|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
M-1154
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
The Corporation of the County of Prince Edward
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The Corporation of the County of Prince Edward (the County) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to information described as follows: "During the last municipal election, I would like to know who made contributions to municipal politicians in [the County]." The County responded to the request by denying access to the responsive information based on section 88(10) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 (the MEA ), which reads: No person shall use information obtained from public records described in subsection (5), except for election purposes. In its response letter, the County explained that access was being denied pursuant to this provision because the requester had indicated he was not "intending to use the information for the purpose described in the [ MEA ]." The County's response did not cite a specific provision of the Act under which access was refused, the reason the provision applied to the record, the name and office of the person responsible for making the decision, or a statement that the requester could have appealed to this office for a review of the decision, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Act . The requester appealed the County's decision to deny access, stating that the information he requested is "public information." During mediation, the Appeals Officer assigned to this case requested that the County issue a proper decision under section 22(1)(b) of the Act . At the same time, she advised the County that the requester (now the appellant) had narrowed his request to include only those who made contributions to the candidates running for the office of mayor. The County later issued a revised decision which complied with the requirements of section 22(1)(b). In its revised decision, the County cited various paragraphs under the section 14 personal privacy exemption [sections 14(1)(f), 14(2)(f), 14(2)(h) and 14(3)(f)] as the basis for its denial of access to the information responsive to the revised request. A mediated settlement of the appeal was not effected and a Notice of Inquiry was sent to the County, the appellant and 38 affected persons. This office received representations from the County, the appellant and eight affected persons. Of these eight affected persons, four consented to the disclosure of all personal information about them contained in the records, one consented to the release of his/her name only, and three opposed the disclosure of their personal information. THE RECORDS: There are five records containing the information at issue in this appeal. They consist of four Financial Statements (Form 4) and one Financial Statement and Auditor's Report (Form 5). These records are forms completed by the five mayoral candidates and filed with the County Clerk pursuant to sections 78(1) and (5) of the MEA and sections 10 and 11 of Ontario Regulation 101/97 (the Regulation) made under the MEA . Each of the five forms contains (among other information) a list of contributors, including the name, address and amount of contribution for each contributor. Some of the listed contributors are individuals, while others are organizations. Further, although the forms indicate that candidates are to list those who contributed over $100, some of the records in question contain information about individuals or organizations contributing $100 or under. DISCUSSION: SCOPE OF THE REQUEST As noted above, the appellant's original, written request for access to information reads: "During the last municipal election, I would like to know who made contributions to municipal politicians in [the County]." During mediation, the appellant narrowed his request to include only those individuals who made contributions to the candidates running for the office of mayor. The appellant subsequently indicated that his request included all of the information about individuals in the "lists of contributors", which contain the name, address and amount of contribution for each individual contributor, although the appellant clarified that he was interested in the amounts only to the extent that they exceeded $100. The County advised that it did not accept the appellant's view of the scope of the request. In its representations on this issue, the County states: The plain English of the request submitted by the appellant relates only to the name of the contributors and makes no mention of address or amount of contribution. ... The respondent County is entitled to know without ambiguity what information it is being asked to provide pursuant to the [ Act ] ... The appellant did not make specific representations on this issue. In the usual case, in the absence of the institution's consent, a requester will not be permitted to unilaterally expand the scope of his or her request during the course of an appeal. However, in this case, the appellant is seeking to include within the scope of his request information which is already contained in the responsive records, and the additional information (addresses and contribution amounts) is closely associated with the information specifically identified in his original request (the names of individual contributors). It appears from the face of the appellant's request that he may not have had knowledge of the specific records which might contain the information he was seeking, which is not unusual in the access to information context. Both requesters and institutions have obligations in relation to the formulation of an access request under the Act . Section 17(1)(b) of the Act requires a person seeking access to a record to "provide sufficient detail to enable an experienced employee of the institution, upon a reasonable effort, to identify the record." On the other hand, section 17(2) states: If the request does not sufficiently describe the record sought, the institution shall inform the applicant of the defect and shall offer assistance in reformulating the request so as to comply with subsection (1). In circumstances where the request does not sufficiently describe the records sought, it is incumbent on an
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Oct 19, 1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|