Township and the affected parties, who were then invited to make further submissions by way of reply. I did not receive any reply representations from them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Donald Hale
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Jul 11, 2000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|