Access to Information Orders
Decision Information
• Request for expense accounts details and employment terms and benefits of senior executives of the OEB.
• Section 65(6)3 (labour relations and employment) applies to agreement between former and current employer regarding respective contributions to employee’s Supplementary Pension Plan
• Section 2(1) “personal information” definition – names and contact details of individuals receiving gifts or entertained not personal information as names appear in a business context and the disclosure of their names would not reveal anything of a personal nature about the individuals. Not exempt.
• Section 21(1) (personal privacy) – applies to some information
• Section 18(1)(e) and (f) (economic and other interests) not upheld
• Some records ordered disclosed
• Fee upheld
• Reasonable search – search upheld as reasonable
Decision Content
NATURE OF THE APPEAL:
The Ontario Energy Board (the OEB) received four requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to information relating to four senior executives of the OEB. The information requested was as follows:
For [Executive 1]-
1. compensation details, including salary and bonus (received and deferred bonus); details should include bonus approval process and letters of approval authorizing all bonus from June 1, 2003 to August 31, 2005;
2. details of pension plan, any enhanced or supplemental pension plans;
3. expense records including, but not limited to office, personal, travel, food, accommodations, hospitality, car or limousine services, club/association memberships, and sundry from June 1, 2003 to August 31, 2005; and
4. expense records for [Executive 1]’s office and [Executive 1]’s Boardroom construction, for renovations from June 1, 2003 to August 31, 2005 including interior design costs, furniture, paint, carpeting/flooring etc.
For [Executive 2] -
- contract with compensation details for [Executive 2] with OEB from the period between December 2003 to April 2004;
- compensation details including salary and bonus (received or deferred); details should include bonus approval process, performance measures and letters of approval authorizing bonus from May 1, 2003 to August 31, 2005;
- details of pension plan, any enhanced or supplemental pension plans; and
- expense records including, but not limited to office, travel, accommodations, food, hospitality, personal, wardrobe, club/association memberships, car or limousine services, taxi and sundry items from June 1, 2003 to August 31, 2005.
For [Executive 3]-
- compensation details, including salary and bonus (received and deferred bonus); details should include bonus approval process and letters of approval authorizing all bonus from March 1, 2004 to April 30, 2005;
- details of pension plan and any enhanced or supplemental pension plan;
- expense records including, but not limited to, office, personal, travel, food, accommodation, hospitality, car or limousine services, club/association memberships and sundry from March 1, 2004 to April 30, 2005; and,
- expense records for [Executive 3]’s office and [Executive 3]’s construction and/or renovations from March 1, 2004 to April 30, 2005 including interior design costs, furniture, paint, carpeting/flooring, etc.
For [Executive 4]-
- compensation details, including salary and bonus (received and deferred bonus); details should include bonus approval process and letters of approval authorizing all bonus from July 1, 2004 to August 31, 2005;
- details of pension plan, any enhanced or supplemental pension plans;
- expense records including, but not limited to office, personal, travel, food, accommodations, hospitality, car or limousine services, club/association memberships, taxi and sundry from July 1, 2004 to August 31, 2005; and
- expense records for [Executive 4]’s office and [Executive 4]’s construction and/or renovations from June 1, 2004 to August 31, 2005 including interior design costs, furniture, paint, carpeting/flooring, etc.
Following discussions with the OEB, the requester agreed to narrow his request in relation to the expense records to records dated after April 1, 2004.
The OEB issued an interim decision letter (first interim decision) enclosing an index of responsive records and identifying the exemptions claimed. It advised that notice of the request had been given to five affected parties namely, the four senior executives named in the request and the Ontario Securities Commission. The first interim decision letter also provided a fee estimate of $577.00, and indicated that the OEB’s final decision would be issued within 30 days. Finally, this letter provided that the Chief Operating Officer (COO) of the OEB was responsible for the decisions made with respect to the request.
The requester wrote to the OEB in response and objected to the designation of the COO as the individual responsible for the decisions on the basis that the COO was in a conflict of interest position.
The affected parties responded to the OEB’s notice and consented to the release of some of the records. The OEB then issued a second interim decision letter providing a fee estimate of $1155.00 and requesting payment before releasing the records. It also indicated that in view of the appellant’s conflict of interest objection, the OEB’s Secretary (the Secretary) was designated as the individual responsible for making the decisions.
The requester paid the fee. Under cover of a final decision letter issued by the Secretary, the requester received access to some records, was denied access to other records in their entirety and was denied access to a portion of the remaining records. In support of its position, the OEB relied upon the exemptions set out in sections 18(1)(e) and (f), 21(1)(f) and 22, and also claims that one record is excluded from the scope of the Act under section 65(6).
The requester (now the appellant) appealed that decision on the basis of the fee and the denial of access. During mediation, the appellant broadened the scope of the appeal to include a reasonable search issue as he is of the view that additional records must exist. As well, the appellant provided additional clarification of the scope of the appeal by confirming that he is not seeking access to the credit card and bank account information that was severed from the records released. Mediation was not successful in achieving a settlement of the matter and it proceeded to the adjudication stage of the appeal process.