Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) has reprimanded Thorold City Hall for not being open and transparent with its residents.
The provincial watchdog released three separate rulings last month that each pertain to a different Freedom of Information (FOI) request.
Under provincial law, local governments are required to provide internal information sought by FOI requests, within reason and without disclosing personal information.
According to data provided by City Hall, Thorold received 20 FOI requests in 2020, 33 FOI requests in 2021, and 31 FOI requests in 2022.
If a person filing a FOI request is not happy with the information provided — or the lack thereof — they are able to file an appeal with the privacy commissioner.
While the specifics of each ruling differ, two of the cases have the commissioner directly reprimanding the city for its lack of search efforts.
One ruling pertains to the request for original copies of certain images, which the city insists do not exist.
And in the other, the appellant believes the city is holding back further documentation pertaining to a request.
In both cases, the city “was asked to provide its explanation of all the steps it took in response to the request,” but they did not provide any further proof or information.
“Due to its complete absence of representations I must conclude that [the city] has failed to demonstrate that it has conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to the appellant’s request,” writes Adjudicator Hannah Wizman-Cartier in the two rulings, signed on Feb. 16.
Wizman-Cartier goes on to ask the city to continue searching and to provide ample proof of its efforts.
In the third ruling, signed by Adjudicator Stella Ball on Feb. 21, the fees of the FOI request are up for debate.
“The appellant sought access to the total citations issued, to properties about which the city had received multiple calls, by the city’s bylaw department over a 15-year period,” reads the report.
City Hall gave the appellant a fee estimate of $1050 to fulfill the request. They based this amount on the assertion that the request will take 25 hours of search time ($750) and 10 hours of records preparation time ($300).
But the appellant thinks the costs are exorbitant — and the adjudicator agrees.
“The city provided no details on how it calculated its fee estimate,” Ball writes. “It did not base its fee estimate on its actual work to respond to the request, or on a representative sample of the records and/or advice from an individual familiar with the records.”
Ball ends her ruling by prohibiting the city from charging any fees for the request.
When reached for comment, City Hall says they did all they could when responding to the three appeals.
“Some of them require extensive involvement based on the complexity of each case,” they write, in a statement to ThoroldToday. “Staff do their best to address these requests in a timely fashion with the resources we have available.”
