|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
M-173
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
M-9200156
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
City of Ottawa
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
The City of Ottawa (the City) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for: The dollar value of severance benefits offered/provided to three commissioner-level city employees who took early retirement on Feb. 06 1992. The requester subsequently clarified his request and indicated that he was seeking access to "records that document the financial and/or benefit package offered or provided to three commissioner-level city employees" as well as "any non-monetary severance provisions contained in the package that may have value." The three employees (the affected persons), to whom the benefits packages relate, were the City Clerk, the Commissioner of Finance and the City Solicitor. The City provided the requester with copies of the minutes of the Council meeting which considered the access request, as well as the salary ranges and employment benefits package for the City's Executive Group. The City, however, denied access to the three early retirement agreements entered into between the City with each former employee based on the exemptions contained in sections 10, 12, 14(1)(f), 14(2) 14(3)(d) and (f) of the Act . These three agreements are, thus, the records which are subject to this appeal. In his letter of appeal, the appellant stated that, in his opinion, section 16 of the Act (the so-called public interest override) should apply to the facts of the case. During the mediation stage of the appeal, the City withdrew its reliance on section 10 of the Act . Further mediation was not successful and notice that an inquiry was being conducted to review the City's decision was sent to the City, the appellant, and to the three former employees. Representations were received from all parties. On June 30, 1993, while these representations were being considered, the Ontario Divisional Court issued its decision in the case of John Doe et al. v. Information and Privacy Commissioner et al. (Unreported). This decision interpreted several statutory provisions of the provincial Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in a way which differed from the interpretation developed in orders of the Commissioner. Since similar statutory provisions are at issue in the present appeal, it was determined that copies of the Divisional Court decision should be provided to the parties to the appeal along with a statement that the Commissioner's Office planned to follow the interpretations established by the Court. Since a new approach to the operation of the Act was being adopted, the appellant, the City and the former employees were provided with the opportunity to state whether the new approach would cause them to change or to supplement the representations which they had previously made. Additional representations were received from all parties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
MFIPPA
-
14(1)(f)
-
14(2)(a)
-
14(2)(e)
-
14(2)(f)
-
14(2)(h)
-
14(2)(i)
-
14(3)(d)
-
14(3)(f)
-
14(4)(a)
-
14(4)(b)
-
2(1) personal information
-
Section 12
-
Section 16
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Irwin Glasberg
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Aug 11, 1993
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|