|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
MO-1282
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
MA-990125-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Township of Guelph/Eramosa
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
The Township of Guelph/Eramosa (the Township) received a request for access to information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). The requester sought access to information as follows: [I am seeking] a true and certified copy of the Letter(s) of Credit provided to the Township for and pertaining to the municipal serving of the Seaton (Rockwood) Subdivision. I am also requesting a true and certified copy of any Letter(s) of Credit provided to the Township as collateral security for any and all municipal infrastructure works including, but not limited to, the Valley Road pumping station and the construction of a new forcemain from the Valley Road up to the dumping station on Alma Street. The Township responded to the request by stating that access to the sole responsive record (a two-page letter of credit) was being refused on the basis of section 11(a) of the Act (economic and other interests), "as the records in question contain financial information with monetary value or potential monetary value to the Township." The requester (now the appellant) appealed the Township's decision to this office. In his letter of appeal, the appellant stated that, in his view, the record does not belong to the Township as required by section 11(a). The requester submitted: [A] letter of credit is a banking instrument that names the Developer as the Principle , the bank or lending institution as the Surety , and the Township as the Obligee . The ownership is actually a joint ownership between the Developer and the Lender/Surety company. This lack of ownership is confirmed by the Township's letter dated March 31, 1999, wherein I am told to ask the owner, Seaton Rockwood Group as represented by [named individual] for a copy of the Letter of Credit. The Township did not [create] or otherwise generate the record, it reviewed it as per the conditions set forth in the By Law covering the subdivision agreement, a public document. … in accordance with [Order 87] monetary has to conform to the following: The information in the record must have an intrinsic value and further that the information in the record must be such that disclosure would deprive the Township of the monetary value of that information. Clearly, the document in question has no intrinsic value. It can not be sold or transferred to a third party nor can it confer any value to the Township by merely having a copy of it on file. The record is such that it gives direction to the institution should the principle default in their Corporate undertakings as detailed in the Subdivision Agreement. I believe my understanding of Section 11(a) is consistent with Orders already rendered, namely M-326, M-333, M-654, M-712, M-862, and M-897 … I sent a Notice of Inquiry seeking representations on the issues in this appeal to the Township and the appellant. I received representations from the Township only. Subsequently, I determined that the outcome of this appeal could affect the interests of a third party corporation named in the record. As a result, I sent a supplementary Notice of Inquiry to the Township, the appellant and a third party corporation (the affected person) seeking representations on the mandatory exemption at section 10 ("third party information") of the Act . In response to the supplementary Notice of Inquiry, I received representations from the affected person only.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
David Goodis
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Mar 06, 2000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|