Access to Information Orders
Decision Information
• Copies of all contracts between McMaster University and food and beverage companies between 2004 and the date of the request, including soft drink companies, restaurants, cafeteria contractors and vending machine operators.
• Section 50(2) (time for filing appeal) - the appeal was filed in time.
• Section 10(1)(b) (frivolous or vexatious request) - the request is not frivolous or vexatious.
• Abuse of process - neither the request nor the appeal is an abuse of process.
• Responsiveness of records - the records claimed to be non-responsive by an affected party are responsive.
• Section 2(1) (definition of personal information) - the records do not contain personal information.
• Section 21(1) (personal privacy) - not upheld.
• Section 17(1) (third party information) - not upheld.
• Section 18(1)(c) (economic & other interests) - not upheld.
• All records ordered to be disclosed in full.
Decision Content
NATURE OF THE APPEAL:
McMaster University (McMaster) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Act) from a member of the media for:
…copies of all contracts between the university and food and beverage companies between 2004 and present. Contracts requested include any involving soft drink companies, restaurants, … cafeteria contractors and vending machine operators.
McMaster responded on December 19, 2006. The subject line of the letter identifies it as an “Interim Decision.” The first paragraph also states that the letter is an “interim” access decision:
… On August 25, 2006, you submitted a request for all contracts between the University and food and beverage companies between 2004 and the present. I am now writing to provide you with an interim access decision and fee estimate.
The “interim access decision” advised the requester that access to “certain portions” of the responsive records would be denied pursuant to section 18(1)(c) of the Act and that the estimated total fee to process the request was $98.05.
In a separate letter, also dated December 19, 2006, McMaster wrote to the requester to advise that disclosure of two of the responsive records “… may constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy pursuant to section 21(1) of the Act.” Section 21(1) is a mandatory exemption aimed at protecting personal privacy. McMaster also advised the requester that it had notified the individuals named in the two records under section 28(1)(b) of the Act, which requires such notice before disclosure of information “that the head has reason to believe might constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy for the purposes of clause 21(1)(f)….”