|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
M-892
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
M-9600245
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Town of Meaford
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
In a number of letters addressed to the Town of Meaford (the Town), theappellant company (the company) indicates that it was the "lowest bidder"for a specified project, and notes that the Town awarded the contract to thesecond lowest bidder. The company advised the Town that it would be seekingdamages resulting from the loss of the contract. In this context, and in anattempt to avoid legal proceedings, the company made a request to the Town underthe Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for the following information: minutes of all public Committee meetings at which the tenders werediscussed; the places, dates and particulars of all in camera Committee and all otherclosed door meetings, formal or informal, at which the tenders were discussed orreviewed, including the names of all individuals present at such meetings; any and all reports prepared by the Town's professional consultants andany and all recommendations prepared by them and any other entities orindividuals in respect of the tenders; a copy of the Town's general purchasing by-law and any other relevantby-law or guideline that governs the awarding of contracts generally; the name of any person(s) who provided the Town with an unfavourablereference; and any other relevant information available to the company. The Town located records responsive to the request and granted partialaccess to them. Access was denied to two letters in their entirety on the basisof section 7(1) of the Act (advice and recommendations). In addition,the Town advised that access was denied to copies of any by-laws of the naturerequested as such by-laws do not exist. The company appealed the Town's decision to deny access to the two letterson the basis of section 7(1). In addition, the company indicated that itbelieved more records should exist. This office provided a Notice of Inquiry (the NOI) to the Town and thecompany. The records appeared to contain information pertaining to the winningbidder and an engineering consulting firm (the affected parties). Accordingly,the Appeals Officer raised the possible application of the mandatory exemptionin section 10(1), and provided copies of the NOI to the affected parties. Representations were received from the Town and the company. During the inquiry stage, I determined that the interests of the OntarioClean Water Agency (OCWA), which is a Scheduled institution under Regulation 516of the provincial Act , might be affected by disclosure of the records. Accordingly, this office provided a Supplementary Notice of Inquiry to theparties, including OCWA. The Supplementary Notice raised the possibleapplication of the mandatory exemption in section 9(1) (relations with othergovernments). The company submitted additional representations in response tothe Supplementary Notice of Inquiry. The Town provided additional informationregarding its relationship with OCWA and the engineering consulting firmreferred to above (the consultants). The records at issue in this appeal consist of a letter from OCWA to theTown dated March 25, 1996 (Record 1) and a covering letter (Record 2) withattachments (Records 3 and 4) dated March 5, 1996 from the consultants to OCWA,and copied to the Town. Record 3 is a Report on Tenders and Record 4 is aProject Cost Estimate. Both documents were prepared by the consultants andcontain an assessment of the tenders received by the Town for the project, withparticular emphasis on the two lowest bidders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
MFIPPA
-
10(1)(b)
-
7(1)
-
7(2)
-
Section 16
-
9(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Laurel Cropley
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Jan 22, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|