|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
MO-1517
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
MA-010298-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
City of Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
BACKGROUND: The following background information was provided by the original requester in this appeal. He indicates that several years ago, he purchased a new home in a housing development owned by the appellant. He indicates further that the development site is near a railway track and there are (at least from his perspective) some unresolved issues regarding noise and vibration with respect to the site. He notes that the severance of the property into lots went before the City of Toronto's (the City) Committee of Adjustment and then to the Ontario Municipal Board (the OMB). Although the OMB apparently did not conduct a "full hearing", according to the requester, it conducted a "preliminary hearing" during which the developer submitted documents. The requester states that the OMB applied certain conditions in accordance with two reports that were submitted by the developer during this preliminary hearing (the records at issue in this appeal). The requester indicates that in order to determine whether the developer complied with the requirements of the OMB order, he went to the OMB offices to review the relevant file. In doing so, he noted that where the two records at issue in this appeal were supposed to be (Tabs "I" and "J"), there was a letter to the City from the OMB, which indicated that the two reports were being sent to the City. It appears that the OMB did not make replacement copies of these reports prior to sending them to the City. NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The requester submitted a request to the City under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for these two documents (Exhibit 4 - Tabs "I" and "J" - OMB motion records) insofar as they relate to the property he purchased. In its decision to the requester, the City confirmed that the requested records consist of Tabs "I" and "J" of Exhibit 4 from OMB File No. C970453. Prior to issuing its decision on access, the City notified the engineering company that prepared the two reports for the developer pursuant to section 21 of the Act . The engineering company did not respond to this notice and the City subsequently issued a decision, granting the requester full access to the requested records. Following receipt of this decision, the engineering company contacted the City by telephone and subsequently by letter advising the City that the records were originally prepared by it under engagement by and for the exclusive use of its client (the developer of the property in question). The engineering company requested the City to contact the developer. Several weeks later, this office received a letter from a holding company as represented by its president in which he stated: The documents in question are engineering reports that were prepared by a consulting engineer for a development site… In our purchase of this property, we also acquired ownership of the said reports. The reports were issued to us for the purpose of providing guidelines for the construction of houses on the site. We are not aware of any requirement or by-law which required us to provide copies to the city, but we did so as a gesture of good faith on the understanding that it would be without prejudice to us, to aid them in understanding certain concerns that the homeowners had. On the basis of this letter, this office opened an appeal of the decision of the City to grant access to the requested records. The appellant in this appeal is the holding company/developer of the property. Mediation could not be effected and this appeal was forwarded to adjudication. I decided to seek representations from the appellant, initially, and sent him a Notice of Inquiry setting out the facts and issues on appeal. In doing so, I provided him with the background information as stated by the requester and asked him to address the issues raised in the background discussion relating to the manner in which the records were sent to the City, the reasonableness of the expectations of confidentiality, and the impact of the submission of these records to the OMB. The appellant submitted representations in response. After reviewing them, I decided that it was not necessary to seek representations from the other parties. RECORDS: The two records at issue consist of: a) Report No. WA97-17-V: Railway Vibration Measurements, dated April 24, 1997, and b) Report No. WA97-17: Detailed Noise Control Study, dated June 3, 1997. DISCUSSION: THIRD PARTY INFORMATION Section 10(1) of the Act states, in part: A head shall refuse to disclose a record that reveals a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information, supplied in confidence implicitly or explicitly, if the disclos
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Laurel Cropley
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Feb 26, 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|