|
|
Document
|
|
MO-1296
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
City of Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The appellant is involved in civil litigation arising from a motor vehicle accident. In connection with this matter, the appellant made a request to the City of Toronto (the City) under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for a complete copy of his employment and medical files. The City located responsive records and denied access to them on the basis that they fall outside the jurisdiction of the Act pursuant to sections 52(3)1 and 3 of the Act . The appellant appealed the City's decision. In doing so, the appellant attached a copy of the Statement of Claim relating to the motor vehicle accident litigation. He stated that the request for a copy of the employer's file is a regular request in litigation of this type as a person's ability to work and loss of income are in issue. He stated further that the claim has nothing to do with labour relations or his employment. I sent a Notice of Inquiry to the City, initially. The City submitted representations in response. I enclosed the non-confidential portions of these representations with the Notice of Inquiry which was then sent to the appellant. The appellant did not submit representations. RECORDS: The City originally sent 390 pages of records to this office consisting of the appellant's employment file and his medical file. Along with its representations, the City enclosed an additional 20 pages of records which were located in its Finance Department. The City states that these records were located during the preparation of its representations and believes that they are also responsive to the request. The City states further that these records are also excluded from disclosure pursuant to sections 52(3)1 and 3. The records include attendance and payroll documents, letters and memoranda regarding absenteeism, injury reports, performance reviews, application forms, physical examinations, assessments and evaluations reports, medical notes, insurance and WCB/WSIB decision letters, financial information pertaining to the appellant's WCB/WSIB claim, various memos and letters relating to the employee's medical condition. DISCUSSION: JURISDICTION The sole issue to be determined in this appeal is whether the requested information falls within the scope of paragraphs 1 and 3 of section 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: 1. Proceedings or anticipated proceedings before a court, tribunal or other entity relating to labour relations or to the employment of a person by the institution. ... 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 . Section 52(3)3 In order for a record to fall within the scope of paragraph 3 of section 52(3), the City must establish that: 1. the record was collected, prepared, maintained or used by the City or on its 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 City has an interest. [Order P-1242] Requirements 1 and 2: The City provides a detailed outline of the appellant's employment, commencing in 1994. The primary focus of this outline is the medical/injury, attendance and WCB history of the appellant as an employee of the City, and includes information pertaining to the financial arrangements which were made between the City and the appellant in advance of his WCB claims. With respect to the WCB matters, the City indicates that the appellant's WCB (now WSIB) claims were denied and the appellant was requested to repay the amounts advanced to him. The City indicates that the appellant is currently on leave without pay. The City submits that the records at issue were either collected, prepared, maintained or used by it in relation to meetings, consultations, discussions or communications about the appellant, specifically about his attendance, performance, medical condition and assessments, WCB/WSIB insurance claims and appropriate workplace accommodation. I am satisfied that there have been on-going issues between the City and the appellant since he began employment with the City and that all of the records at issue were collected, prepared, maintained and used by the City in connection with these issues. I find further that these records were collected, prepared, maintained and used in relation to meetings, consultations, discussions and communications about the appellant. Therefore, I find that the first two requirements have been met. Requirement 3: The City submits
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Apr 27, 2000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|