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.
- BC OIPC addresses network security and endpoint monitoring
- Better breach response – how to be good when things go bad
- The internet as a corporate security resource
- Arbitrator upholds sniffer dog search grievance
- IPC tweaks data security guidance from HO-013
- BC employee medical information case of note
- IPC notes an inconsistency in its treatment of OHIP billings as personal information
- Arbitrator awards privacy damages for implying an employee suffered from mental distress
- A broader implication of the SCC’s decision in Fearon
- FOI matter moot because the stated reasons for a request spent
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.