|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
MO-1738
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
MA-020208-4
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
City of Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
On September 11, 2003, I issued Order MO-1684, which disposed of the issues in Appeal PA-020208-2 involving the City of Toronto (the City). After receiving the various records ordered disclosed, the appellant sent me a letter dated November 5, 2003 indicating his reasons for believing that an additional responsive record should exist. The record he identified is an attachment referred to on page 2 of a July 19, 1999 letter received by the appellant during the course of Appeal PA-020208-2. The City took the position that this record did not exist, and Appeal PA-020208-3 was opened to deal with the issue of whether the City had conducted an adequate search for the record. The City subsequently located the record, and Appeal PA-020208-3 was closed. The record consists of a 73-page property appraisal dated April 1, 1999 for a property located at 453 Spadina Road in Toronto. It was prepared by a professional appraisal firm. The City then issued a decision letter to the appellant, denying access to the record on the basis of the following exemption in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ): section 6(1)(b) - closed meeting section 10 - third party commercial information section 11 - economic interests of the City section 12 - solicitor-client privilege section 14 - invasion of privacy The appellant appealed the City's decision. The appeal was streamed directly to the adjudication stage of the appeals process. I sent a Notice of Inquiry to the City and the appraisal firm (the affected party) seeking representations. In the case of the City, I asked for submissions on all identified exemptions. I asked the affected party to respond only to section 10. The affected party and the City both submitted representations. In its representations, the City withdrew all exemption claims with the exception of section 10. As far as section 10 is concerned, the City only seeks to apply the exemption to page 72 of the record, which consists of a list of the affected party's clients that was included with the appraisal report. Therefore, the only exemption that remains at issue in this appeal is section 10. The City claims this exemption for page 72 of the record, and the affected party submits that the record should be withheld in its entirety. I have determined that it is not necessary to seek representations from the appellant before issuing my decision in this appeal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
MFIPPA
-
10(1)(a)
-
10(1)(b)
-
10(1)(c)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Tom Mitchinson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Jan 12, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|