|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
MO-1450
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
MA-990302-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
City of Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
This is an appeal from a decision of the City of Toronto (the City) made under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). As background, the appeal arises out of a decision by the City to undertake a redevelopment project at the corner of Yonge and Dundas Streets in downtown Toronto. Between February and May of 1998, the Ontario Municipal Board (the OMB) considered the City's redevelopment plan, including amendments to the Official Plan, Community Improvement Plan and Zoning By-law, and the City's application to expropriate land in connection with the project. In June of 1998, the OMB approved the plan, including the intended expropriations. There is an impending hearing before the OMB to determine the compensation to be paid by the City to some of the former owners of the expropriated land, including the appellants. The appellants will be parties to this hearing. The appellants made a request under the Act to the City for copies of all exhibits and documents filed by the City at the hearing before the OMB. The City granted access in full to one exhibit, and denied access to the remaining records, relying on the mandatory exemption in section 10(1) of the Act (third party information), the discretionary exemption found in section 11 (prejudice to economic, competitive or financial interests of the City) and the mandatory exemption in section 14 (unjustified invasion of personal privacy). The City also cited section 12 (solicitor-client privilege) in its decision as a basis for denying access to two specific records. The appellants appealed the City's decision to deny access to certain records. During the course of mediation through this office, some issues were narrowed or clarified. After the appeal was filed, the City indicated that it intended to rely on section 12 (solicitor-client privilege) with respect to further records. The appellants objected to this, on the basis, among other things, that the City was precluded from raising an additional exemption at this stage in the process. During mediation, the City agreed to forgo its reliance on section 12 in this appeal. This was confirmed by the mediator in correspondence to the parties, as well as in the Report of Mediator. I sent a Notice of Inquiry to the City and to three affected parties initially (a developer and two theatre companies), inviting representations on the issues raised by this appeal. In addition to the exemptions relied on by the City, I also included section 38(b) of the Act in the list of issues to be considered since it appeared that this provision may be relevant. I received representations from the City and two affected parties (the developer and one of the theatre companies). The appellants were sent the representations of the City, with the exception of certain portions which were severed for confidentiality reasons, as well as the representations of the affected parties in their entirety, and were also invited to submit representations. Finally, I sought reply representations from the City in relation to certain issues raised in the submissions of the appellants. In this decision, unless otherwise indicated, references to "the theatre company" refer to the company which has provided representations in response to the Notice of Inquiry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
MFIPPA
-
11(c)
-
11(d)
-
14(1)(f)
-
7(1)
-
7(2)(c)
-
7(2)(f)
-
10(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Sherry Liang
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Jun 29, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|