|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
M-457
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
City of Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: In June 1993, as part of its efforts to implement the Social Contract, the City of Toronto (the City) decided to adopt a recommendation to eliminate overtime pay and/or lieu time for Deputies and Department Heads. Under the compensation arrangement which existed prior to this decision, each senior official could claim up to five weeks a year in either salary or time off. The effect of this change was to reduce the compensation formerly paid to these individuals by as much as 9.6%. Since this initial determination was made, there have been ongoing discussions between the City and its senior officials to determine how this disparity might be addressed. The requester in this appeal, which is brought under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ), is a City Councillor with an expressed interest in this issue. He has asked that the City of Toronto (the City) provide him with access to the following categories of information: (1) A copy of a letter dated February 4, 1994, from a named solicitor to the former Mayor of Toronto regarding the subject of overtime pay for City of Toronto Commissioners. (2) Any other documentation relating to this topic for the period commencing July 1, 1993 to the date of the request (April 6, 1994). (3) Information about any meetings and/or telephone calls involving the former Mayor and City Commissioners or Department Heads and/or their representatives on this subject for the same time period. (Such information was to include the dates that these sessions took place including the names of the persons who attended.) (4) Any documentation which was derived from these sessions. The City originally identified a total of 33 records that were responsive to the request. The City decided to disclose 10 of these documents to the requester in their entirety, to release two of the records in part and to withhold the remaining 21 records. The City's decision not to disclose the 23 records, either in whole or in part, was based on the following exemptions contained in the Act : closed meetings - section 6(1)(b) advice or recommendations - section 7(1) third party information - section 10(1) economic and other interests of the City - sections 11(d), (e) and (f) proposed plans, projects or policies of the City - section 11(g) solicitor-client privilege - section 12 invasion of privacy - section 14(1) The requester appealed this decision to the Commissioner's office. During the mediation stage of the appeal (and within 35 days after the mailing of the Confirmation of Appeal), the City indicated that it wished to apply the exemptions contained in sections 11(d), (e), (f) and (g) of the Act to Records 1, 3, 7, 8, 10 to 12, 19, 21 and 31. In his correspondence to the Commissioner's office, the requester/appellant also raised two collateral issues. First, he took the position that further records which were responsive to his request should exist. Second, he submitted that the City's decision letter was inadequate since it did not address each aspect of his request and because it did not adequately describe each record to which access has been denied. A Notice of Inquiry was provided to the parties to the appeal, including 22 senior City officials, representatives from several law firms and a staff relations consultant. Representations were received from the appellant, the City, 21 of the City officials who collectively filed a three-page submission and the consultant who consented to the release of any identifiable information about himself which might be contained in the last two pages of Record 9. In his submissions, the appellant argued that the City official who signed the decision letter was personally interested in the result of the appeal and, hence, had placed herself in a conflict of interest situation. In its representations, the City stated that it had located an additional 10 records that were responsive to the request (which I shall refer to as Records 34 to 43). The City indicated that it would be prepared to release the first page of Records 35, 36 and 38, as well as Records 37, and 39 to 43 in their entirety. The City also withdrew its reliance on section 6(1)(b) for Records 5 and 6, section 10(1) for Records 1, 3, 7 to 11, 20 to 23 and 29 to 32, and sections 11(e) and (f) for Records 9 and 11. In addition, the City indicated that it was no longer claiming any exemptions for Record 19. Finally, the City did not put forward any representations to substantiate the application of section 11(d) of the Act . Consequently, I will not consider the applicability of this exemption in my order. The effect of all of this is that the City will be required to disclose Records 19, 37 and 39 to 43 to the appellant in their entirety. I will deal with the disposition of Records 35, 36 and 38 later in this appeal. The contents of the 26 records which remain at issue in this appeal are generally described in Appendix "A" which is attached to this order. For ease of reference, I have retained the original numbering scheme adopted by the City. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: ADEQUACY OF DECISION LETTER The appellant submits that the contents of the City's original decision letter do not comply with the requirements of section 22(1)(b) of the Act . In particular, he points out that the index of records attached to the City's decision fails in a number of cases to specify the author of a particular record or its recipient or the subject matter of the document. He goes on to argue that such omissions have made it difficult for him to make submissions on the status of these records. Section 22(1)(b) specifies that the notice of refusal to provide access (which is contained in an institution's decision letter) shall include the specific section of the Act under which access is refused and the reason that the provision applies to the record. Previous orders issued by the Commissioner's office have held that a notice of refusal must contain sufficient detail to allow a requester to make a reasonably informed decision on whether to review an inst
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
MFIPPA
-
11(e)
-
11(f)
-
14(3)(f)
-
22(1)(b)
-
6(1)(b)
-
7(1)
-
8(1)(a)
-
Section 12
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Feb 06, 1995
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|