|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
MO-1248
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Town of Lindsay
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The appellant is a member of the media. He made a request to the Town of Lindsay (the Town) under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to records related to the details of the severance package given to a retired Town employee. In particular, the appellant seeks access to: the exact amount of severance pay given to the employee; the number of days the Town is to pay the employee after his retirement officially begins on May 1 and the reason(s) the Town would continue to pay him after he retires; the reason(s) the Town granted the employee an early retirement five years before he would otherwise be eligible for it; and the number of years of employment the employee's previous contract with the Town had secured him and the reason(s) the Town decreed that his employment would be secured for a set period of time. The Town located responsive records and denied access to them in full on the basis of sections 6(1)(b) (closed meeting) and 14(1) (invasion of privacy). The appellant appealed the denial of access and raised the possible application of the so-called "public interest override" in section 16 of the Act . I sent a Notice of Inquiry to the appellant, the Town and the employee. Representations were received from all three parties. RECORDS: The records at issue consist of: the Agreement between the Town and the employee, dated March 15, 1999; an interoffice memorandum from the Director of Corporate Services to a Town employee; a letter from a lawyer to the Director of Corporate Services dated March 8, 1999 with attachments; and an Agreement between the Town and the employee, dated May 23, 1995. DISCUSSION: CLOSED MEETING Section 6(1)(b) of the Act states: A head may refuse to disclose a record, that reveals the substance of deliberations of a meeting of a council, board, commission or other body or a committee of one of them if a statute authorizes holding that meeting in the absence of the public. In order to rely on section 6(1)(b), the Town must establish that: A meeting of a council took place, and A statute authorizes the holding of such a meeting in the absence of the public; and The disclosure of the record at issue would reveal the actual substance of the deliberations of this meeting. [Orders M-64, M-98, M-102 and M-219] Each part of the section 6(1)(b) test must be established. The Town states that two meetings were held on May 8, 1995 and March 11, 1999 to consider the employee's employment situation. The Town points out that meetings closed to the public are a departure from the norm, however, in the circumstances of this matter, these two meetings were held in the absence of the public pursuant to sections 55(5)(b) and (d) of the Municipal Act . These sections state: A meeting or part of a meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered is, b) personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees; ... d) labour relations or employee negotiations; The Town Clerk certified that both meetings were held and that they were closed to the public. I am satisfied that two meetings of council took place and that they were closed to the public. Two of the records contain discussions about the termination of the employee's employment with the Town and the two Agreements contain the terms under which this individual's employment was initially altered and subsequently terminated. I am satisfied that the subject matter of these two meetings dealt with personal matters concerning an identifiable individual and employee negotiations. Therefore, I find that the Town was authorized to hold these two meetings in the absence of the public pursuant to sections 55(5)(b) and (d) of the Municipal Act . Accordingly, I find that the first two parts of the test have been met. The only remaining issue is whether disclosure of these records would reveal the substance of the deliberations of these meetings. The appellant submits that section 6(1)(b) does not apply in the circumstances of this appeal because disclosure of the requested information would not reveal deliberations of any meeting that may have helped the Town make its severance decision. The Town states that the purpose of these meetings was to consider and discuss the appropriateness of entering into the subject agreements with the employee. The Town states further that in deliberating on this matter the records at issue were considered and discussed with a view towards making a decision with respect to the employee's termination. In Order M-184, former Assistant Commissioner Irwin Glasberg made the following comments on the term "deliberations: In my view, deliberations, in the context of section 6(1)(b), refer to discussions which were conducted with a view towards making a decision. Having carefully reviewed the contents of the Minutes of Settlement, I am satisfied that the disclosure of this document would reveal the actual substance of the discussions conducted by the Board, hence its deliberations, or would permit the drawing of accurate inferences about the substance of those discussions. On this basis, I find that the institution has established that the third part of the section 6(1)(b) test applies in this case. The former Assistant Commissioner expanded on his analysis of the interpretation of section 6(1)(b) in Order M-196 as follows: The Concise Oxford Dictionary , 8th edition, defines "substance" as the "theme or subject" of a thing. Having reviewed the contents of the agreement and the representations provided to me, it i
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Nov 04, 1999
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|