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
Kevin Landry and Jamie Watson New Brunswick’s proposed cannabis regulatory scheme has been introduced. An initial press release was followed by the introduction of amendments to the New Brunswick Liquor Control Act, and the Motor…
Read MorePeter McLellan, QC & Level Chan In September 2017, Nova Scotia’s Department of Finance and Treasury Board announced that stakeholder input is being sought regarding potential permanent changes to the funding framework for defined benefit…
Read MoreAndrew Burke & Divya Subramanian Securities markets around the world are grappling with new concerns: As fintechs make cryptocurrency offerings such as Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs), Initial Token Offerings (ITOs) or other digital token offerings,…
Read MoreStewart McKelvey is pleased to announce the creation of Discovery: Atlantic Education and the Law, a publication specifically designed for universities and colleges. We know it is not always easy for institutions in Atlantic Canada…
Read MoreRick Dunlop and Kevin Landry New Brunswick’s Final Report of the Select Committee on Cannabis was released September 1, 2017. The Committee was appointed by the Legislature of New Brunswick and was mandated to conduct…
Read MoreJennifer Taylor A child and her adoptive parents “found themselves caught up in a judge-made vortex of uncertainty and delay” when a judge made a “self-directed constitutional reference” instead of issuing an adoption order, prolonging…
Read MoreJennifer Taylor Introduction The recent Nova Scotia Supreme Court decision in Dyack v Lincoln is a nice case study on how to work through a limitations issue. It arrives almost two years after the “new”…
Read MoreBrian G. Johnston, QC While the concept of good faith is not new to employment law, its limits and implications remain uncertain. In a recent decision, Avalon Ford v Evans 2017 NLCA 9, the Newfoundland…
Read MoreLevel Chan and Dante Manna On August 9, 2017, the Nova Scotia Superintendent of Pensions announced temporary solvency relief for defined benefit pension plans available effective August 8, 2017. The changes allow pension plan sponsors…
Read MoreKevin Landry Edmonton wants “Cannabis Lounges”, Nova Scotia Landlords don’t want tenants to smoke marijuana in their rental homes, and Calgary City Council contemplates a private recreational cannabis system. The old adage of “Location. Location.…
Read More