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
Damages for pain and suffering are capped for Nova Scotians who are injured in motor vehicle accidents if their injuries are considered “minor.” The cap was amended for accidents occurring on or after April 28,…
Read MoreGrant Machum & Sean Kelly A recent decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Ly v. British Columbia (Interior Health Authority) 2017 BCSC 42, provides helpful clarification of the law on termination of probationary employees on the basis…
Read MorePerlene Morrison and Hilary Newman The Supreme Court of Canada recently declined to hear an appeal from the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Campbell v Bruce (County), 2016 ONCA 371. The Court of Appeal confirmed the lower court finding…
Read MoreRick Dunlop In my December 15, 2016 article, Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?, I noted the Report’s1 suggestion that there was a lack of research to reliably determine when individuals are impaired…
Read MoreRick Dunlop and Michelle Black On March 14, 2014, CanMar Contracting Limited (“CanMar”) granted a day off to two of its hard working and longer serving employees so they could spend time with their respective families. That…
Read MoreJoe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The doctrine of unconscionability is an equitable remedy available in exceptional circumstances where a bargain between parties, be it a settlement or a release, may be set aside on the basis that…
Read MoreJonathan Coady After more than five years, the Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Privacy Commissioner”) has completed her review into more than sixty records withheld by a local school board on the…
Read MorePeter McLellan, QC & Richard Jordan Introduction On February 21, 2017 the Nova Scotia Government passed Bill 75 – the Teachers’ Professional Agreement and Classroom Improvement (2017) Act. This Bulletin will provide some background to what is, today,…
Read MoreBruce Grant, QC and Justin Hewitt In the recent decision of Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong1 the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador confirmed that where a law firm acts jointly for the borrower and lender in the placement…
Read MoreThe Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co, 2017 SCC 7 at the end of January, finally answering an insurance policy question that had divided the lower…
Read More