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
By Peter McLellan, QC In the 1970s the issue for employers was long hair and sideburns. In the 1980’s it was earrings for men. Today the employer’s concerns are with tattoos and facial piercings. What are…
Read MoreBy Jennifer Taylor Introduction It sounds simple: Two disputing parties, hoping to resolve their disagreement without drawn-out court proceedings, will mutually agree to a settlement on clear terms; release each other from all claims; and move…
Read More2015 ends with changes in workplace laws that our region’s employers will want to be aware of moving into 2016. Some legislation has been proclaimed and is in force, some has passed and will be…
Read MoreThe Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission (the “Commission”) has issued a holiday reminder to municipalities in Prince Edward Island about the importance of preparation, accuracy, and transparency when making decisions related to land use and…
Read MoreBy Brian G. Johnston, QC On the same day that the Nova Scotia government announced its projected deficit had ballooned to $241 million, it also introduced Bill 148, the Public Services Sustainability (2015) Act (“Act”). The stated purposes…
Read MoreBy Jennifer Taylor – Research Lawyer Nova Scotia’s Cyber-safety Act1 is no more, after a successful Charterchallenge to the legislation. In Crouch v Snell, 2015 NSSC 340, Justice McDougall of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia found the entire statute—enacted in…
Read MoreBy Jennifer Taylor Introduction: Did Ontario have jurisdiction? Arguments about access to justice are not enough to oust the general principles of jurisdiction, according to a recent Ontario case. In Forsythe v Westfall, 2015 ONCA 810, the…
Read MorePART I: THE NSCA DECISION IN BRINE “Disability insurance is a peace of mind contract”: that’s the opening line of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal’s long-awaited decision in Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc…
Read MoreThe taxation of estates, testamentary trusts and certain “life interest trusts” such as alter ego, joint partner and spousal trusts, and the rules for charitable donations made on death through an estate are changing significantly…
Read MoreSeveral important changes in the tax rules that apply to charitable gifts will be coming into effect in the near future. Some of the new rules take effect in 2016, and others will apply beginning…
Read More