|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
MO-1236
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Toronto Police Services Board
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The appellant made a request to the Toronto Police Services Board (the Police) under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for information regarding his application for the position of Police Constable. The Police located 85 pages of responsive records and denied access to them on the basis that they fall outside the jurisdiction of the Act pursuant to section 52(3). The Police did not specify which paragraph of section 52(3) they are relying on. The appellant appealed the denial of access. During mediation, the appellant indicated that information which he provided to the police in support of his application is not at issue in this appeal. This information is found on 14 pages (pages 065-078). The appellant also indicated that the first paragraph of the letter found on page 032, which relates to another candidate, is not at issue as it is not responsive to his request. Similarly, pages 33 and 34 also relate to the other individual's GATB Individual Aptitude Scores and are not at issue. Also during mediation, it was determined that the appellant's GATB score sheet could not be located. The appellant, therefore, raised the issue of whether the Police conducted a reasonable search for this record. I sent a Notice of Inquiry to the appellant and the Police. Representations were received from the Police. In their representations, the Police clarified that they are relying on section 52(3)3 of the Act . RECORDS: The records at issue consist of checklists, a Background Investigation Form, letters, test results, Personal History Form, release and consent forms, evaluation forms, interview notes, an application form and a questionnaire. DISCUSSION: JURISDICTION The first issue to be determined in this appeal is whether the requested information falls within the scope of sections 52(3) and section 52(4) of the Act . These sections read, in part: (3) Subject to subsection (4), this Act does not apply to records collected, prepared, maintained or used by or on behalf of an institution in relation to any of the following: ... 3. Meetings, consultations, discussions or communications about labour relations or employment-related matters in which the institution has an interest. (4) This Act applies to the following records: 1. An agreement between an institution and a trade union. 2. An agreement between an institution and one or more employees which ends a proceeding before a court, tribunal or other entity relating to labour relations or to employment-related matters. 3. An agreement between an institution and one or more employees resulting from negotiations about employment-related matters between the institution and the employee or employees. 4. An expense account submitted by an employee of an institution to that institution for the purpose of seeking reimbursement for expenses incurred by the employee in his or her employment. Section 52(3) is record specific and fact specific. If this section applies to a specific record, in the circumstances of a particular appeal, and none of the exceptions listed in section 52(4) applies, then the record is excluded from the scope of the Act . In order for a record to fall within the scope of paragraph 3 of section 52(3), the Police must establish that: 1. the record was collected, prepared, maintained or used by the Police or on their behalf; and 2. this collection, preparation, maintenance or usage was in relation to meetings, consultations, discussions or communications; and 3. these meetings, consultations, discussions or communications are about labour relations or employment-related matters in which the Police have an interest. [Order P-1242] Requirements 1 and 2: The Police submit that the records were collected, prepared and maintained for their use in the recruitment process. In particular, the Police submit that these records were collected and/or prepared by them to assess the appellant's suitability for employment as a police constable, and were then used by management personnel in relation to the final decision concerning the appellant's application for employment. The Police indicate that their decision regarding the appellant's application was communicated to him by letter dated December 24, 1998. The records document the recruitment process and I am satisfied that they were collected, prepared or used by the Police as part of this process. Moreover, I find that they were collected, prepared or used in relation to meetings, discussions or communications which took place in relation to the appellant's application for employment. Therefore, I find that both of the first two requirements have been met. Requirement 3: The Police indicate that all of the records relate to the appellant's application for employment. The Police refer to a number of previous orders of this office (Orders M-1127 and MO-1193, for example) which have held that job competitions are employment-related matters and submit that an application for employment should be similarly characterized. I agree that the recruitment process which is initiated by an application for employment is an "employment-related matter". The only remaining issue is whether this is an employment-related matter in which the Police "have an interest". In Order P-1242, Assistant Commissioner Tom Mitchinson stated the following regarding the meaning of the term "has an interest": Taken together, these [previously referenced] authorities support the position that an "interest" is more than mere curiosity or concern. An "interest" must be a legal interest in the sense that the matter in which the Ministry has an interest must have the capacity to affect the Minist
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Sep 28, 1999
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|