Controlling Internal Access To Local Government Records

Information Necessary to Discharge Duties
In considering the meaning of the words “if the information is necessary for the performance of the duties of an officer or employee” in section 33(f), we canvassed the case law to ascertain when information becomes necessary to the performance of a councillor’s duties, and found a number of cases from Britain, Quebec and Ontario on the issue of “need to know”.

In H. (J.) D. Hastings (County) (1992) 12 M.P.L.R. (2d) 40, an Ontario court was concerned specifically with personal information and found that in that case, the information must be necessary to the Councillors carrying out their duty. There were no duties for Council to carry out in that case, and therefore they were not entitled to the information.

The other cases dealt with general types of information, as well as personal information. The rule regarding the former is somewhat similar to the rule with respect to personal information. If the specific Councillor has no duties to perform with respect to the information, then it is not necessary for the Councillor to see the information. For example, if the Councillor was not on a committee dealing with the information, the Councillor had no right to see it.

The British cases make no reference to freedom of information legislation. They may no longer be relevant in light of the general right of access under BC’s FOIPPA. However, they are relevant in determining whether the personal information is required to perform a member’s duties, as set out in section 33 of FOIPPA. The application of those cases is summarized below and applies equally to municipalities and regional districts.