City scolded for rejecting FOI request with no explanation

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 12/05/2022 (1399 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A judge has ruled the City of Winnipeg failed to justify its decision to deny a freedom of information request by a former Tory MP about the sale of the Vimy arena.

In a written decision, Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Chris Martin concluded the city did not properly explain its reasons for refusing to release the records.

“They did not articulate a rational basis through clear and targeted justifications. There was no specificity and no context,” Martin wrote.

Instead, he found the city “simply parroted” clauses that allow public bodies to refuse to release records within the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Steven Fletcher, a former Conservative MP and a former Progressive Conservative MLA, fought to access the records in court.

He said the judgment is a major win for transparency.

“It is a landmark ruling in the world of freedom of information that will have national implications. The long and the short is disclosure should be the rule … This ruling says you better have very good reasons to deny access and explain those reasons and, if you cannot explain them, the information must be released,” said Fletcher.

He finally secured the Bruce Oake Foundation’s 2019 offer to buy the St. Charles site in late April, years after he first requested it. Prior to the legal challenge, Fletcher had tried to get the information by complaining to the ombudsman, but was not successful.

The land purchase was a key step to building the Bruce Oake Recovery Centre at the site, a long-term addictions treatment centre that Fletcher and some community members had opposed.

Fletcher’s initial attempt to secure the sale information was denied by Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corp., which said the release could harm the financial or economic interests of the city.

The judge ruled the city did not properly explain that concern.

“There must be some cogent explanation of how or why disclosure of these specific clauses might cause harm,” he wrote.

The judge reasoned that freedom of information laws are meant to ensure citizens can access information that helps them participate in democracy. He argued decisions about releasing that information should be based on the premise that “disclosure is the rule rather than the exception.”

“It goes right back to… the importance of information in our democracy and why decision makers need to be held to account,” said Fletcher. “There’s no way the public can know (what’s happening) if it is kept secret.”

He expects the decision should set a precedent for citizens to get easier access to government information.

“It raises the bar for what people can expect when it comes to information. I think this will be a big win for transparency, for the media and non-government organizations,” said Fletcher.

However, the City of Winnipeg does not expect the court decision will change how it handles FIPPA requests.

“The city always starts with the presumption that records will be disclosed unless there is information to which FIPPA’s mandatory exceptions apply. We also consider whether information is subject to FIPPA’s discretionary exceptions if there are concerns with release of the record. Our decision-making process on FIPPA requests will not change with this ruling,” wrote Felicia Wiltshire, the city’s communications director, in an emailed statement.

Joyanne.pursaga@freepress.mb.ca

Twitter: @joyanne_pursaga