|
|
Document
|
|
M-768
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Townships of Belmont and Methuen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) to the Townships of Belmont and Methuen (the Townships) for access to the General Accounts for the month of January 1995. The Townships disclosed the General Accounts journal with some information blacked out. The requester wrote back to the Townships asking for an explanation for the deletions. In response, the Townships indicated that it had denied access to the information which had been blacked out on the basis of the following exemption: invasion of privacy - section 14(1) The appellant then appealed the Townships' decision to deny access to portions of the record. This office sent a Notice of Inquiry to the appellant and the Townships. The notice was also sent to each of the three individuals whose name had been severed from the records (the affected persons). All of these parties submitted representations. DISCUSSION: INVASION OF PRIVACY Under section 2(1) of the Act , "personal information" is defined, in part, to mean recorded information about an identifiable individual. I have reviewed the records to determine whether they contain personal information and, if so, to whom the personal information relates. Six of the seven entries contain the name of an individual and represent payments made to these individuals. I find that the entries with respect to these named individuals constitute their personal information. The Townships have indicated that, despite the fact that there is no name associated with the seventh entry, it reflects contributions to a particular pension fund. The Townships also state that there is only one employee in the Townships on whose behalf they make contributions to this fund. In my view, it is reasonable to expect that this employee is identifiable. Accordingly, I find that this entry also constitutes the personal information of the individual to whom it relates. None of the information in the records relates to the appellant. Once it has been determined that a record contains personal information, section 14(1) of the Act prohibits the disclosure of this information except in certain circumstances. One of these circumstances is found in section 14(1)(f), which reads: A head shall refuse to disclose personal information to any person other than the individual to whom the information relates except, if the disclosure does not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. Section 14(4) of the Act identifies particular types of information the disclosure of which does not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. Section 14(4) reads: Despite subsection (3), a disclosure does not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy if it, (a) discloses the classification, salary range and benefits, or employment responsibilities of an individual who is or was an officer or employee of an institution; or (b) discloses financial or other details of a contract for personal services between an individual and an institution. The words "[d]espite subsection (3)" do not limit the application of section 14(4) to those types of information identified in section 14(3), rather they identify types of information that the legislature clearly intended to fall within the exception contained in section 14(1)(f). Generally speaking, if a record contains information of the type described in section 14(4), the exception to the section 14 exemption contained in section 14(1)(f) will apply (Order M-23). Since the individual to whom the entry regarding the pension fund contribution relates is an officer/employee of the Townships, section 14(4)(a) is relevant. Therefore, the disclosure of the classification, salary range and benefits, or employment responsibilities of this individual does not constitute an unjustified invasion of his personal privacy. In Order M-23, Commissioner Tom Wright considered the meaning of the word "benefits" as it appears in section 14(4)(a) of the Act . He stated: Since the "benefits" that are available to officers or employees of an institution are paid from the "public purse", either directly or indirectly, I believe that it is consistent with the intent of section 14(4)(a) and the purposes of the Act that "benefits" be given a fairly expansive interpretation. In my opinion, the word "benefits" as it is used in section 14(4)(a), means entitlements that an officer or employee receives as a result of being employed by the institution. Generally speaking, these entitlements will be in addition to a base salary. They will include insurance-related benefits such as live, health, hospital, dental and disability coverage. They will also include sick leave, vacation, leaves of absence, termination allowance, death and pension benefits . [Emphasis added] I have carefully considered the evidence before me and, in my view, the personal information in the entry regarding the pension fund contribution relates to a benefit of an employee of the Townships accruing from his/her employment with the Townships. The Townships submit that disclosure of the pension fund contribution amount would enable the appellant to calculate the employee's exact salary within a few dollars. The Townships provided no information to support this assertion, however, so I contacted the service carrier. The service carrier informed me that it is not possible to accurately calculate the exact salary within a few dollars from one pension contribution, as the pension contribution amount is influenced by a number of factors, including leaves of absence, overtime, lump sum payments and breaks in pensionable service. The service carrier indicates that a salary range could be approximated from the pension contribution amount but, without the details of these other variables or knowledge of their effect on the contribution amount, the exact salary could not. Accordingly, I am satisfied that section 14(4)(a) applies, and disclosure of the persona information in this entry does not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. Accordingly, the exception under section 14(1)(f) applies, and the information should be disclosed to the appellant. The six other entries relate to amounts paid to the three individuals who were hired by the Townships
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
MFIPPA
-
14(3)(f)
-
14(4)(a)
-
14(4)(b)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
May 06, 1996
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|