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.
Archive
Chad Sullivan and Kathleen Nash In a recent decision from the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, Abrams v RTO Asset Management, 2020 NBCA 57, the court clarified the procedure for seeking summary judgment and addresses…
Read MoreKathleen Leighton In Canada, foreign nationals have various options to obtain either “employer-specific” or “open” work permits – we discuss this distinction in greater detail here. Open work permits can be obtained by individuals in…
Read MoreGiles Ayers and Joe Thorne Introduction Balancing a municipal budget has always been a challenging task in Newfoundland and Labrador, and this is particularly true in a year of extreme weather events and a global…
Read MoreWe are pleased to present the third installment of Beyond the border, a publication aimed at providing the latest information to clients about new programs and other immigration-related information that may be pertinent to employers of…
Read MoreHarold M. Smith, QC and G. John Samms Effective Monday, August 24, 2020, an order directing the mandatory wearing of masks, pursuant to the Public Health and Protection Act and the Special Measures Orders made…
Read MoreGerald McMackin, QC and Christopher Marr, TEP New Brunswick joined the rest of Canada in enacting legislation that deals solely with powers of attorney when the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act (“Act”) came into force…
Read MoreMurray Murphy, QC, CPHR and Kate Jurgens Three new bills have been introduced in the most recent sitting of the Prince Edward Island legislature. In the employment setting Bill 38 aims to address the prevalence…
Read MoreJennifer Taylor The Supreme Court of Canada has finally put an end to the “waiver of tort” debate. After years of uncertainty, a majority of the Court confirmed in Atlantic Lottery Corp Inc…
Read MoreStephen Penney and Justin Hewitt As municipalities begin opening up recreational facilities in Alert Level 2 of the COVID-19 public health emergency implemented by the Provincial Government, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador has been receiving inquiries…
Read MoreThere is no obligation upon a municipality to reduce a business tax due to limited operations secondary to the COVID-19 pandemic. A municipality does, however, have the discretion to offer business tax relief. If a…
Read More