IPC - Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario

Français

Site Map

Advanced Search

Subject Index Listing

Reconsideration Table

Judicial Review of Municipal Orders

Judicial Review of Provincial Orders

Judicial Review of Privacy Complaint Reports

The Acts

Recent Orders

M-282

Document		M-282


Institution/HIC		The Corporation of the City of London


Summary		ORDER BACKGROUND: The Corporation of the City of London (the City) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to information on the City's dealings with individuals and businesses associated with a particular address. In its response, the City stated that some records were not under its custody or control, and therefore not subject to the Act , and denied access to other records on the basis of solicitor-client privilege. The requester appealed. During the mediation stage of this appeal, the request was clarified. The appellant agreed to narrow the request to include only the following: (1) information in the City's possession relating to damage to his compact disk player on March 11, 1993, and (2) information relating to an in camera meeting of the municipal council held on May 17, 1993, at which his claim for compensation for damage to the compact disk player was discussed. The City then released some of the records responsive to the clarified request, and denied access to four records under the exemption in section 7(1) of the Act . The appellant decided to continue his appeal on the basis that he still seeks access to these four records, and because he believes that additional responsive records should exist. Further mediation was not successful and notice that an inquiry was being conducted to review the City's decision was sent to the City and the appellant. Representations were received from the City only. The records at issue consist of three letters written by the City's insurance adjusters to the City dated April 14, 16 and 23, 1993 (Records 8, 9 and 12, respectively) and a memorandum from the City's Manager of Insurance and Risk Administration to the City's Board of Control dated May 6, 1993 (Record 19). ISSUES: A. Whether the records contain "personal information" as defined in section 2(1) of the Act . B. Whether the records qualify for exemption under section 7(1) of the Act . C. If the records contain the personal information of the appellant and the answer to Issue B is yes, whether the discretionary exemption provided by section 38(a) of the Act applies. D. Whether the City conducted a reasonable search for responsive records. SUBMISSIONS/CONCLUSIONS: ISSUE A: Whether the records contain "personal information" as defined in section 2(1) of the Act . Section 2(1) of the Act defines "personal information" as "recorded information about an identifiable individual". The records contain information relating to the appellant's claim for compensation for damage to his personal property. In my view, the records contain the appellant's personal information. ISSUE B: Whether the records qualify for exemption under section 7(1) of the Act . Section 7(1) of the Act states as follows: A head may refuse to disclose a record if the disclosure would reveal advice or recommendations of an officer or employee of an institution or a consultant retained by an institution. It has been established in a number of previous orders that advice and recommendations for the purpose of section 7(1) must contain more than mere information. To qualify as "advice" or "recommendations", the information in the records must relate to a suggested course of action which will ultimately be accepted or rejected by its recipient during the deliberative process (Orders P-348, P-356 and P-529). I have carefully considered the representations submitted by the City regarding the application of section 7(1). I have also reviewed the records to determine whether they qualify for exemption under section 7(1). Records 8, 9 and 12 are reporting letters to the City from its insurance adjusters. In my view, part of one sentence on page 1 of Record 9 contains a suggested course of action to be accepted or rejected by the City. The City's representations state that the adjusters were consultants directly retained by the City. In the circumstances of this appeal, I accept that the City did in fact retain the adjusters as its own consultants. Accordingly, in my view, this portion of Record 9 qualifies for exemption under section 7(1). Records 8 and 12 in their entirety, and the remainder of Record 9, do not contain "advice" or "recommendations" and therefore do not qualify for exemption under section 7(1). Record 19 is a memorandum to the City's Board of Control from the City's Manager of Insurance and Risk Administration. In my view, the sentence in this record under the heading "Recommendation" sets out a suggested course of action to be accepted or rejected by the Board of Control. The author of the memorandum is a City employee. Accordingly, that portion of Record 19 qualifies for exemption under section 7(1). The remainder of Record 19 does not contain "advice" or "recommendations" and therefore does not qualify for exemption under section 7(1). ISSUE C: If the records contain the personal information of the appellant and the answer to Issue B is yes, whether the discretionary exemption provided by section 38(a) of the Act applies. Section 36(1) of the Act gives individuals a general right of access to any personal information about themselves in the custody or under the control of an institution. However, this right of access is not absolute. Section 38 provides a number of exceptions to this right of access. One such exception is contained in section 38(a) of the Act which states: A head may refuse to disclose to the individual to whom the information relates personal information, if section 6, 7 , 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 or 15 would apply to the disclosure of that personal information; [emphasis added] Section 38(a) gives the City discretion to deny access to an individual's own personal information if one of the specified exemptions would apply. In Issue A, I found that the records contain the personal information of the appellant. In Issue B, I found that the exemption in section 7(1) would apply to two passages in the records. Accordingly, these two passages are exempt from disclosure under section 38(a) of the Act . As noted, section 38(a) is a discretionary exemption. I have reviewed the City's representations regarding its exer


Legislation		MFIPPA 2(1) personal information 38(a) 7(1)


Subject Index		Advice or Recommendations


Published		Mar 09, 1994


Type		Order


<< Back

Main Menu