IPC - Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario

Français

Site Map

Advanced Search

Subject Index Listing

Reconsideration Table

Judicial Review of Municipal Orders

Judicial Review of Provincial Orders

Judicial Review of Privacy Complaint Reports

The Acts

Recent Orders

M-412

Document		M-412


Institution/HIC		Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk


Summary		NATURE OF THE APPEAL: This is an appeal under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). The requester initially asked the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk (the Region) for access to a series of credit card receipts which listed the expenses incurred by a named employee during 1991 and 1992. The requester represents a taxpayer's organization. The Region located the receipts in question and released the front sides of the slips to the requester with the exception of the employee's credit card number. The Region also agreed to disclose the names of 19 people who were listed on the back of one or more of these receipts where these individuals were elected or appointed officials. The Region declined, however, to release the names of the remaining individuals referred on the receipts based on the third party information exemption found in section 10(1) of the Act . The requester appealed this decision to the Commissioner's office but subsequently decided not to fully proceed with the matter. The requester then made a second request to the Region for access to the names listed on the back of 10 of the credit card receipts. The Region again decided not to disclose these names based on the following exemptions contained in the Act : information furnished by a confidential source - section 8(1)(d) third party information - section 10(1) economic and other interests - sections 11(c) and (d). The requester then filed a second appeal with the Commissioner's office. A Notice of Inquiry was provided to the parties to the appeal. These included six individuals whose names appeared on the back of one or more of the credit card receipts where it was possible to ascertain their current addresses. This notice also asked the parties to comment on whether the mandatory exemption contained in section 14(1) of the Act (invasion of privacy) applied to the information at issue. Representations were received from the appellant, the Region and one of the named individuals. This individual consented to the release of his name. DISCUSSION: INVASION OF PRIVACY Under section 2(1) of the Act , "personal information" is defined, in part, to mean recorded information about an identifiable individual, including the individual's name where it appears with other personal information relating to the individual or where the disclosure of the name would reveal other personal information about the individual. In this appeal, the information at issue consists of the names of 18 individuals who are listed on the back of the 10 credit card receipts. In his representations, the appellant argues that the names in question relate to the individuals in their business rather than their personal capacities. He goes on to state that there is nothing personal about a business lunch which is paid for by taxpayer funds. The Region takes a similar position and submits that the individuals referred to in the credit card slips were the employee's business contacts. The Region also submits that meetings between the employee and these individuals would occur for business reasons. None of the other parties who were notified of this appeal chose to make representations on this subject. I have carefully reflected on these submissions in conjunction with the contents of the records. Based on the evidence before me, I find that the records refer to the individuals in a business as opposed to a personal capacity. For this reason, I conclude that the names do not constitute personal information for the purposes of the Act . Since I have found that the contents of the credit card slips do not contain personal information, it follows that the release of this information would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy for the purposes of section 14(1) of the Act . INFORMATION FURNISHED BY A CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE The Region claims that section 8(1)(d) of the Act applies to exempt the names of the 18 individuals from disclosure. This section provides that the Region may refuse to release a record if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source of information in respect of a law enforcement matter or disclose information furnished only by the confidential source. In order for this exemption to apply to a record, the Region must establish that the release of the document would create a reasonable expectation of probable harm. At a minimum, the Region must establish a clear and direct linkage between the disclosure of the information in question and the harm which is alleged. In its representations, the Region indicates that both the Ontario Provincial Police and the Region, itself, have investigated the accuracy of the expense claims. The Region then submits that the release of the names of the 18 individuals could disclose the identity of a confidential source of information with respect to this law enforcement matter. I have carefully considered the representations put forward by the Region which are quite general in nature. I find that the evidence before me is insufficient to establish that the release of the names of these individuals could reasonably be expected to disclose (1) the identity of a confidential source of information in respect of a law enforcement matter or (2) information furnished only by the confidential source. The result is that the section 8(1)(d) exemption does not apply to the information contained in the records. THIRD PARTY INFORMATION The Region also claims that sections 10(1)(a) and (b) of the Act apply to the names listed on the credit card receipts. For a document to qualify for exemption under these provisions, the Region must satisfy each part of the following three-part test: 1. the record must reveal information that is a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information; and 2. the information must have been supplied to the institution in confidence, either implicitly or explicitly; and 3. the prospect of disclosure of the record must give rise to a reasonable expectation that one of the harms specified in sections 10(1)(a) or (b) will occur. I will first consider the second component of the test. To satisfy part two of the test, the Region must establish that the


Legislation		MFIPPA 10(1)(a) 10(1)(b) 8(1)(d)


Subject Index		business/personal information


Published		Oct 28, 1994


Type		Order


<< Back

Main Menu