Access to Information Orders
Decision Information
• “First Nations Community Benefits Agreement” between the Oneida First Nation of the Thames, the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, and the City of Toronto, dated April 2, 2007.
• Third party appealed City’s decision to disclose record at issue to requester.
• Section 10(1) (third party information) not upheld.
• City's decision to disclose record upheld.
Decision Content
NATURE OF THE APPEAL:
The City of Toronto (the City) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act), for access to the following information:
As part of our environmental site assessment process regarding the above-referenced matter, on behalf of our Client … we are requesting information in the City of Toronto’s files regarding the Community Benefits Agreement Negotiated by the City of Toronto with all Local Communities (including but not limited to Cities, Towns, Townships, Counties, Private Land Owners in the vicinity of Green Lane Landfill Site and First Nations) and Organizations Regarding the City of Toronto’s Purchase of the Green Lane Landfill Site located on Parts of Lots 21, 22 and 23, Concession III, Township of Southwold, County of Elgin, Ontario. We are requesting all information regarding this matter (both present and dormant) including the executed, final versions of the Community Benefits Agreements (or any similar agreements) from the City of Toronto. We are also interested in recent land acquisitions (2000 to present) by the City of Toronto in the vicinity of the Green Lane Landfill Site. [Emphasis in original.]
The City located two records responsive to the request:
• “Host Community Agreement” between the Corporation of the Township of Southwold and the City, dated April 2, 2007.
• “First Nations Community Benefits Agreement” between the Oneida First Nation of the Thames, the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, and the City, dated April 2, 2007.
The City then issued third party notices to the Township of Southwold and a law firm (which presumably represented the two First Nations in their negotiations with the City), pursuant to section 21 of the Act. It invited them to submit representations as to whether the Agreements should be disclosed to the requester. The Township agreed to disclose its Agreement with the City to the requester. The law firm did not submit any representations to the City.
The City issued decision letters to the third parties and the requester, stating that it had decided to disclose the Agreements in their entirety to the requester. The Agreement between the Township of Southwold and the City was disclosed to the requester. However, the law firm, which stated that it was representing the Oneida First Nation of the Thames, appealed the City’s decision to disclose the First Nations Community Benefits Agreement. Consequently, this is a third party appeal.
In its appeal letter, the law firm claims that the mandatory exemption in section 10(1) (third party information) of the Act applies to the First Nations Community Benefits Agreement. In addition, it states that, “Our client considers the proposed unilateral disclosure of the Agreement by the City of Toronto an affront to its jurisdiction and takes the position that any requests for disclosure of the Agreement should be directed to the Chief and Council of [the] Oneida [First] Nation of the Thames.”