ORDER M-700
Appeals M_9500613 and M_9500656
Corporation of the Townships of Casimir,
Jennings & Appleby
NATURE OF THE APPEAL:
The Corporation of the Townships of Casimir, Jennings & Appleby (the Township) received two requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act).
The first request was for a copy of the special auditor’s report regarding the handling of certain matters in the Township’s Parks and Recreation Department (the Report). This request also sought access to the letter of the employee whose concerns initiated the Report (the Letter).
The Township denied access to the Letter on the basis of section 14(1) of the Act (invasion of privacy). Access to the Report was denied on the basis of this section as well as section 7(1) (advice and recommendations).
The requester, a reporter, appealed this decision to the Commissioner’s office where it was assigned Appeal Number M-9500613. The requester, now the appellant, maintained that there was a public interest in disclosure of the records, thereby raising the application of section 16 of the Act, the so-called “public interest override”.
The Township subsequently received a second request under the Act from another reporter. This request was for a copy of a report prepared by the Township’s accounting firm to address concerns regarding the handling of municipal funds. The Township identified the Report as the record responsive to this request and denied access to it based on the exemptions set out above.
The requester appealed the denial of access and this appeal was assigned Appeal Number M_9500656. This appellant also raised the issue of the application of the public interest override. The appellant indicated that he was not interested in receiving access to the names of any employees that appeared in the Report.
Notices of Inquiry were sent to the Township and the two appellants. Four individuals whose interests might be affected by the disclosure of the records (the affected persons) were also notified of the appeals. Representations were received from the Township and counsel for one of the affected persons.
As one of the documents, the Report, is the record at issue in both Appeal Numbers M-9500613 and M-9500656, I will dispose of both appeals in this order.
The Letter is dated February 2, 1995 from a Township employee to the Reeve. It includes a 2-page statement.
The Report is a 16-page document dated March 20, 1995 prepared by a firm of chartered accountants. It consists of three parts. Part 1 deals with comments regarding the Letter. Part 2 consists of the recommendations concerning the internal procedures that apply to recreation revenues. Part 3 deals with the public’s perception of the Township’s involvement with the activities of independent local organizations.
DISCUSSION:
PRELIMINARY ISSUE
ADDITIONAL EXEMPTIONS
In its submissions, the Township states that:
The record [the Report] also presents an analysis of any potential problems, and options for Council’s consideration in the course of law enforcement. [emphasis added]
As indicated previously, the Township has never claimed that any portions of the Report are exempt from disclosure under the law enforcement exemptions found in section 8 of the Act. The Township’s representations do not make reference to the application of any specific subsections of section 8. Nor do they provide any explanation as to how any of these subsections might apply.
Section 8 is a discretionary exemption. In the absence of any information other than the statement quoted above, I am not prepared to consider the application of this exemption.
INVASION OF PRIVACY
Under section 2(1) of the Act, “personal information” is defined, in part, to mean recorded information about an identifiable individual, and the individual’s name where 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.
Information about an employee does not constitute personal information where the information relates to the individual’s employment responsibilities or position.
Where, however, the information involves an examination of the employee’s performance or an investigation into his or her conduct, these references are considered to be the individual’s personal information. In this case, the Report was prepared in response to complaints set out by one of the affected persons in the Letter. The complaints describe several concerns with respect to the activities of another affected person. Portions of the Report itself address these concerns, refer to individuals by name and summarize their positions on these issues.
In these circumstances, I am of the view that such information constitutes the personal information of these affected persons. I find that the Letter and Part 1 of the Report contain the personal information of these two affected persons. Part 3 of the Report contains the personal information of one of these individuals. With one exception, no personal information is found in Part 2 of the Report. This part of the Report addresses systemic problems, related to job descriptions and responsibilities, that are not related to the performance or actions of any identifiable individuals. The one exception is a comment based on the complaint.
The appellant in Appeal Number M-9500656 has indicated that he is not seeking access to the names of any individuals mentioned in the Report. Both the Township and counsel for one of the affected persons submit that even if the names and titles of the affected persons were removed from the records, the remaining information would still constitute their personal information as it would be about “identifiable individuals”. The Township and counsel state that, as the department in question only contains two employees, it will be possible to identify these individuals even if their names are removed. In addition, the Township notes that, because of the small size of the community, it is not possible to anonymize the information contained in the records.
I agree. In Order P-230, Commissioner Tom Wright stated:
If there is a reasonable expectation that the individual can be identified from the information, then such information qualifies under subsection 2(1) as personal information.
In my view, based on the submissions of the Township and counsel and my review of the records, there is a reasonable expectation that the affected persons can be identified from the information in the records even if their names and other personal identifiers are removed.
Once it has been determined that a record contains personal information, section 1