|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The Regional Municipality of Peel (the Region) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to all files relating to the following municipal infrastructure projects: Etobicoke Creek Sanitary Trunk Sewer - Contract 2, Region of Peel Project 99-2960; Etobicoke Creek Sanitary Trunk Sewer crossing Burnhamthorpe Road (sewer was constructed approximately 25 years ago). The Region located a large number of responsive records and granted access to many of them, in whole or in part. The Region denied access to other records, or portions of records, claiming the application of the following exemptions contained in the Act : closed meeting - section 6(1)(b); advice or recommendations - section 7(1); third party information - section 10(1); economic or other interests - section 11; solicitor-client privilege - section 12; invasion of privacy - section 14(1). The requester, now the appellant, appealed the Region's decision to deny access to the records and indicated his belief that additional records responsive to both parts of his request should exist. Another appeal involving the same request was resolved by Order MO-1459-F in which I upheld the Region's decision to charge a fee for the cost of preparing the records for disclosure and photocopying the records. During the mediation of the appeal, the Region supplied the appellant and this office with an Index describing the records and the exemptions applied to each. The Index simply listed the records by date, along with their origin and the exemptions claimed to apply to them. Copies of the records were provided to this office as well, but only after the appeal was moved to the Adjudication stage. I decided to seek the representations of the Region initially, as it bears the burden of proving that the exemptions claimed for each record, in fact, apply. The Region made representations in response to the Notice of Inquiry which I provided to it. I decided to deny the appellant access to the representations of the Region due to my concerns about confidentiality. The appellant, in turn, made submissions in response to the Notice, which were shared with the Region. At the same time, I invited the Region to make representations on the application of section 12 to the records as this exemption had been omitted from the original Notice due to an oversight. Both the Region and the appellant provided me with representations on the application of section 12. The Region also made brief reply submissions to me with respect to certain issues raised by the appellant in his representations with respect to the adequacy of the Region's search. In its submissions, the Region revised its position with respect to the application of the exemptions claimed for some of the records. The Region has withdrawn its reliance on the discretionary exemption in section 6 to Records 122 and 124. It continues to rely on the application of the exemptions in sections 11(a), (c), (d) and (e) for Record 122, however. The Region also indicates that it is no longer relying on the application of the following exemptions for the following records: section 7(1) to Records 153, 177, 183, 184, 186, 219, 232 and 234; section 10(1) for 90, 91, 93, 98, 101, 102, 112, 118, 153, 177, 183, 184, 186, 190 and 200; section 11 to Records 73-74, 86, 90, 91, 93, 96, 100, 105, 106, 110, 111, 123, 125, 152 to 155, 160, 164, 177, 179, 182 to 186, 190, 200, 213, 214, 215, 226, 227, 233, 234 and 235; section 12 to Records 83, 89, 94, 103, 115, 157, 158, 168, 169, 171, 172, 175, 181, 183, 190, 192, 194, 196, 197, 199, 201, 203, 204, 209, 212, 215, 217, 236, 242 and 244; section 14(1) for Records 193, 195, 204, 206 and 217; The Region continues to assert that "litigation privilege" applies to Records 180, 210, 224, 225, 230, 237, 238, 241, 243, and 248, based on the solicitor-client privilege exemption in section 12. As a result, the Region has withdrawn its reliance on the exemptions in the Act for Records 90, 91, 93, 96, 100, 101, 102, 105, 106, 110, 123, 125, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 160, 164, 168, 169, 177, 179, 182, 183, 184, 185, 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 200, 203, 212, 213, 215, 219, 226, 227, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236 and 242. I have examined each of these documents and have concluded that no mandatory exemptions apply to them. As a result, they will be ordered disclosed to the appellant. The records at issue in this appeal consist of the documentation maintained by the Region during the course of the sewer construction project including various invoices, meeting minutes, correspondence, memoranda and contracts. DISCUSSION: THIRD PARTY INFORMATION The Region has claimed the application of the third party information exemption in section 10(1) to a number of the records at issue. I have reviewed these documents, as well as a number of the other responsive records and have concluded that it is necessary for me to seek the submissions of certain third parties whose interests may be affected by the disclosure of these records. I note that the Region chose not to give this notification under section 21 of the Act . Because some of the records may contain information which falls within the ambit of the section 10(1) third party information exemption, I am required to notify these parties in order to afford them the opportunity to make representations on the possible application of this exemption to the records. Section 10(1) is a mandatory exemption and the principles of natural justice demand that I hear from these parties before making a decision regarding access to records containing information which may relate to them. I will seek the representations of a number of potentially affected third parties whose information is contained in Records 1-72, 81, 85, 87, 89, 101, 102, 103, 104, 108, 113, 126 to 151, 157, 158, 163, 169, 171, 173, 174, 177, 178, 181, 183, 190, 196, 198, 199, 201, 202, 206, 216, 217, 229, 231, 232, 234, 245 and 245(b) and, upon receiving the representations of these parties on the possible application of section 10(1) to the records, I will issue a further decision respecting access to these records. ECONOMIC AND OTHER INTERESTS The Region has claimed the application of one or more of sections 11(a), (c), (d), (e) and (g) of the Act to Records 1 to 72, 73, 74, 75, 76-80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, 92, 94, 97, 98, 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 126-151, 159, 162, 163, 165, 166, 171, 172, 173-176, 178, 180, 181, 187-189, 196, 197-199, 201, 202, 204, 206, 208, 210, 216, 217, 220-223, 229, 230, 231, 245 and 248. These sections state: A head may refuse to disclose a record that contains, (a) trade secrets or financial, commercial, scientific or technical information that belongs to an institution and has monetary value or potential monetary value; (c) information whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the economic interests of an institution or the competitive position of an institution; (d) information whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the fin
|