|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: An individual submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) to the City of Toronto (the City) for information pertaining to the development of a property at the corner of Spadina Road and Thelma Avenue, owned by the Toronto Parking Authority (TPA). More specifically, the individual requested: 1) all agreements, correspondence, reports, memoranda and other paper and electronic documents relating to the initial plan which contemplated the construction of town house dwellings on the subject land presently used as a surface parking lot; and 2) all agreements, correspondence, reports, memoranda and other paper and electronic documents reliant to the plan for the project now under consideration for the construction of town house dwellings on the subject land presently used as a surface parking lot. The TPA is an agency of the City. The City identified 1,080 pages of responsive records. It granted access to a number of pages, in whole or in part, and denied access to the remainder under one or more of the following exemptions in the Act : section 6 - closed meeting section 7 - advice or recommendations section 10 - third party commercial information section 11 - economic and other interests of the City section 12 - solicitor-client privilege section 14 - invasion of privacy The City also identified certain records as not responsive to the request. The City also provided the requester with an index of records, which contains a brief description and the specific exemptions claimed for each page. The requester, now the appellant, appealed the City's decision. During mediation, the appellant decided not to pursue access to the undisclosed portions of pages 239, 316, 393, 394, 444 and 626 and to the various pages listed by the City as non-responsive. Accordingly, these pages are no longer at issue in the appeal. The appeal was not resolved during mediation, so it was transferred to the adjudication stage of the appeal process. I initiated my inquiry by sending a Notice of Inquiry to the City and nine parties whose interests could be affected by the outcome of the appeal. I received representations in response from the City and one affected party, the prospective developer of the property identified in the appellant's request (the affected party). One other affected party submitted a brief letter simply objecting to the disclosure of any of its information, but providing no evidence or argument in support of the section 10 exemption claim. In its representations, the City withdrew the section 6 and section 7 exemption claims and agreed to disclose additional records. I then sent the Notice of Inquiry to the appellant, along with a copy of the representations provided by the City and the affected party. The appellant responded with representations, and subsequently submitted supplementary representations as well. RECORDS: In response to the appellant's request, the City disclosed the following pages of records: 63-64, 68-69, 161-165, 189, 233, 242-244, 275-282, 293-305, 308-314, 317-321, 324, 326-331, 368-369, 372-384, 392, 395-397, 407-410, 413-417, 434, 446-447, 482-483, 509, 615, 627-628, 648-649, 722, 748-749, 753, 756-763, 765-770, 784-788, 790-796, 798, 800-801, 824-825, 831, 840, 848, 850, 853, 856, 858-859, 864-865, 868, 916, 925-926, 928-931, 936-937, 942, 944, 971, 1020 and 1022-1025 During mediation, the following pages were removed from the scope of the appeal: 1-62, 227, 240-241, 418-426, 797, and the undisclosed portions of pages 239, 315-316, 393-394, 444 and 626 In the context of submitting representations, the City agreed to disclose the following pages: 73, 166, 234-238, 245, 253, 323, 325, 474, 622, 638-639 and 861 Some other pages are not addressed in the City's representations. Therefore, I have concluded that the City is no longer relying on any discretionary exemption claims for these pages. I will consider some of these pages under the mandatory exemptions in sections 10 or 14 of the Act , but have removed the following pages from the scope of the appeal: 85, 252, 288, 289-292, 385 (in part), 386, 388-391, 625, 771, 772 (in part), 773-779, 780 (in part), 781-783, 920, 922 and 924 Therefore, the following pages of records remain at issue in the appeal: 65-67, 70-72, 74-160, 167-188, 190-226 (page number 208 not used), 228-232, 246-251, 254-274, 283-287, 306-307, 322, 332-367, 370-371, 385 (in part), 387, 398-406, 411-412, 427-433, 435-439, 440-443, 445, 448-473, 475-481, 484-508, 510-614, 616-621, 623-624, 629-637, 640-647, 650-721, 723-747, 750-752, 754-755, 764, 772 (in part), 780 (in part), 789, 799, 802-823, 826-830, 832-839, 841-847, 849, 851-852, 854-855, 857, 860, 862-863, 866-867, 869-915, 917-918, 919, 921, 923, 927, 932-935, 938-941, 943, 945-970, 972-1019, 1021 and 1026-1080 DISCUSSION: PERSONAL INFORMATION/INVASION OF PRIVACY I will consider the mandatory section 14(1) invasion of privacy exemption for the following pages or partial pages of records, which were either claimed by the City or identified by me during my review of the various records: 65-67, 70-72, 143-146, 385-391, 432-433, 440-445, 772, 780, 808-818, 917-918, 919, 921 and 923 In order to qualify for exemption under section 14(1), a record must contain "personal information". Section 2(1) of the Act defines this term, in part, as "recorded information about an identifiable individual", including information relating to education history of an individual or financial transactions in which the individual has been involved [paragraph (b)], the address of an individual [paragraph (d)], the personal opinions or views of the individual [paragraph (e)], correspondence sent to an institution in confidence, and replies to the correspondence [paragraph (f)], and the individual's name where it appears with other personal information relating to the individual or where disclosure of the name would reveal other personal information about the individual [paragraph (h)]. Having reviewed these pages, I make the following findings: Pages 65-67 comprise a letter sent by a lawyer from the City to a resident in the context of a dispute regarding land ownership in the City. The land in question is in the vicinity of the property identified in the appellant's request. Pages 70-72 are an earlier draft version of the same letter. I find that these pages contain recorded information about an identifiable individual, the resident, relating to a financial transaction in which the individual has been involved, and therefore fall within the scope of paragraph (b) of the definition of "personal information". Pages 143-146 comprise an appendix to an appraisal report (Pages 89-142), and outline the professional qualifications and job experience of the appraiser. I find that the information on these pages is similar in nature to information typically found on an individual's resume, and that it qualifies as the "educational history" of the identified appraiser for the purposes of paragra
|