Access to Information Orders
Decision Information
• School suspension records concerning the appellant’s son.
• Section 4(1) (Custody or control) – Teacher’s notes and day books are in the Board’s custody or control; Board ordered to make a decision respecting access.
• Section 52(3)3 (labour relations and employment) – upheld for investigation report.
• Board ordered to make a decision respecting access to teacher's notes and day books.
Decision Content
NATURE OF THE APPEAL:
The Ottawa-Carleton District School Board (the Board) received a multi-part request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) from the father of a student with the Board for access to information about his son. The request was for access to all documents, notes, records, data or other information in the possession of the Board or any of its employees or agents which is not contained in the son’s Ontario Student Record folder. The requester wrote that:
The information I am seeking includes all notes, records and documents including all documentation related to the suspension appeal hearing that was held on [a specified date] with regards to [his son]. This request also includes all psychological or educational assessment or any other assessment, evaluation or report of and concerning [his son] in the [Board’s] possession.
Please include all records of the meeting on [a specified date] itself including personal notes or email. The [Board] policy indicates that there is a formal letter regarding [his son] that is prepared as part of the results from the hearing on [a specified date] that will be presented to the [Board] …
The Board extended the time to respond to the request under section 20 of the Act and identified some records that are responsive to the request. After receiving the position of an affected party on disclosure of those records, the Board granted the requester partial access to them. The Board relied on the discretionary exemptions at sections 7(1) (advice or recommendations) and 12 (solicitor-client privilege), the mandatory exemption at section 10(1)(d) (third party information) and the exclusionary provision at section 52(3) to deny access to the records it withheld. The Board also took the position that it did not have custody or control of some records that may be responsive to the request.
The requester (now the appellant) appealed the Board’s decision.