|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
M-208
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Corporation of the Townships of Belmont and Methuen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
ORDER On September 20, 1993, the undersigned was appointed Inquiry Officer and received a delegation of the power and duty to conduct inquiries and make orders under the provincial Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act . BACKGROUND: The Corporation of the Townships of Belmont and Methuen (the Corporation) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to the following: 1. A list of all the Corporation's job descriptions. 2. A list of the Corporation's employees. 3. The names of two employees who replaced Corporation employees whose employment had been terminated. 4. A copy of the Corporation's 1992 budget. The requester was provided access to Items 1 and 2 above. With respect to Item 3, the Corporation advised the requester that no records existed which were responsive to the request because the Corporation had not hired any replacement employees. For Item 4, the Corporation provided the requester with a copy of its 1992 consolidated budget. The requester then clarified his original request by asking for the actual 1992 budget rather than the 1992 consolidated budget provided. The Corporation responded to this clarified request by providing the requester with further information derived from its 1992 draft "line item" budget. The Corporation, in its revised decision, claimed the exemption provided by section 6(1)(b) of the Act to the 1992 draft "line item" budget. The Corporation further claimed the mandatory exemption provided by section 14(1) of the Act in relation to portions of the 1992 draft "line item" budget and also claimed exemption for other portions of the same document pursuant to sections 11(c) and 11(d) of the Act . The requester appealed the Corporation's decision to deny access and disputed the Corporation's statement that no records existed in relation to Item 3 of the original request. Mediation was not successful and notice that an inquiry was being conducted to review the Corporation's decision was sent to the appellant and the Corporation. Only the Corporation submitted representations. The record at issue in this appeal is the Corporation's 1992 draft "line item" budget. ISSUES: The issues arising in this appeal are as follows: A. Whether the discretionary exemption provided by section 6(1)(b) of the Act applies to the record. B. Whether the information contained in the record qualifies as "personal information" as defined in section 2(1) of the Act . C. If the answer to Issue B is yes, whether the mandatory exemption provided by section 14(1) of the Act applies to the record. D. Whether the discretionary exemptions provided by sections 11(c) and 11(d) of the Act apply to the record. E. Whether the Corporation has conducted a reasonable search for responsive records in the circumstances of this appeal. SUBMISSIONS/CONCLUSIONS: ISSUE A: Whether the discretionary exemption provided by section 6(1)(b) of the Act applies to the record. Section 6(1)(b) of the Act reads as follows: A head may refuse to disclose a record, that reveals the substance of deliberations of a meeting of a council, board, commission or other body or a committee of one of them if a statute authorizes holding that meeting in the absence of the public. In order to qualify for exemption under section 6(1)(b), the Corporation must establish that: 1. a meeting of a council, board, commission or other body or a committee of one of them took place; and 2. a statute authorizes the holding of this meeting in the absence of the public; and 3. disclosure of the record at issue would reveal the actual substance of the deliberations of this meeting. [Order M-64] The Corporation sets out in its representations that the draft "line item" budget was discussed at two in camera meetings of the Corporation's Committee of the Whole which took place on June 1 and 5, 1992. In its representations, the Corporation has provided evidence that the meetings did, in fact, take place. Therefore, I find that the first part of the test has been satisfied. The second part of the test, that a statute authorizes the holding of a meeting in the absence of the public, can be determined by reference to section 55(1) of the Municipal Act . That section reads: The meetings, except meetings of a committee including a committee of the whole, of every council and of every local board as defined by the Municipal Affairs Act , except police services boards and school boards, shall be open to the public, and no person shall be excluded therefrom except for improper conduct. Section 55(1) of the Municipal Act clearly excludes meetings of a committee of the whole from the requirement that meetings be conducted in public and, therefore, authorizes the holding of the subject meetings in the absence of the public. Based on the evidence presented by the Corporation, I am satisfied that the subject meetings were in fact held in camera . Accordingly, I find that the second part of the section 6(1)(b) test has been met. With respect to the third part of the test, the Corporation has submitted that the 1992 draft "line item" budget was "... the subject of discussion" at the two in camera meetings described above. In Order M-98, former Assistant Commissioner Tom Mitchinson, in discussing the application of section 6(1)(b) of the Act , made the distinction between a record being the subject of deliberations and a record containing information which would reveal the substance of those deliberations. In that order, he held that a record would not satisfy the third part of the test if it contained information which was merely the subject of deliberations. To satisfy the third aspect of the test, therefore, the record must also contain information which would reveal the substance of those deliberations. Notwithstanding that the Corporation, in its representations, has used the phrase "... subject of
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
MFIPPA
-
22(1)(a)(ii)
-
6(1)(b)
-
6(2)(b)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Oct 29, 1993
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|