|
|
Document
|
|
MO-1531
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
City of Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The City of Toronto (the City) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to: Any and all documentation pertinent to or containing reference to [the requester]. This includes but should not be limited to reports, memos, letters, minutes of meetings, E-mails, correspondence, opinions, notes, notes to file, correspondence or notes resulting from phone conversations and any/all other related records from the past 2 years. The requester also indicated the locations where responsive records may be found. The City identified 11 separate files containing responsive records held by the Toronto Housing Corporation (the THC), which was then an agency of the City. The new Toronto Community Housing Corporation (the TCHC), which replaced the THC, is now a separate institution under the Act . The City granted access to a portion of the responsive records and denied access to the remaining undisclosed records, or parts of records, pursuant to the following exemptions contained in the Act : advice or recommendations - section 7(1); solicitor-client privilege - section 12; invasion of privacy - sections 14(1) and 38(b) with reference to the considerations listed in section 14(2)(f) (highly sensitive information) and (h) (supplied in confidence) and the presumption in section 14(3)(c) (information relating to eligibility for social service or welfare benefits); and discretion to refuse access to a requester's own information - section 38(a). The requester, now the appellant, appealed the City's decision to deny access. During the mediation of the appeal, the City provided the appellant with access to several additional records and a copy of an index of the records at issue. The appellant also confirmed that she is seeking access only to records created during the two years immediately preceding the date of the request, April 30, 2001. As no other mediation was possible, the matter was moved to the adjudication stage of the appeal process. I decided to seek the representations of the City, initially, as it bears the burden of demonstrating that the exemptions claimed apply to the records. In the course of making its representations, the City conducted a further review of the records at issue and agreed to disclose a number of additional documents to the appellant. As it is unclear if the City has already done so, I will order it to disclose Records 5-10, 23-24 and 35-36 from File #1, Record 1 from File #2, Records 1 and 3 from File #5, Record 1 from File #6, Record 2 and portions of Record 44 from File #7 and Records 32 and 55-56 from file #8. In its representations, the City also withdrew its reliance on the discretionary exemption in section 7(1) of the Act . The City's submissions were shared, in part, with the appellant. Portions of these representations were withheld due to concerns which I had about the confidentiality of the contents of some of the representations. The appellant also made submissions in response to the Notice of Inquiry. In her representations, the appellant reiterated that she is seeking access only to personal information relating to herself, and not other individuals. DISCUSSION: PERSONAL INFORMATION Personal information is defined in section 2(1) of the Act to include "recorded information about an identifiable individual". The City submits that the records relate not only to the appellant but also THC staff and tenants, other identifiable individuals who conducted various investigations on behalf of the THC or provided it with information by way of correspondence. The appellant has been a tenant of the THC and its predecessors since 1993 and has been very active in various tenant associations and tenant organizations. She has served in many high-profile positions in these organizations, advocating on behalf of herself and other tenants who live in City-owned properties. In addition to her work as a "tenant activist", the appellant has been involved in a number of disputes with the THC and its predecessors over matters relating to her own tenancy and others relating to the management of the building in which she resides. The records at issue in this appeal describe in bewildering detail a series of disagreements, accusations and disputes passing between the appellant and THC, as well as its predecessors, over the two year period covered by the request. The appellant is clearly a forceful, opinionated, outspoken and often controversial figure in the building. Her own views and those of other identifiable individuals about her are contained in the majority of the records at issue in the appeal. As such, I find that they contain the personal information of the appellant, as that term is defined in section 2(1)(e) and (g). The records also contain information about other TCHC tenants including information about their sexual orientation, race, sex, marital or family status and age. This information qualifies as the personal information of these individuals under the definition of that term contained in section 2(1)(a). The records also contain information pertaining to TCHC (or its predecessors) staff members. Because many of the records describe complaints about the manner in which these individuals perform their work or raise questions about their integrity or honesty, I find that the information qualifies as their personal information under section 2(1)(h). As the information involves an examination or allegation into the character of the staff persons, I find that it represents their personal information, as opposed to relating to them only in their professional or employment capacities. Many of the records relate directly to allegations by the appellant against these individuals in their personal, rather than their professional, capacities and qualifies, accordingly, as their personal information. The appellant has made it clear that she is not seeking access to the personal information of other identifiable individuals. However, because of the nature of the records, much of the information relating to other people is inextricably intertwined with that of the appellant. In addition, because of the appellant's intimate knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the creation of the records and the identities of those involved in the various disputes documented therein, she is in a unique position to "read between the lines" and discern the identities of individuals even if their personal identifiers, such as their names, are removed. The appellant indicates in her representations that she is not seeking the personal information of any individuals other than herself. Several of the records contain only personal information about other identifiable individuals and do not relate to the appellant or those matters which are of concern to her. Accordingly, I find that those records identified as File #1 - Records 18 and 103-118; File #7 - Records 17-18; File #8 - Records 41, 42, 57 and 63; and File #11 - Records 17, 106, 107-125 and 135 contain information which falls outside the scope of the appellant's request. I need not, therefore, address the application of the exemptions claimed for these records. Several of the records do not contain any personal informat
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Apr 26, 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|