Institutions have an obligation to provide records in response to FOI requests; however, this does not prevent institutions from providing records or information without using the official FOI process.
It was a privilege to speak last week to all of the attendees of the Freedom of Information Police Network (FOIPN) Fall Conference at the Belleville Police Service Headquarters in Belleville, Ontario.
I was asked to deliver a presentation on the Absurd Result Principle, a legal principle with a long history in the Canadian and English legal systems.
Today’s article should be of interest to anyone who applies the mandatory third party exemption in section 17(1) of FIPPA (or its equivalent in section 10(1) of MFIPPA) to purchase agreements, service agreements, and supporting documents such as the records of discussions surrounding decisions to purchase products and/or services.
The Divisional Court of Ontario recently unanimously affirmed a decision of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPCO) describing how the mandatory third party exemption in section 17(1) of FIPPA applies to information supplied by a vendor during the procurement process and to the resulting service agreement itself.
Patricia Kosseim, the Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, has just launched a new podcast: “Info Matters”.
Issuing compliant written notices can be deceptively complicated, given the multiple sources of rules and guidance that come into play. Unfortunately, as seen above, issuing a notice which fails to meet the requirements can lead to an adverse decision against the institution in an appeal before IPCO.