|
|
Document
|
|
P-1333
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
P_9600339
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Board
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Board (the Board) received arequest under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act )for information relating to the amount of pension benefits received by a namedindividual for a specific period of time from the Toronto Parking Authority, theCity of Toronto (the City), or any other municipal agency or body. The Board responded to the requester and denied access to the responsiveinformation on the basis of the following exemption under the Act : invasion of privacy - section 21(1). The requester (now the appellant) appealed the Board's decision. This office provided a Notice of Inquiry to the appellant, the Board and thenamed individual (the affected person). Representations were received from allthree parties. The only information at issue in this appeal is the amount of pensionbenefits received by the affected person for the years 1986 to 1996. DISCUSSION: INVASION OF PRIVACY Under section 2(1) of the Act , "personal information" isdefined, in part, to mean recorded information about an identifiable individual. The appellant submits that the information at issue does not fall within anyof the eight subparagraphs included under the definition of personal informationin section 2(1) of the Act . Section 2(1) of the Act does not provide an exhaustive list of thetypes of information which qualify for inclusion under the definition of "personalinformation". Information which does not qualify under any of thesubparagraphs will still meet the requirements of the definition if it can besaid to be "... any recorded information about an identifiable individual...", as provided by the introductory wording to the definition. Accordingly, I find that the amount of pension benefits received by the affectedperson falls within the definition of "personal information" insection 2(1). The information at issue relates to the affected person only. Once it has been determined that a record contains personal information,section 21(1) of the Act prohibits the disclosure of this informationexcept in certain circumstances. One of these circumstances is found in section21(1)(f), which reads: A head shall refuse to disclose personal information to any person otherthan the individual to whom the information relates except, if the disclosure does not constitute an unjustified invasion of personalprivacy. Sections 21(2), (3) and (4) of the Act provide guidance indetermining whether disclosure of personal information would constitute anunjustified invasion of personal privacy. Where one of the presumptions foundin section 21(3) applies to the personal information found in a record, the only way such a presumption against disclosure can beovercome is where the personal information falls under section 21(4) or where afinding is made that section 23 of the Act applies to the personalinformation. If none of the presumptions contained in section 21(3) apply, the Board mustconsider the application of the factors listed in section 21(2) of the Act ,as well as all other considerations that are relevant in the circumstances ofthe case. The Board submits that disclosure of the information at issue is presumed tobe an unjustified invasion of privacy pursuant to section 21(3)(f) of the Act ,which reads: A disclosure of personal information is presumed to constitute anunjustified invasion of personal privacy if the personal information, describes an individual's finances, income, assets, liabilities, networth, bank balances, financial history or activities, or creditworthiness. The Board argues that the amount of pension benefits received over theten-year period is information that describes the affected person's finances,income, assets and financial activities. Therefore, the Board submits thatpursuant to section 21(3)(f), disclosure of this information is presumed toconstitute an unjustified invasion of his personal privacy. I have carefully reviewed all the representations in this appeal. In myview, the information at issue satisfies the requirements of a presumedunjustified invasion of privacy of the affected person under section 21(3)(f) ofthe Act . As I indicated earlier, if one of the presumptions under section 21(3)applies, the Board can disclose the personal information only if it falls undersection 21(4) of the Act , or if section 23 of the Act (thepublic interest override) applies. Section 21(4) of the Act identifies particular types of informationthe disclosure of which does not constitute an unjustified invasion of personalprivacy. Section 21(4)(a) reads: Despite subsection (3), a disclosure does not constitute an unjustifiedinvasion of personal privacy if it, discloses the classification, salary range and benefits ,or employment responsibilities of an individual who is or was an officer oremployee of an institution or a member of the staff of a minister. [emphasisadded] The words "[d]espite subsection (3)" do not limit the applicationof section 21(4) to those types of information identified in section 21(3);rather they identify types of information that the legislature clearly intendedto fall within the exception contained in section 21(1)(f). Generally speaking,if a record contains information of the type described in section 21(4), theexception to the section 21 exemption contained in section 21(1)(f) will apply(Order M-23). In Order M-23, Commissioner Tom Wright provided a definition for the term "benefits"found in section 14(4)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information andProtection of Privacy Act (which is identical to section 21(4)(a) of the Act ): Since the "benefits" that are available to officers or employeesof an institution are paid from the "public purse", either directly orindirectly, I believe that it is consistent with the intent of section 14(4)(a)and the purposes of the Act that "benefits" be given a fairlyexpansive interpretation. In my opinion, the word "benefits", as itis used in section 14(4)(a), means entitlements that an officer or employeereceives as a result of being employed by the institution. Generally speaking, these entitlements will be in addition to a base salary. They include insurance-related benefits such as life, health, hospital, dentaland disability coverage. They will also include sick leave, vacation, leaves ofabsence, termination allowance, death and pension benefits. As well, a right toreimbursement from the institution for moving expenses will come within themeaning of "benefits". [emphasis add
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
21(3)(f)
-
21(4)(a)
-
Section 23
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Laurel Cropley
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Jan 21, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|