Access to Information Orders
Decision Information
BACKGROUND AND NATURE OF THE APPEALS: The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) to the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation, now the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), for access to information relating to how the current value assessment for two specified properties was determined. In particular, the appellant requested the model used to prepare the valuation of the two properties. The request also included all supporting documentation and studies, a list of sales comparisons, any "analyses packages" which may include ratio studies, land value studies, capitalization rate studies, GIM studies, quality assurance reports, and cross regional boundary studies. The appellant subsequently clarified his request, indicating that he was seeking records for the June 30, 1996 and June 30, 1999 valuations. MPAC’s first and subsequent decisions resulted in a number of appeals to this office, the details of which are outlined in the background to Interim Order MO-1712-1. I will briefly summarize the previous appeals for the purpose of setting out the background to and nature of the two current appeals. Because the subject matter in the two current appeals (MA-010012-3 and MA-010012-4) is related, this order will dispose of the issues in both current appeals. The previous appeals MA–010012-1 In response to the appellant’s request, MPAC issued a decision (the first decision) in which it provided the appellant with records containing the assessment value for the two properties. The appellant appealed this decision on the basis that additional records should exist, and appeal MA-010012-1 was opened. During the intake stage of that appeal, the appellant described the types of records he believed would be responsive to his request, including all data used to determine the current value of the subject properties, sales data, as well as the records identified in his request. During the mediation stage of this appeal, MPAC located other responsive records and issued a supplementary decision letter (the second decision), in which it indicated that access would be granted to some records, but denied to other records. Since the appeal was no longer restricted to the issue of the reasonableness of search, appeal MA-010012-1 was closed. MA-010012-2 In its second decision, MPAC identified that access would be granted to some records, but denied to other records. With respect to the sales used in the model to determine the property assessment, MPAC indicated that access would be granted to the sales used in the model with identifying information relating to the properties severed on the basis of sections 11(a), 11(c), 11(d) (economic and other interests) and sections 14(1)(f), 14(3)(e) and 14(3)(f) (invasion of privacy) of the Act . With respect to the request for the model, MPAC provided the appellant with some information relating to the model and to the neighbourhood covered by the model. The Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator at that time referred to certain discussions she had with the appellant, and indicated that, further to these discussions, the appellant had agreed not to pursue access to the model that was used to obtain the assessed value of the subject properties. The appellant appealed MPAC’s decision to deny access to certain records and this office opened Appeal MA-010012-2. In his letter of appeal, the appellant also objected to the characterization of his request as excluding the model. During the mediation stage of Appeal MA-010012-2, a number of things occurred: MPAC confirmed that over 1900 properties were used to determine the value of the subject properties; the Co-ordinator indicated that the record to which its decision relates (and which was sent to this office) was the wrong record. It appears that the record to which its decision related was an excerpt from the model, rather than a record about sales; the Co-ordinator confirmed her position that the appellant narrowed his request to exclude the model, and that the only issue remaining was whether he could access the sales data; the mediator indicated to the Co-ordinator that the appellant did indeed want to pursue access to the model; the Co-ordinator identified that the appellant was able to access “sales” information through the Release of Assessment Records (ROAR) at a cost, although in doing so, he would not get names, addresses, roll numbers or instrument numbers; and MPAC issued a new decision (the third decision) to the appellant, stating that the records originally identified as being responsive to his request were not the responsive records. It identified the actual responsive records, and denied access to them. Following the issuance of the third decision, Appeal MA-010012-2 was closed. The current appeals MA–010012-3 In its third decision, MPAC explained to the appellant that the records originally identified as being responsive to his request are the analytical files downloaded from the model. It then identified the “correct” record relating to sales as the “Sales Enquiry Screen” or “SAE Screen” which is downloaded from MPAC’s property database known as the Ontario Assessment System (OASYS). According to MPAC, this record contains the roll number, location, name, legal description, date of sale, instrument numbers, sale amounts, type, market amount, realty assessment, property code, property class code and market to sale ratio. MPAC denied access to this record on the basis of section 15(a) (publicly available) and section 14(1)(f) (invasion of privacy) of the Act . The decision indicated further that the appellant could purchase the non-exempt portions of this record pertaining to the 1,929 sales used to determine the value of the subject properties at a cost of $1,491.55. The appellant appealed the third decision on the basis that the exemptions claimed by MPAC did not apply to the sales information, and also on the basis that further responsive records existed. In particular, the appellant maintained his position that the model is responsive to his request, and that he had never removed it from the scope of his request. Mediation did not resolve this appeal, and it proceeded to the inquiry stage of the process. This office sent a Notice of Inquiry to MPAC, initially, and MPAC provided representations in response. This office then sent the Notice of Inquiry, along with a copy of MPAC’s representations, to the appellant. The appellant also provided representations on the issues. One of the issues in this appeal involves access to the property sales information, and whether the exemptions in sections 14 or 15 apply to that information. These issues were identified as similar to issues which were the subject of other appeals, as well as an application to the courts. Accordingly, this file was placed on hold pending the outcome of some of these other issues. However, I decided to address the issue of the scope of the appellant’s request as a preliminary matter. I issued Interim Order MO-1712-I, in which I found that the model that was used to obtain the assessed value of the subject properties was responsive to the request and had not been removed from the scope of the request. I therefore ordered MPAC to provide the appellant with a decision letter regardin
Decision Content
BACKGROUND AND NATURE OF THE APPEALS:
The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) to the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation, now the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), for access to information relating to how the current value assessment for two specified properties was determined. In particular, the appellant requested the model used to prepare the valuation of the two properties. The request also included all supporting documentation and studies, a list of sales comparisons, any "analyses packages" which may include ratio studies, land value studies, capitalization rate studies, GIM studies, quality assurance reports, and cross regional boundary studies.
The appellant subsequently clarified his request, indicating that he was seeking records for the June 30, 1996 and June 30, 1999 valuations.
MPAC’s first and subsequent decisions resulted in a number of appeals to this office, the details of which are outlined in the background to Interim Order MO-1712-1. I will briefly summarize the previous appeals for the purpose of setting out the background to and nature of the two current appeals.
Because the subject matter in the two current appeals (MA-010012-3 and MA-010012-4) is related, this order will dispose of the issues in both current appeals.
The previous appeals