|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
MO-1355
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
City of Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: 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 ). The request was for access to "all records in my corporate file and all management and supervisory notes pertaining to the period January 1997 to present." The appellant specifically requested notes maintained by three individuals, identified as the Area Manager, Local Social Services Manager and Supervisor Direct Programs. The City located records responsive to the appellant's request and granted access, in full, to his Corporate Personnel file for the specified period. Partial access was granted to the typewritten notes of the Area Manager, with the exception of a one-page typed letter, under sections 14(1) and 38(b) of the Act . The City denied access to the handwritten supervisory notes of the Area Manager, the Local Social Services Manager and the Supervisor Direct Programs in their entirety, claiming that these records fall outside the ambit of the Act , pursuant to section 52(3)3 of the Act . During the mediation of the appeal, the appellant indicated that he was not seeking access to the type-written letter of the Area Manager. Accordingly, this record is no longer at issue in this appeal. I decided to seek and have received the representations of the City, initially. I then shared the non-confidential portions of the City's representations with the appellant. The appellant also made submissions which were shared in their entirety with the City. The City was then given the opportunity to make further representations by way of reply to the issues raised by the appellant in his submissions. The City provided further representations on those issues. The records at issue in this appeal consist of the handwritten notes contained in the supervisory files of the Area Manager, the Local Social Services Manager and the Supervisor Direct Programs. DISCUSSION: JURISDICTION As noted above, the City claims that the records at issue fall outside the ambit of the Act due to the operation of section 52(3)3. If section 52(3) applies to the records, and none of the exceptions found in section 52(4) applies, section 52(3) has the effect of excluding records from the scope of the Act . Section 52(3)3 has no application outside the employment or labour relations context. Therefore, unless the institution establishes that the matters for which the records are being maintained arise in an employment or labour relations context, the records do not relate to "labour relations or to the employment of a person by the institution", and section 52(3)3 does not apply. [Orders P-1545, P-1563, P-1564 and PO-1772] Section 52(3)3 General In order to fall within the scope of paragraph 3 of section 52(3), the City must establish that: the records were collected, prepared, maintained or used by the City or on its behalf; and this collection, preparation, maintenance or usage was in relation to meetings, consultations, discussions or communications; and these meetings, consultations, discussions or communications are about labour relations or employment-related matters in which the City has an interest. Requirements One and Two of the Section 52(3)3 Test The City submits that the records at issue were collected, prepared, maintained or used by its management in relation to meetings, consultations, discussions and communications about the appellant, specifically his conflicts with various staff members, his medical condition and workplace accommodation as well as his grievances and his complaints to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the OHRC). The appellant's submissions do not directly address the application of parts one and two of the test to the records in dispute. I have reviewed the records and find that they were prepared, maintained and used by City management staff in relation to meetings, consultations, discussions or communications regarding the appellant's complaints arising from his employment by the City. I am, accordingly, satisfied that the first two requirements of section 52(3)3 have been satisfied. Requirement Three of the Section 52(3)3 Test The City has provided me with extensive background information describing the appellant's employment history along with his involvement in complaints before the OHRC and the initiation of various grievances under the terms of the collective agreements which govern his employment relationship with the City. The appellant strenuously objected to the inclusion of this information in this inquiry on the basis that it was not relevant to the issues before me. Currently, the appellant has a grievance outstanding involving a complaint of discrimination on the basis of his medical condition in the calculation of his sick days and an OHRC complaint of discrimination on the basis of his medical condition in a job competition, which was filed in May of this year. The City submits that the subject matter of the records relates to labour relations and/or employment related matters arising from the appellant's employment with it. The records contain information which describe the City's reaction to the appellant's grievances, workplace accommodation requests, conflicts with other staff and human rights complaints between April and September 1999 in the case of two managers and in January 1997 in the case of the other. In my view, all of these records relate to labour relations or employment related matters within the meaning of section 52(3)3. I must now determine whether the City has the requisite "interest" in these records. It has been established in many previous orders that an "interest" for the purposes of section 52(3)3 is more than mere curiosity or concern. An "interest" must be a legal interest in the sense that the matter must have the capacity to affect the City's le
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Oct 26, 2000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|