Town again refuses to disclose how much it paid lawyer to fight Newspaper”™s FOI request

The Town of Erin has denied a freedom of information (FOI) request from the Advertiser that aims to uncover how much it cost Erin taxpayers to fight a previous FOI request from the Newspaper.

The municipality’s latest rejection of a request for information was mailed on June 25.

The Advertiser was seeking town invoices from legal firms in relation to an FOI request filed by the Newspaper on Oct. 13.

That request was for severances paid to terminated employees from Jan. 1, 2012 to Aug. 11, 2017.

The Town of Erin, which experienced extreme staff turnover during that period, was the only one of eight municipalities in Wellington County to not provide the information to the Newspaper. The Advertiser appealed the town’s decision to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) of Ontario.

The town’s subsequent refusal to provide legal invoices associated with the FOI request, cites solicitor-client privilege and a section of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that states municipalities can deny FOI requests that reveal a trade secret or information supplied in confidence.

Municipal officials are able to deny the request if they believe disclosing the information could reasonably:

– prejudice a competitive position or interfere with  contractual or other negotiations;

– result in similar information no longer being supplied to the institution;

– result in undue loss or gain to any person, group, committee or financial institution or agency; or

– reveal information supplied to persons appointed to resolve a labour relations dispute.

The Advertiser has decided not to appeal the town’s decision to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) of Ontario.

The Newspaper is still awaiting the outcome of its original IPC appeal of the town’s decision to deny the paper’s request for severances paid to terminated employees. Both the Advertiser and the town’s lawyer, Toronto-based Aird and Berlis LLP, have made written submissions to the IPC and are awaiting a decision.

Comments