|
|
Document
|
|
M-774
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
(Reconsideration) Corporation of the Township of Ratter and Dunnet
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
BACKGROUND: This order sets out my decision on the reconsideration of Order M-705 (issued February 9, 1996). To place this order in context, I will briefly set out the history of the matter. The appellant is a former employee of the Corporation of the Township of Ratter and Dunnet (the Township). Under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) he submitted a request to the Township for copies of statements in his personnel file marked "A" to "G". These statements pertain to the election of the Reeve and the Township Council which took place on November 14, 1994. The appellant later amended his request to include "a copy of all information and documentation signed or unsigned mentioning my name or describing my character in any file of this present Council that deals with any subject pertaining to my performance, integrity, honesty and duties as a past employee and after my resignation". The Township responded to the request, including the amendment, by indicating that the only responsive records in its possession are the statements marked "A" to "G" in the appellant's personnel file. The Township denied access to these records in their entirety, pursuant to the following exemption in the Act : evaluative or opinion material - section 38(c). The decision to deny access was made by the Township Council (including the Reeve), acting as "head" of the institution. The appellant filed an appeal of the Township's decision to deny access. The Act provides an inquiry process which may be used to resolve appeals. I will now outline what occurred in the first inquiry conducted in connection with this appeal. To begin the inquiry, this office sent a Notice of Inquiry to the appellant, the Township, and five individuals mentioned in the records (the original affected persons). In response to this Notice, the Reeve submitted representations on behalf of the Township. One of the original affected persons also made representations. Subsequent to the initial Notice of Inquiry, it emerged that the Township Council could have had a conflict of interest in deciding the issue of access, since the Reeve, who is mentioned in several records, is a member of Council. For this reason, a supplementary Notice of Inquiry was sent to the appellant, the Township, and the Reeve personally, to solicit representations on this issue. In response to this supplementary Notice, the appellant, the Township and the Reeve all provided representations. During the first inquiry, which led to the issuance of Order M-705, the appellant agreed that he does not require access to personal information in the records about other municipal employees and several voters in the election. Therefore, information in the records which qualifies as the personal information of these individuals was not at issue in the first inquiry, and it is not at issue now. In Order M-705, I found that no conflict of interest had been established, and that the claimed exemption (section 38(c) of the Act ) did not apply. On this basis, I ordered the Town to disclose the records at issue, except those passages which I found to consist of the personal information of municipal employees other than the appellant, and voters in the election, which the appellant had indicated were not at issue. After it received Order M-705, the Township submitted a request for reconsideration of the order. By letters dated March 1, 1996, I invited all original parties to the appeal to make submissions as to whether or not I should reconsider the order, which would entail conducting a second inquiry and issuing a new order to supersede Order M-705. These letters reproduced the Township's objections to the order in some detail. In response to my letter, the Reeve and two of the original affected persons made representations supporting a reconsideration. The appellant submitted representations opposing it. On April 2, 1996, I issued my decision on the question of whether I would proceed to reconsider Order M-705. This was sent by letter to all original parties to the appeal. I decided to proceed with the reconsideration. In my letter of April 2, I explained why I had reached this decision, as follows: My reason for making this decision is the fact that the original Notice of Inquiry in this matter did not specifically invite the parties (including the affected persons) to comment on the question of whether disclosure of information about them in the records would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(1) or 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). Given that privacy protection is one of the fundamental purposes of the Act , I am of the view that this was a significant defect. In addition, an individual who signed one of the records at issue was not notified of this appeal, on the basis that the record did not appear to contain his personal information. In my view, in the circumstances of this case, this individual should be given an opportunity to submit representations. Although it was not the basis for my decision to reconsider, I also made the following comment about one of the other objections to the order which was raised by the Township: I also note the Township's comment to the effect that there could be a conflict of interest because two councillors (in addition to the Reeve), and the spouse of another councillor, are mentioned in the records, and Council made the decision to deny access. I will review this issue in the reconsideration. However, this issue would not, on its own, justify a reconsideration, since the Township had ample opportunity to raise this before. I enclosed a new Notice of Inquiry with my letter of April 2, 1996, sent to all original parties. The issues raised in this Notice were: whether the Township Council, which made the original access decision, had a conflict of interest regarding the access decision; whether the records contain personal information within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Act ; whether the "invasion of privacy" exemptions in sections 14(1) and/or 38(b) apply; whether the "evaluative or opinion material" exemption in section 38(c) applies. This Notice was also sent to the individual not
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
MFIPPA
-
14(2)(f)
-
14(2)(i)
-
38(b)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
May 21, 1996
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|