ORDER M-8
Appeal M-910080
Halton Board of Education
I N T E R I M O R D E R
BACKGROUND:
On February 12, 1991, a request was made to the Halton Board of Education (the "institution"), for the following:
- Copy of the list of persons identified as Key Communicators for the Halton Board of Education from March 1988 to [the] Present
- Copy of the school or geographical area each Key Communicator represents or in which geographical area they are located.
- Copy of all correspondence/memos/invitations/ questionnaires/surveys sent to Key communicators since March 1988 from the Board, trustees or administration.
- Copy of all responses to the Halton Board/administration from Key Communicators re correspondence/memos/ invitations/questionnaires/surveys.
- Copy of the analysis of questionnaires or surveys responded to by Key Communicators and public literature prepared from this analysis.
- Copy of all expenses incurred to date for the Key Communicator program.
- Copy of documentation authorizing the Key Communicator program.
- Dates and places or meetings with Key communicators from March 1988 to present.
The institution denied access to the requested information under sections 14 and 22 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the "Act") and the requester appealed the institution's decision.
The Appeals Officer assigned to the case obtained clarification from the institution that the section 14 exemption was being applied to the records responsive to items 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the appellant's request. The institution further clarified that section 22 was being applied to item 2 of the appellant's request.
Clarification was also obtained from the appellant that what she was seeking in item 1 of her request was the names of the Key Communicators and nothing more. During the course of mediation, the Appeals Officer sought the consent of all Key Communicators to the disclosure of their names. Twenty of the 46 Key Communicators contacted gave their consent.
As a result of mediation efforts, it appeared to the Appeals Officer that the issues surrounding items 2 to 8 of appellant's request had been resolved. Since it was clear that further mediation efforts would not be successful in resolving the first item of the appellant's request, notice that an inquiry was being conducted to review the head's decision was sent to the institution and the appellant. Notice was also given to the 26 Key Communicators who had not provided their consent.
An Appeals Officer's Report, which is intended to assist parties in making any representations to the Commissioner concerning the subject matter of the appeal, accompanied the Notice of Inquiry. The Appeals Officer's Report indicated that items 2 to 8 of the request were settled during mediation and that the only issue to be addressed in the inquiry was whether the names of the Key Communicators should be disclosed.
Representations were received from the institution and the appellant. In response to the Appeals Officer's Report, three additional Key Communicators gave their consent to the release of their names, and one other submitted representations opposing disclosure. Representations had previously been received from two other Key Communicators who had not given consent to disclosure of their names.
The appellant responded to the Appeals Officer's Report by stating that she disagreed with the statement contained in the Report which indicated that the issues surrounding items 2 to 8 of her request had been settled. As a result, settlement of the issues surrounding items 2 to 8 of the appellant's request was not achieved. However, the appellant and the institution agreed to proceed by way of an interim order which would deal only with the issue of whether the names of the Key Communicators should be disclosed. I remain seized of the issues surrounding items 2 to 8 of the appellant's request.
In its representations, the institution provided some background to the Key Communicator program. It explained that the Key Communicator Program was established in February 1988 for the purpose of establishing a dialogue between the Halton Board of Education and representative members of the community. The institution indicated that the Key Communicators are volunteers who are nominated by principals, superintendents and other Key Communicators. The institution also explained that Key Communicators are asked to review and comment upon advance copies of the institution's publications, share facts about public education with others in the community, and attend sessions where they provide feedback on Board policies and directions.
The record at issue in this appeal is the list of names and addresses of persons identified as Key Communicators for the Halton Board of Education from March 1988 to the present. As I mentioned earlier, the appellant is only interested in the names of the Key Communicators.
ISSUES:
The issues arising in this appeal are as follows:
A. Whether the information contained in the requested record qualifies as "personal information", as defined in section 2(1) of the Act.
B. If the answer to Issue A is yes, whether the mandatory exemption provided by section 14 of the Act applies.
C. If the answer to Issue B is yes, whether there is a compelling public interest in disclosure of the record which clearly outweighs the purpose of the section 14 exemption.
SUBMISSIONS/CONCLUSIONS:
Issue A: Whether the information contained in the requested record qualifies as "personal information", as defined in section 2(1) of the Act.
In part, personal information is defined in section 2(1) of the Act as follows:
"personal information" means recorded information about an identifiable individual, including,
(h) the individual's name if it appears with other personal information relating to the individual or where the disclosure of the name would reveal other personal information about the individual;
The appellant submits that the information contained in the record does not constitute personal information because the appellant is not seeking other personal information relating to the Key Communicators, only disclosure of their identities.
The institution claims that the information contained in the record constitutes personal information because disclosure of the names would reveal other personal information about the individuals (ie. the fact that they have volunteered to serve, and do serve as Key Communicators for the Board) within the meaning of subparagraph (h) of the definition of personal information.
I have reviewed the information contained in the record at issue and, in my view, the names of the Key Communicators are properly considered personal information within the meaning of subparagraph (h) of the definition of personal information.
Issue B: If the answer to Issue A is yes, whether the mandatory exemption provided by section 14 of the Act applies.
Section 14(1) of the Act prohibits the disclosure of personal information except in certain circumstances. Two such circumstances are contained in sections 14(1)(a) and (f) of the Act, which state:
A head shall refuse to disclose personal information to any person other than the individual to whom the information relates except,
(a) upon the prior written request or consent of the individual, if the record is one to which the individual is entitled to have access;
(f) if the disclosure does not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.
As previously mentioned, the Appeals Officer sought the consent of all Key Communicators regarding the disclosure of their names and 23 of the 46 individuals contacted gave their consent. Of the remaining 23 individuals, three expressly refused to consent to disclosure of their names and submitted representations giving reasons why they did not wish to have their names disclosed. The other 20 individuals did not respond.
The institution in its representations submits that the names of the 23 persons who have provided their consent should not be disclosed because the exception contained in clause (a) of section 14(1) does not make disclosure mandatory. According to the institution, even when a consent is given to disclose personal information, the institution still has the discretion not to disclose it.
I do not accept the institution's