Employment and Labour Law

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Finance for records relating to pay equity funding for the broader public sector.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under the employment-related matters exclusion in section 65(6)3.

The Adjudicator found that because the employees affected by the pay equity funding are employed by broader public sector employers and not the government, there is no employment relationship.

Consequently, the records do not relate to labour relations or employment-related matters within the meaning of the exclusion.

The Ministry was ordered to issue an access decision.

The appellant requested access to a workplace harassment investigation report prepared by an independent consultant for the City of Welland.

The City denied access, claiming the report was excluded under section 52(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as an employment-related record, or alternatively exempt under sections 38(a) and 38(b).

The Assistant Commissioner found that section 52(3) did not apply because there were no ongoing or reasonably anticipated proceedings, and the City lacked a sufficient legal interest.

The section 38(a) exemption for advice or recommendations was rejected as the report was largely factual.

However, the section 38(b) exemption for unjustified invasion of personal privacy was partially upheld to protect the personal information of other identifiable individuals, while ordering disclosure of the portions outlining the substance of the appellant's complaint.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to various employment, grievance, and workers' compensation records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The City claimed the records were excluded from the Act under the labour relations and employment-related matters exclusion in section 52(3)3.

The adjudicator found that the records related to ongoing grievances, a WSIB claim, and harassment complaints, engaging the City's legal interest.

The adjudicator upheld the City's decision to deny access and found that the City had conducted a reasonable search for the requested records.

A member of the media requested records detailing the results of all Police Act hearings involving members of the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board over a five-year period.

The Police denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)3.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the Police had construed the request too narrowly, all responsive records were collected or maintained in relation to employment-related matters in which the Police had an interest.

Consequently, the records were excluded from the Act's jurisdiction and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested access to her Employee Health Services file from the City of Toronto under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The City denied access, claiming the records fell outside the Act's jurisdiction under section 52(3) as they related to labour relations and employment-related matters.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that the records were collected and used in relation to meetings and communications about the appellant's employment and WSIB claims, in which the City had a current legal interest.

The appellant, a manager at the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to notes taken during a Stage 2 grievance meeting concerning a harassment grievance filed against him.

The Board denied access, relying on the labour relations exclusion in section 65(6) of the Act.

The adjudicator upheld the Board's decision, finding that the records were prepared in relation to discussions about labour relations matters in which the Board has an ongoing legal interest, as the harassment grievance remained unresolved and could potentially be referred to arbitration.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General for records relating to his unsuccessful application to the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(6)3 as employment-related matters in which it had an interest.

The Adjudicator found that while the records related to an employment matter, the Ministry failed to establish a legal interest that was reasonably capable of being engaged, as there was no evidence of a human rights or other complaint.

The records were therefore subject to the Act, and the Ministry was ordered to issue an access decision.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to four sealed envelopes contained in his personnel file at the City of Toronto.

The City denied access, claiming the records were excluded under sections 52(3)1 and 52(3)3 as they related to labour relations and employment matters, specifically a grievance that the appellant had recently withdrawn.

The adjudicator found that the first envelope, which contained information directly related to the grievance, was excluded from the Act because the grievance was withdrawn without prejudice and could be reactivated, meaning the City retained a legal interest.

However, the adjudicator found no substantial connection between the remaining three envelopes and the grievance, and ordered the City to issue an access decision for those records.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Toronto for a complete copy of his employment and medical files to assist in civil litigation arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The City denied access, claiming the records fell outside the jurisdiction of the Act under section 52(3)3.

The adjudicator found that the records were collected, prepared, maintained, and used by the City in relation to meetings, consultations, discussions, or communications about employment-related matters in which the City has an interest, specifically regarding workplace accommodation and recovery of WCB/WSIB advances.

The adjudicator upheld the City's decision, concluding the records are excluded from the Act.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General's decision to deny access to records relating to a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention complaint filed against the appellant.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6)3.

The adjudicator found that the records were collected, prepared, maintained, or used by the Ministry in relation to an employment-related matter in which the Ministry had an interest, specifically the ongoing dispute and Ombudsman investigation regarding the complaint.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, concluding the records were excluded from the Act.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Correctional Services' decision to deny access to an occurrence report regarding a workplace complaint.

The Ministry claimed the record fell outside the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under the labour relations exclusion in section 65(6)3.

The adjudicator found that the record was collected and used in relation to meetings and discussions about labour relations matters in which the Ministry had an ongoing legal interest, specifically related to active grievances filed by the appellant.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, concluding the record was excluded from the Act.

The appellant requested records relating to a job competition for a Legal Counsel position with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act pursuant to section 65(6)3.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the records related to an employment-related matter, the Ministry did not have a sufficient legal interest in the records to bring them within the ambit of section 65(6)3, as all possible avenues to challenge the outcome of the competition had been exhausted.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records, subject to a stay pending judicial review.

The appellant, a local teachers union president, appealed the Halton Catholic District School Board's decision regarding multiple freedom of information requests for senior staff employment contracts, retirement gratuities, and other financial records.

The adjudicator found that the exact salary information contained in the superintendents' employment contracts constituted personal information and its disclosure would be a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(f) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, information relating to employment responsibilities and benefits fell within the exception in section 14(4)(a) and was ordered disclosed.

The adjudicator also found that the Board had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records.

The appellant, an employee of the City of Toronto, requested access to his examination papers and the marking key from a promotional job competition.

The City denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)3 as employment-related matters in which the City had an interest.

The adjudicator upheld the City's decision, finding that the records were prepared in relation to meetings about an employment-related matter and that the City had a reasonable prospect of its legal interests being engaged due to the possibility of a grievance.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Toronto for access to her employee health file.

The City denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Act under section 52(3)3 as they related to employment-related matters in which the City had an interest.

The adjudicator found that the records were collected and used in relation to meetings and discussions about accommodating the appellant's medical condition, which is an employment-related matter.

The adjudicator also found the City had a continuing legal interest in the matter due to potential human rights complaints.

The City's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant, a former auxiliary member of the Sudbury Regional Police Service, requested access to her personnel file under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police denied access, arguing the records fell outside the Act's jurisdiction under sections 52(3)1 and 3, which exclude records relating to labour relations or employment.

The Adjudicator found that auxiliary police officers are volunteers and are not engaged in 'employment' within the meaning of the Act.

Consequently, the records fall within the jurisdiction of the Act, and the Police were ordered to issue an access decision.

A member of the media appealed the Town of Lindsay's decision to deny access to records detailing the severance package of a retired municipal employee.

The Town claimed exemptions under sections 6(1)(b) (closed meeting) and 14(1) (invasion of privacy) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that the records revealed the substance of deliberations of in-camera council meetings properly held under the Municipal Act to discuss personal matters and labour relations.

The Adjudicator also held that the public interest override in section 16 does not apply to the closed meeting exemption in section 6.

The Town's decision was upheld.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Northwest Catholic District School Board for records relating to a letter of concern she wrote about a school employee.

The Board denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under the employment-related matters exclusion in section 52(3)3.

The adjudicator upheld the Board's decision, finding that the records were collected in relation to an employment-related matter in which the Board had a legal interest, as there was a reasonable prospect the employee would contest the Board's actions.

The Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board requested a reconsideration of Order MO-1167, which had found that certain employment-related records requested by an employee were subject to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board provided new evidence that a grievance had in fact been filed, contrary to the factual finding in the original order.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the original decision was based on an accidental error of fact regarding the existence of the grievance, permitting reconsideration under the doctrine of functus officio.

Upon reconsideration, the Assistant Commissioner concluded that the records related to an employment-related matter in which the Board had a legal interest, bringing them within the scope of section 52(3) and outside the jurisdiction of the Act.

The appellant, an unsuccessful applicant for a Police Constable position, requested access to his recruitment file under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Toronto Police Services Board denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act's jurisdiction under section 52(3)3 as employment-related records.

The Adjudicator found that while the records related to an employment matter, the Police did not have a sufficient legal interest in the matter because there was no pending or reasonably foreseeable dispute that could affect their legal rights or obligations.

The records were therefore subject to the Act, and the Police were ordered to issue an access decision.