|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
MO-1474
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
MA-010010-1 and MA-010011-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
City of Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
The appellant submitted a request to the City of Toronto (the City) under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to information concerning a named property. The appellant specifically requested access to copies of the following: The Purchase and Sale Agreement between the City and a named third party; Any and all appraisals or valuations conducted or obtained by the City; Any and all due diligence documents, including Environmental Assessments, relating to this transaction; Any and all legal opinions conducted or obtained by the City with respect to the use of S. 11.1 of the former City by-laws to by-pass the requirement to re-zone the property for use as a multiple-unit dwelling for a shelter; All correspondence between the City and Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) with respect to the acquisition of federal funding for the purposes of converting a named property to a shelter; All correspondence and/or written agreements between the City and the named third party with respect to the future management of a shelter at the named property; The written agreement between the City and a named third party with respect to the operation of an existing shelter at a specific location. For ease of administration, the City separated the request into two files. The City assigned file # 00-1811 to items 1 to 4 and file #00-1827 to items 5 - 7, and issued a decision letter for each request. The City located eleven responsive records and denied access to them in their entirety. In each instance, the City relied on the exemptions at sections 10 (third party information) and 11 (economic and other interests). The appellant appealed each of the City's decisions and this office opened Appeals MA-0010010-1 and MA-0010011-1. In this Order, I will address the issues in both appeals. During mediation of the appeals, the appellant raised the issue of whether there are records responsive to items 4 and 6. The appellant advised the Mediator that she was aware of a reference to item 4 in a "Joint Committee Report", which she had obtained from another source. The City advised the Mediator that no records as described in item 4 exist. The City also stated that no such agreement(s) as referred to in item 6, had been drafted. The appellant was not satisfied with the City's response and, therefore, the reasonableness of the City's search was added as an issue in this appeal. As mediation was not successful, the appeals were moved to the adjudication stage. I decided to send a Notice of Inquiry to the City initially, inviting its comments on the issues in both the appeals. The City returned representations and in them advised that it had located an additional record that was responsive to item 6 but that access was denied, in full, based on the exemption at section 11 of the Act . The City also advised that it was no longer claiming the exemption under section 10 for any of the records in the appeals. A Notice was then sent to the appellant, together with the non-confidential portions of the City's representations. The appellant also returned submissions. I requested, and received a reply from the City, a response to an issue raised by the appellant in her representations. In their respective representations, the City and the appellant both set out the background to this appeal. Essentially, the records in this appeal relate to the City's purchase of the named property to establish a shelter, which is to be operated by a community organization (the named third party). Funding for purchase of the building, renovations and operations is based on a cost-sharing arrangement under the HRDC's recently introduced "Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative" (SCPI). The City developed a "Community Plan" identifying how it would "set up, administer and evaluate select projects for SCPI". City staff entered into informal discussions with HRDC and confirmed that the project would qualify in principle as an acceptable project under SCPI. City Council subsequently approved the acquisition and renovation of the named property, "subject to a cost-sharing agreement being finalized". An Agreement of Purchase and Sale was executed with a closing date in 2002.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Dora Nipp
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Oct 12, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|