IPC - Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario

Français

Site Map

Advanced Search

Subject Index Listing

Reconsideration Table

Judicial Review of Municipal Orders

Judicial Review of Provincial Orders

Judicial Review of Privacy Complaint Reports

The Acts

Recent Orders

P-1464

Document		P-1464


File #		P_9700046


Institution/HIC		Ministry of Community and Social Services


Summary		NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The appellant is a "tri-local" committee of three Canadian Unionof Public Employee (CUPE) locals who are currently working together as a resultof their common labour negotiation issues. The appellant submitted a request tothe Ministry of Community and Social Services (the Ministry) under the Freedomof Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). The requestwas for access to records for the following information related to Ministryapproved service plans for agencies funded by the Ministry: 1.The most recent approved service plan and supporting documentation forfour identified agencies. 2.The most recent by-laws of the four identified agencies. 3.Copies of the 1996 correspondence which relates to the funding of thefour identified agencies. 4.Copies of any internal correspondence dated from September 1st, 1996,including inter-office memoranda, housebook notes, briefing notes andcorrespondence between the respective area offices and the developmentalservices branch where the above identified agencies are named but excluding anycorrespondence from or to the organizations and the Ministry. The Ministry responded by providing access to a large quantity of records. The Ministry denied access in whole or part to a number of records pursuant tosections 17(1)(b) (third party information) and 21(1) (invasion of privacy) ofthe Act . The appellant appealed only the decision to deny access to the records whichrelate to parts 3 and 4 of the request with respect to three of the fouragencies. The appellant also appealed the reasonableness of the Ministry'ssearch for responsive records. During mediation, the reasonableness of the Ministry's search for responsiverecords was resolved. In addition, 120 records were removed from this appealleaving 48 whole or part pages of records at issue. Further mediation resulted in the Ministry issuing a new decision letterreleasing several additional pages of requested records. The decision letterfurther indicated that access was being denied on the basis that, pursuant tosection 65(6) of the Act , certain identified records are removed fromthe scope of the Act . This office sent a Notice of Inquiry to the appellant, the Ministry and fourorganizations (the affected parties) whose interests may be affected by thedisclosure of the records at issue. Representations were received from allparties. The representations from three of the affected parties were preparedby the same legal counsel. In its representations, the Ministry asserts that anumber of records are not responsive to the appellant's request. Counsel forthree of the affected parties submitts that the mandatory exemption in section17(1)(a) also applied to the records at issue. Because these two issues were raised at this late stage, this office sent aSupplementary Notice of Inquiry to all of the parties in order to give allinterested parties an opportunity to address them. Supplemental representationswere received from the Ministry, the appellant and counsel for three of theaffected parties. RECORDS: The records which remain at issue consist of staffing budget requests,interoffice memorandum, handwritten notes, letters and meeting agenda. PRELIMINARY MATTERS: NON-RESPONSIVE RECORDS The Ministry claims that Records 785, 832 - 836, 837 - 842 and 864 are notresponsive to the appellant's request. In its representations, the Ministrysubmits that it interpreted the request too broadly, in two ways. First, theMinistry submits that handwritten notes created by Ministry staff were notrequested by the appellant, and should not be considered responsive to therequest. Second, the Ministry submits that it has included correspondence whichis not related to funding, and that this correspondence is therefore notresponsive. The appellant states that: I had oral discussions with the [policy analyst], and I thought we had acommon understanding as to the nature of my request. In my view, I requestedany records naming the organizations. The fourth part of my request was notrestricted to records related to funding. The documents that I have not seenmust relate to the request or they would not have appeared in the initial index. In Order P-880, former Inquiry Officer Anita Fineberg considered thestandard to be applied in deciding whether records are responsive to a request. She stated: In my view, the need for an institution to determine which documents arerelevant to a request is a fundamental first step in responding to the request. It is an integral part of any decision by a head. The request itself sets outthe boundaries of relevancy and circumscribes the records which will ultimatelybe identified as being responsive to the request. I am of the view that, in thecontext of freedom of information legislation, "relevancy" must mean "responsiveness". That is, by asking whether information is "relevant" to a request,one is really asking whether it is "responsive" to a request. Whileit is admittedly difficult to provide a precise definition of "relevancy"or "responsiveness", I believe that the term describes anything thatis reasonably related to the request. I have reviewed the records and the request. Although the records do notpertain directly to funding, in my view, the request is sufficiently broad toencompass such records. Accordingly, I find that the records are reasonablyrelated to the request and are, therefore, responsive. JURISDICTION The next issue raised by the Ministry is whether the records fall within thescope of sections 65(6) and (7) of the Act . These provisions read: (6)Subject to subsection (7), this Act does not apply to recordscollected, prepared, maintained or used by or on behalf of an institution inrelation to any of the following: 1.Proceedings or anticipated proceedings before a court, tribunal orother entity relating to labour relations or to the employment of a person bythe institution. 2.Negotiations or anticipated negotiations relating to labour relationsor to the employment of a person by the institution between the institution anda person, bargaining agent or party to a proceeding or an anticipatedproceeding. 3.Meetings, consultations, discussions or communications about labourrelations or employment-related matters in which the institution has aninterest. (7)This Act applies to the following records: 1.An agreement between an institution and a trade union. 2.An agreement between an institution and one or more employees whichends a proceeding before a court, tribunal or other entity relating to labourrelations or to employment- related matters. 3.A


Legislation		FIPPA 17(1)(a) 21(3)(f) 65(6)3


Subject Index		labour relations


Signed by		Laurel Cropley


Published		Oct 09, 1997


Type		Order


<< Back

Main Menu