The Information and Privacy Commissioner, Ed Ring, has released his Report A-2008-002 under authority of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. A summary of the Report is included below.

To view the Report in its entirety, please go to //www.oipc.gov.nl.ca/reports.htm

Report: A-2008-002
Report Date: March 31, 2008
Public Body: Public Service Secretariat
Summary: The Applicant applied under the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the "ATIPPA") for access to records relating to his two grievances filed against his former employer (the "Employer"). The requested records were in the possession of the Public Service Secretariat (the "Secretariat") because Staff Relations Specialists with the Secretariat were representing the Employer at an arbitration hearing dealing with the grievances. The Secretariat disclosed some of the responsive records but denied access to certain information, claiming the exceptions to disclosure set out in sections 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, and 30 of the ATIPPA. The Commissioner concluded that the Secretariat could not rely on the exceptions set out in sections 22, 24, or 27. The Commissioner found that the exception in section 20(1)(a) allowed the Secretariat to deny access to certain information when that information contained advice or recommendations developed by or for a public body. The Commissioner discussed the solicitor-client privilege exception in section 21(a) and determined that this exception covers two separate privileges: legal advice privilege and litigation privilege. The Commissioner reaffirmed the three criteria that must be met for information to be subject to legal advice privilege, and found that information is subject to litigation privilege when that information is found in a document created for the dominant purpose of pending or apprehended litigation. The Commissioner ruled that the Secretariat was entitled to refuse disclosure of certain information because it was subject to legal advice privilege and/or litigation privilege. The Commissioner found that some of the information in the responsive record was personal information and the Secretariat was prohibited from disclosing this information by section 30(1). The Commissioner determined that the Secretariat had been inconsistent with regard to the information that it severed in that the same information was severed on some pages but not severed on other pages. As a result, the Commissioner recommended that the Secretariat attempt to be more consistent in future access requests.

-30-

Media contact:
Ed Ring
Information and Privacy Commissioner
709-729-6309

2008 04 09                                                      9:40 a.m.