|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The appellant is an employee of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services (the Ministry). He submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for minutes of the Southern Region Area Managers' meetings for the period of January 1, 1992, to the date of the request. The Ministry identified a number of responsive records, and provided the appellant with partial access. Access to some records was denied, in whole or in part, pursuant to sections 13, 14, and 21 of the Act . The Ministry also claimed that parts of some records fall within the parameters of section 65(6)3 of the Act , and are therefore outside the scope of the Act . The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision. During mediation, the appellant indicated that he did not want the personal information of any individual, nor did he require the password to a named computer program. As a result, the sections 14 and 21 exemption claims are no longer at issue. The Ministry also located minutes of two other meetings, and denied access to parts of these records pursuant to sections 18(1)(f) and (g), 19, 21 and 65(6)3 of the Act . Again, because the appellant was not interested in receiving personal information, section 21 was removed from the scope of the appeal. This office sent a Notice of Inquiry to the appellant and the Ministry, seeking representations on the jurisdictional issue raised by sections 65(6) and (7), as well as the exemptions claimed by the Ministry. Representations were received from both parties. In its representations, the Ministry withdrew the section 13 exemption claim, and indicated that, as a consequence, it has released more pages of records to the appellant. Thirteen pages or partial pages of records remain at issue. Some are subject to the jurisdictional issue raised by section 65(6)3, and others have been withheld on the basis of one of the following exemption claims: economic and other interests of the Ministry - sections 18(1)(f) and (g) solicitor-client privilege - section 19 DISCUSSION: JURISDICTION Sections 65(6) and (7) of the Act read: (6) Subject to subsection (7), this Act does not apply to records collected, prepared, maintained or used by or on behalf of an institution in relation to any of the following: 1. Proceedings or anticipated proceedings before a court, tribunal or other entity relating to labour relations or to the employment of a person by the institution. 2. Negotiations or anticipated negotiations relating to labour relations or to the employment of a person by the institution between the institution and a person, bargaining agent or party to a proceeding or an anticipated proceeding. 3. Meetings, consultations, discussions or communications about labour relations or employment-related matters in which the institution has an interest. (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 which ends a proceeding before a court, tribunal or other entity relating to labour relations or to employment- related matters. 3. An agreement between an institution and one or more employees resulting from negotiations about employment-related matters between the institution and the employee or employees. 4. An expense account submitted by an employee of an institution to that institution for the purpose of seeking reimbursement for expenses incurred by the employee in his or her employment. The interpretation of sections 65(6) and (7) is a preliminary issue which goes to the Commissioner's jurisdiction to continue an inquiry. Section 65(6) is record-specific and fact-specific. If this section applies to a specific record, in the circumstances of a particular appeal, and none of the exceptions listed in section 65(7) are present, then the record is excluded from the scope of the Act and not subject to the Commissioner's jurisdiction. Section 65(6)3 In Order P-1242, I found that in order to fall within the scope of paragraph 3 of section 65(6), the Ministry must establish that: 1. the record was collected, prepared, maintained or used by the Ministry or on its behalf; and 2. this collection, preparation, maintenance or usage was in relation to meetings, consultations, discussions or communications; and 3. these meetings, consultations, discussions or communications are about labour relations or employment-related matters in which the Ministry has an interest. Requirements 1 and 2 The Ministry states that the records were prepared, maintained and used by the Southern Region Ministry staff as a mechanism to formally document and communicate matters discussed at Area/Regional Managers meetings. According to the Ministry, these meetings are held to discuss various operational, administrative, labour relations and employment-related issues. In Order P-1223, I made the following comments regarding the interpretation of the phrase "in relation to" in section 65(6): In the context of section 65(6), I am of the view that if the preparation (or collection, maintenance, or use) of a record was for the purpose of, as a result of, or substantially connected to an activity listed in sections 65(6)1, 2, or 3, it would be "in relation to" that activity. (emphasis added) Having reviewed the records, I find that they were clearly prepared, maintained and/or used by employees of the Ministry in relation to meetings, discussions or communications. Therefore, the first and second requirements of section 65(6)3 have been established. Requirement 3 The Ministry submits that the parts of the minutes excluded under section 65(6)3 deal with various labour relations and employment-related matters, including hiring procedures, strike planning, grievance practices, and human resources planning. Having reviewed these parts of the minutes, I agree that they reflect meetings, discussions and communications about labour
|