Access to Information Orders
Decision Information
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The City of Toronto received a request under the Municipal Freedom ofInformation and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to adetailed history of certain repairs which were undertaken on a specifiedbuilding owned by the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Ltd. (MTHC). TheCity of Toronto transferred the request to the Municipality of MetropolitanToronto (the Municipality). The Municipality granted the requester partialaccess to various documents but denied access to the contractor's submission,including the unit prices, relying on the third party information exemptioncontained in section 10(1)(a) of the Act . The requester (now the appellant) appealed the Municipality's decision. During the course of mediation, the appellant clarified that he was not seekingthe unit prices but was seeking the "quantity measurements related to drops1, 2, 5, 6, 10 & 11" in relation to the construction project. Theappellant provided this office with a form illustrating what he was seeking,with the quantity measurement amounts deleted. The Municipality advised the Appeals Officer that it has available a formsimilar to the one provided by the appellant which contains the total quantities, but not the quantities broken down by specific drops as requested bythe appellant. The Appeals Officer was advised that the only document whichcontained a breakdown of the quantity measurements by drops were invoicessubmitted to the Municipality by the contractor. Once these invoices werelocated, the Municipality agreed to provide a copy of them to the appellant. Upon receiving the invoices, the appellant advised the Appeals Officer thathe was not seeking access to the quantity measurements as reflected on them. Rather, he required only the information described on the exact form which hehad provided at the outset of the appeal. As this matter has not been resolvedto the appellant's satisfaction, it was moved to inquiry. A Notice of Inquirywas provided to the appellant and the Municipality and representations werereceived from both parties. DISCUSSION: REASONABLENESS OF SEARCH Where a requester provides sufficient details about the records which he isseeking, it is my responsibility to ensure that the Municipality has made areasonable search to identify any records which are responsive to the request. The Act does not require the Municipality to prove with absolutecertainty that the requested record does not exist. However, in order toproperly discharge its obligations under the Act , the Municipality mustprovide me with sufficient evidence to show that it has made a reasonable effort to identify and locate records responsive to the appellant'srequest. The Municipality submits that, in an effort to locate the requested record,it contacted the Program Analysis and Review Engineer of the Maintenance andTechnical Services Unit (the Unit) of MTHC. The Municipality states that thisUnit is responsible for maintaining the types of records at issue and that theEngineer contacted is knowledgeable in these matters. The Engineer advised thatthe quantity measurements related to specific drops would only be contained onthe invoices supplied by the contractor. As noted above, copies of the invoices were provided to the appellant, whoadvised that he was only seeking the quantity measurements for specific drops onthe form which he had provided. The Municipality once again contacted theMaintenance and Technical Services Unit to conduct a further search for any suchrecord. The Engineer of the Unit advised that the Municipality does not create,maintain or require the contractor or the engineering consulting firm to supplyit with a copy of this record. The Municipality attached to theirrepresentations a letter from the Engineer stating the MTHC only requires thatthe "consulting engineer, hired to inspect the project, verify thequantities the contractor claims per invoice". In his representations, the appellant has provided me with another copy ofthe document which he originally forwarded to this office stating that this isthe specific document which he requires. The appellant has not however providedme with any submissions outlining why he feels the Municipality should have acopy of that specific document. Based on my review of the representations which I have received, I find thatthe Municipality has made a reasonable effort to identify and locate theresponsive record and that the search which it undertook was reasonable in thecircumstances of this appeal. ORDER: I uphold the Municipality's decision and dismiss the appeal. Original signed by: Donald Hale, Inquiry Officer February 5, 1997
Decision Content
ORDER M-895
Appeal M_9600343
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
NATURE OF THE APPEAL:
The City of Toronto received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to a detailed history of certain repairs which were undertaken on a specified building owned by the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Ltd. (MTHC). The City of Toronto transferred the request to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (the Municipality). The Municipality granted the requester partial access to various documents but denied access to the contractor’s submission, including the unit prices, relying on the third party information exemption contained in section 10(1)(a) of the Act.
The requester (now the appellant) appealed the Municipality’s decision. During the course of mediation, the appellant clarified that he was not seeking the unit prices but was seeking the “quantity measurements related to drops 1, 2, 5, 6, 10 & 11" in relation to the construction project. The appellant provided this office with a form illustrating what he was seeking, with the quantity measurement amounts deleted.
The Municipality advised the Appeals Officer that it has available a form similar to the one provided by the appellant which contains the total quantities, but not the quantities broken down by specific drops as requested by the appellant. The Appeals Officer was advised that the only document which contained a breakdown of the quantity measurements by drops were invoices submitted to the Municipality by the contractor. Once these invoices were located, the Municipality agreed to provide a copy of them to the appellant.
Upon receiving the invoices, the appellant advised the Appeals Officer that he was not seeking access to the quantity measurements as reflected on them. Rather, he required only the information described on the exact form which he had provided at the outset of the appeal. As this matter has not been resolved to the appellant’s satisfaction, it was moved to inquiry. A Notice of Inquiry was provided to the appellant and the Municipality and representations were received from both parties.
DISCUSSION:
REASONABLENESS OF SEARCH
Where a requester provides sufficient details about the records which he is seeking, it is my responsibility to ensure that the Municipality has made a reasonable search to identify any records which are responsive to the request. The Act does not require the Municipality to prove with absolute certainty that the requested record does not exist. However, in order to properly discharge its obligations under the Act, the Municipality must provide me with sufficient evidence to show that it has made a reasonable effort to identify and locate records responsive to the appellant’s request.
The Municipality submits that, in an effort to locate the requested record, it contacted the Program Analysis and Review Engineer of the Maintenance and Technical Services Unit (the Unit) of MTHC. The Municipality states that this Unit is responsible for maintaining the types of records at issue and that the Engineer contacted is knowledgeable in these matters. The Engineer advised that the quantity measurements related to specific drops would only be contained on the invoices supplied by the contractor.
As noted above, copies of the invoices were provided to the appellant, who advised that he was only seeking the quantity measurements for specific drops on the form which he had provided. The Municipality once again contacted the Maintenance and Technical Services Unit to conduct a further search for any such record. The Engineer of the Unit advised that the Municipality does not create, maintain or require the contractor or the engineering consulting firm to supply it with a copy of this record. The Municipality attached to their representations a letter from the Engineer stating the MTHC only requires that the “consulting engineer, hired to inspect the project, verify the quantities the contractor claims per invoice”.
In his representations, the appellant has provided me with another copy of the document which he originally forwarded to this office stating that this is the specific document which he requires. The appellant has not however provided me with any submissions outlining why he feels the Municipality should have a copy of that specific document.
Based on my review of the representations which I have received, I find that the Municipality has made a reasonable effort to identify and locate the responsive record and that the search which it undertook was reasonable in the circumstances of this appeal.
ORDER:
I uphold the Municipality’s decision and dismiss the appeal.
Original signed by: February 5, 1997
Donald Hale
Inquiry Officer