Skip to content

Court upheld municipality’s refusal to disclose investigation report

By Sheila Mecking and Sarah Dever Letson

A recent decision out of the Court of King’s Bench of New Brunswick,[1] upheld the Municipality of Tantramar’s decision to withhold a Workplace Assessment Report under section 20(1) of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“RTIPPA”).

What is the exception under section 20(1) of RTIPPA?

One of the purposes of the RTIPPA is to provide access to information, but that is not without limitations. Section 20(1) is a mandatory exception that requires a public body to refuse to disclose information that would reveal the substance of records relating to a personnel or harassment investigation, including those records made by an investigator retained to provide advice or recommendations in the context of such investigation.

Without the protection from disclosure provided by this exception, participants may be less inclined to participate honestly in the investigative process. The section 20(1) exception allows investigators to conduct their work thoroughly, while instilling confidence in all participants that their information and disclosures will remain private and confidential. Investigations are sensitive matters that require confidentiality in order to maintain their integrity and be effective in achieving their purpose.

Phinney v Municipality of Tantramar

In this case, a Town Councillor filed an application seeking an order under the RTIPPA for access to a copy of a Workplace Assessment Report prepared following an assessment of alleged personnel issues in the Sackville Fire Department.

Tantramar declined the request. The requested record was a report completed by an investigator retained to provide advice and draw conclusions in relation to a personnel investigation. Tantramar’s position was that they were prevented from disclosing this record under s. 20(1) of the RTIPPA.

Councillor Phinney did not agree with Tantramar’s refusal to disclose the report and sought review of this decision in the Court of King’s Bench. The Court upheld Tantramar’s decision, finding that  Tantramar was well within its right to deny Councillor Phinney’s request.  The Court stated that the disclosure of the requested report would undermine the purpose of section 20(1) and have a chilling effect on personnel and harassment investigations.

How this may affect you

As a public body, under the RTIPPA, you may be required to disclose certain information upon receipt of an access to information request; however, there are many exceptions contained in the Act that may limit disclosure.  Before any information is disclosed, you should consult with our privacy experts to ensure you are complying with all relevant legislation.


This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Labour & Employment Group.

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership. 

[1] Phinney v Municipality of Tantramar, 2024 NBKB 62.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Let’s talk about batteries: Nova Scotia Power’s latest development in renewable energy

July 18, 2024

In conjunction with our upcoming sponsorship of the Halifax Chamber of Commerce luncheon, featuring the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources the Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson, we are pleased to present a Thought Leadership article highlighting…

Read More

“Sale” away: The SCC’s more flexible approach to exclusion clauses in contracts for the sale of goods

July 9, 2024

By Jennifer Taylor & Marina Luro A recent Supreme Court of Canada decision has clarified how to interpret exclusion clauses in sale of goods contracts. The Court in Earthco Soil Mixtures Inc. v Pine Valley…

Read More

Recent case re-confirms temporary ailment is not a disability

June 24, 2024

By Mark Tector and Tiegan A. Scott Decision On April 3, 2024, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench (“ABKB”) upheld a decision of the Chief of the Commissions and Tribunals (the “CCT Decision”), which held…

Read More

Compensation for expropriation: Fair, but not more than fair

June 17, 2024

By Erin Best, Stephen Penney, Robert Bradley, Megan Kieley1 and Elizabeth Fleet1 Expropriation is a live issue in Canadian courts. The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision to broaden the test for constructive expropriation in Annapolis…

Read More

Changes affecting federally regulated employers

June 10, 2024

By Killian McParland and Sophie Poulos There have been many changes in recent months affecting employers governed by federal labour and employment laws. In September 2024, Stewart McKelvey will be hosting a webinar to review…

Read More

Impending changes to Nova Scotia’s Workers’ Compensation Act – Gradual onset stress

June 4, 2024

By Mark Tector and Annie Gray What’s changing? Currently, workers’ compensation coverage in Nova Scotia applies to only a narrow subset of psychological injuries. Specifically, in Nova Scotia – as in all Atlantic Provinces –…

Read More

Appeal Courts uphold substantial costs awards for regulators

May 22, 2024

By Sean Kelly & Michiko Gartshore Professional regulators can incur substantial costs through discipline processes. These costs are often associated with investigations, hearings as well as committee member expenses and are an unfortunate by-product of…

Read More

Less than two weeks to go … Canada Supply Chain Transparency Reports are due May 31st

May 21, 2024

By Christine Pound, ICD.D., Twila Reid, ICD.D., Sarah Dever Letson, CIPP/C, Sheila Mecking, Hilary Newman, and Daniel Roth Introduction The first reports under the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (the…

Read More

Court upheld municipality’s refusal to disclose investigation report

May 1, 2024

By Sheila Mecking and Sarah Dever Letson A recent decision out of the Court of King’s Bench of New Brunswick,[1] upheld the Municipality of Tantramar’s decision to withhold a Workplace Assessment Report under section 20(1)…

Read More

Occupational Health and Safety sentencing decision – Nova Scotia

April 29, 2024

By Sean Kelly & Tiegan Scott Earlier this month, the Provincial Court of Nova Scotia issued its sentencing decision in R v The Brick Warehouse LP, 2024 NSPC 26, imposing a monetary penalty of $143,750 (i.e.,…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top