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.
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.
- Arbitrator issues helpful video surveillance award
- Arbitrator demands more of employer in excluding e-mails from work system
- With CASL, a little due diligence goes a long way
- BCCA affirms order requiring Google to render domains unsearchable
- Ontario decision suggests corporation can sue for breach of privacy
- Reasonable necessity not enough to justify collection under Ontario’s public sector statutes
- Ontario arbitration award addresses remedy for privacy violation
- Alberta OIPC lacks power to compel production to resolve solicitor-client privilege appeals
- Arbitrator dismisses privacy breach grievance based on actions of a snooping employee
- IPC Ontario says a disclosure on the internet is just another disclosure
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.