|
Summary
|
|
The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) from a labour union for "information regarding a survey conducted at the behest of MPAC". The requester identified that the request was for the full text of the survey, a full description of the methodology used to conduct the survey, the results of the survey, and other information relating to the survey.
MPAC located six responsive records and denied access to all of them, citing the discretionary exemption in section 6(1)(b) of the Act (closed meeting), the mandatory exemption under section 9(1)(b) (relations with other governments), and the mandatory exemption under section 10(1)(b) (third party information). MPAC also stated that no records exist in response to a particular portion of the request.
The requester (now the appellant) appealed the decision of MPAC. One of the issues raised in the letter of appeal was the application of section 16 of the Act (public interest override).
Mediation did not resolve this appeal, and a Notice of Inquiry summarizing the facts and issues was sent to MPAC. MPAC provided representations and the Notice of Inquiry, along with the non-confidential portions of MPAC's representations, was sent to the appellant. The appellant also provided representations which were, in turn, shared with MPAC, who provided reply representations.
In the course of exchanging representations during the inquiry process, the following issues were resolved:
- MPAC identified that it was prepared to disclose portions of Records 1 through 4, and Record 5 in its entirety, and that the severed portions of Records 1 through 4 were not responsive to the appellant's request. MPAC provided those records to the appellant, and the appellant identified that he was not appealing the issue of whether or not the severed portions were responsive. Records 1 through 5 are therefore no longer at issue in this appeal.
- MPAC provided representations on the application of the exemptions in sections 9 and 10 of the Act to Record 6, but did not provide representations on the possible application of section 6 to that record. Accordingly, section 6 is no longer at issue in this appeal.
As a result of the matters that were resolved through the exchange of representations, the sole record remaining at issue in this appeal is Record 6. This record is described by MPAC as the results of the Municipal Customer Satisfaction Survey, prepared by a consultant. It is 66 pages in length, and MPAC has claimed that the record is exempt from disclosure under sections 9(1)(b) and 10(1)(b) of the Act.
|