The exclusion of “constituency records” from the right of public access in Ontario is not new but has garnered recent attention. On October 30th, the IPC held that a request for councillor records “discussing or tracking public opinion on specified issues” was not a request for records under the custody or control of a municipality. Adjudicator Liang held that, although the request was for records relating to matters within the municipality’s mandate, given the municipality had not authorized the named councillors to consider or track public opinion, the request targeted constituency records – records made by the elected officials exclusively in their political capacity.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
All About information
A legal blog about privacy and access to information, protection of confidential business information, libel and slander and the law of production. It is authored by five lawyers from Hicks Morley, a Toronto-based management-side human resources law and advocacy firm. Please read the Disclaimer below.
- “Drug abuse” diagnoses justifies random testing requirement
- Role of investigators does not support solicitor-privilege claim
- Government’s collection of census information does not breach Charter
- Information Roundup – Volume 2013, Edition #4
- Ontario master questions state of jurisprudence on OSR privilege
- Access to e-mails, text messages and other ESI
- Cole and Tsige: Clarifying the implications in the workplace
- Ontario decision deals with scope of litigation privilege, keyword searches and other e-discovery issues
- Recent OCA journalist-source case a “squeaker” with good statements of principle
- Alberta court finds that grievance response is privileged
Posts. The views expressed here are solely the authors' and should not be attributed to Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP or its clients. The material and information provided on this website are for general information only and should not, in any respect, be relied on as legal advice or opinion. The authors make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of any information linked or referred to or contained herein. No person should act or refrain from acting in reliance on any information found on this website or blog, without first retaining counsel and obtaining appropriate professional advice from a lawyer duly licensed to practice law in the relevant jurisdiction. These materials do not constitute legal advice and do not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and any of the authors or Hicks Morley. The authors act only on behalf of management. They welcome management-side inquires, but interested persons should not send any information about their matters to the authors in initial communications and before they have had a chance to complete a conflict check. Comments. Comments published on this site do not reflect the views of the authors or Hicks Morley.