|
|
Document
|
|
M-394
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
The Corporation of the City of Oshawa
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: This is an appeal under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). The Corporation of the City of Oshawa (the City) received a request for copies of documents relating to the redevelopment plans of the Oshawa General Hospital (the OGH). A number of specific reports and documents were described in the request. According to the requester, the records sought constitute much of the background information relied on by the Planning and Development Department of the City in making its decision to rezone parkland to institutional use. The City provided the requester with copies of some of the documents, but denied access to several others, either in whole or in part. The requester appealed this decision. A Notice of Inquiry was provided to the parties to the appeal including the City, the appellant and the OGH. Representations were received from all parties. Those of the OGH were in support of the submissions made by the City. In its representations, the City indicated that it was prepared to disclose Records 37, 78 and 79 to the appellant. These records should, therefore, be released to the appellant if the City has not already done so. The appellant has confirmed that she is not seeking access to the personal information withheld from Records 68-72, 80 and 125. The 91 records remaining at issue in this appeal and the exemptions claimed for each are described in detail in Appendix "A" to this order. The City relies on the following exemptions in denying access to these records, either in whole or in part: draft by-law - section 6(1)(a) advice or recommendations -section 7(1) economic and other interests - section 11(e) solicitor-client privilege - section 12 invasion of privacy - section 14(1) DISCUSSION: THE CREATION OF THE RECORDS Prior to discussing the application of the specific exemptions claimed by the City to deny access to these records, I will briefly describe the process which lead to the creation of these documents and provide examples of the types of records generated at various stages of the process. I believe that this background information will assist in understanding the position of the parties to this appeal. The OGH wished to expand and renovate its facilities. It also sought approval from certain government authorities to build a cancer treatment centre. It hired a group of consultants to prepare a proposal for these projects. The proposal was presented to various departments of the City. Obviously, redevelopment of this nature would impact on both the City and the Regional Municipality of Durham (the Region). For approximately the past three years, representatives of the City, the OGH and, to a lesser extent, the Region have been working together on this project. The project raised a number of issues which would have to be dealt with by the parties. Some of these matters included land use and development, traffic impacts, urban design, the impact on Alexandra Park (a park located on part of the land included in the expansion) and the location of the cancer treatment centre, to name a few. Various departments of the City became involved. The project also required amendments to a City zoning by-law as well as an amendment to the City's Official Plan. Thus, City council was kept apprised of the progress of the project. To achieve these goals, many meetings were held in which these issues were discussed. For example, meetings were held by the Planning and Development Department of the City (Records 9 and 12), between this Department and staff and consultants of the OGH (Records 26 and 28), and local councillors and representatives of the City and the OGH (Records 29 and 52). At these meetings, the participants provided comments on the proposal. In addition, City staff exchanged several memoranda stating their departments' positions on the redevelopment issues (Records 10, 12 and 48). During this process, three public meetings were held to seek community feedback on the proposal. The proposal was discussed in detail at a public City Council meeting. Once the proposal was finalized, drafts were prepared of the proposed rezoning by-law and the by-law to amend the Official Plan (Records 89, 91 and 92). Counsel for the OGH and City staff commented on the drafts (Records 86 and 87). On February 21, 1994 at a public council meeting, the City passed a zoning by-law to assign appropriate land use designations to lands owned by the OGH. It also passed a by-law to amend the City's Official Plan. The rezoning of certain parkland to institutional is presently being appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (the OMB) by area residents. INVASION OF PRIVACY Under section 2(1) of the Act , "personal information" is defined, in part, as follows: (d) the address, telephone number, fingerprints or blood type of the individual, (e) the personal opinions or views of the individual except if they relate to another individual, (f) correspondence sent to an institution by the individual that is implicitly or explicitly of a private or confidential nature, and replies to that correspondence that would reveal the contents of the original correspondence, (g) the views or opinions of another individual about the individual, and (h) the individual's name if it appears with other personal information relating to the individual or where disclosure of the name would reveal other personal information about the individual. It is the position of the City that Records 4, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 34, 36, 38, 42, 51, 52, 53, 56, 73, 77, 82, 84, 93 and 120 all contain the personal views expressed by the individuals who attended the meetings described in these records. In addition, the City maintains that Records 39, 95, 101, 103, 104, 113 and 128, which are notes made by City staff at some of these meetings, also constitute the "personal information" of these individuals as they contain the personal views or opinions of these individuals. I do not accept the position of the City with regard to either group of records. It is clear that the views and opinions expressed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
MFIPPA
-
11(e)
-
6(1)(a)
-
6(2)(b)
-
7(1)
-
Section 12
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Sep 22, 1994
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|