|
|
Document
|
|
MO-1348
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
City of Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 City of Toronto (the City). The request was for access to all copies of records described as "personal, plant and departmental"; specifically, those records: held by a shift control officer at the Humber Treatment Plant, the Acting Senior Engineer at the Humber Treatment Plant, the Plant Manager/Engineer at the Humber Treatment Plant, and any and all other individuals working at the Humber Treatment Plant that have any documents with any reference to the appellant; held anywhere at the Humber Treatment Plant with reference to the appellant; held in all departments of the City of Toronto and the former Metropolitan Toronto with reference to the appellant; held by the Human Resources Department and Employee Relations Department and any and all individuals in those departments that have information with reference to the appellant; held by the Employee Health Services and Rehabilitation Division and an Occupational Health Nurse with reference to the appellant; held by the Employee Relations Department and another named individual with reference to the appellant. The City located and identified the following groups of records as responsive to the request: WCB file - 236 pages Docket file from Human Resources Department - 167 pages Docket file from Humber Treatment Plant - 118 pages Notes from the Shift Control Officer - 26 pages File from Labour Relations - 6 pages Notes from the acting Senior Engineer - 9 pages Employee Health Services file maintained by the Occupational Health Nurse - 51 pages. The City also informed the appellant that the other supervisors and individuals named in the request have advised that they do not have any records responsive to the request, therefore access could not be granted because the records do not exist. The City claimed that all of the records were excluded from the purview of the Act under sections 52(3)1 and 3. The City stated that despite the application of sections 52(3)1 and 3, it was prepared to disclose the following records: From the WCB file - Pages 9, 25, 26, 36-38, 63, 64, 67, 68, 95, 113, 125, 126, 129, 148, 151, 154, 155, 167, 182, 185, 194, 195 and 210. From the Docket file from Human Resources - Pages 2 (page 20 is a duplicate), 3 (duplicate pages 21, 26, 37 and 38), 4 (duplicate pages 23, 27 and 38 [it appears this is a typographical error - page 38 cannot be a duplicate of both pages 3 and 4]), 5 and 6 (duplicates 24, 25, 28, 29, 39, 40), 19, 20, 24, 59, 62, 83, 85-87, 91, 96, 97, 100, 101, 103, 111, 117-122, 126, 131 (duplicate 132), 134-136, 138-148, 157, 159, 161-167. From the Employee Health Services file - Pages 7, 22, 25, 32, 35, 38, 43, 46 and 47. The appellant appealed the City's decision to deny access to the records. During the mediation of the appeal, the appellant indicated he is no longer pursuing access to his WCB file. This office then provided a Notice of Inquiry to the City seeking its representations on the application of sections 52(3)1 and 3 to the records and requesting that it address the reasonableness of search issue. The City made submissions and advised that, as a result of further searches which it conducted, a number of additional records were located. These records consist of: attendance records similar to those already located in the appellant's Corporate Human Resources files were found in the office of the Shift Control Officer and the Administration office at the facility where the appellant was employed; the former Senior Engineer at the facility located a further 14 records, seven of which have already been identified in the other records located by the City. The remaining seven records consist of a diary entry relating to the appellant and six records relating to a grievance filed by the appellant and several other employees. a further search of the office of the Occupational Health Nurse revealed an additional file pertaining to the appellant which contained 82 records. Forty-nine of those records are duplicates of other documents already identified. Records 1-4 and 56-74 of this group were created following the date of the appellant's request. The City granted access in full to Record 9 from this group of records and denied access to the remaining documents, including the duplicates. a Human Resources Consultant conducted a further search of the former City of Toronto's record holdings and located an additional 13 records which are duplicates of documents identified earlier. an additional 99 records were also located in the City's Finance Department, many of which are also duplicated elsewhere in the records. The City agreed to disclose Records 15, 18, 81-83, 86, 87, 89, 90 and 98-99 to the appellant as they represent documents which were sent to or received from the appellant. The City indicated that access to all of the undisclosed records was denied as they fall outside the scope of the Act under sections 52(3)1 and 3. This office then provided the appellant with a Notice of Inquiry, along with the non-confidential portions of the City's representations. After some delay, the appellant advised that, due to his poor health, he would not be submitting representations. DISCUSSION: JURISDICTION Sections 52(3) and (4) of the Act provides, in part, as follows: (3) Subject to subsection (4), this Act does not apply to records collected, prepared, maintained or used by or on behalf of an institution in relation to any of the following: 1. Proceedings or anticipated proceedings before a court, tribunal or other entity relating to labour relations or to the employment of a person by the institution. 2. Negotiations or anticipated negotiations relating to labour relations or to the employment of a person by the institution between the institution and a person, bargaining agent or party to a proceeding or an anticipated proceeding. 3. Meetings, consultations, discussions or communications about labour relations or employment-related matters in which the institution has an interest. (4) This Act applies to the following records: 1. An agreement between an institution and a trade union. 2. An agreement between an institution and one or more employees which ends a proceeding before a court, tribunal or other entity relating to labour relations or to employment-related matters. 3. An agreement between an institution and one or more employees resulting from negotiations about employment-related matters between the institution and the employee or employees. 4. An expense account submitted by an employee of an institution to that institution for the purpose of seeking reimbursement for expenses incurred by the employee in his or her employment. I will first address the application of section 52(3)3 to the records at issue. Section 52(3)3 In order to fall within the scope of paragraph 3 of section 52(3), the City must establish that:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Oct 13, 2000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|