 |
| Ayo Adesomoju |
This two-part series begins by examining some legislative framework governing municipal transparency and analyzing key decisions from the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) and the court to demonstrate that transparency is a legal obligation. Part one emphasizes that transparency and privacy obligations must be balanced and demonstrates that these obligations are not legally inconsistent.
Building on the foundation set in part one, part two shows how the two duties work together in practice, forming a complementary regime that requires municipalities to balance openness with responsible information management. The article concludes with best practice recommendations for public sector professionals.
1. Overview
Canadian public administration is grounded in the principles of openness, accountability and public participation. Municipal governments, as the level of government closest to residents, are expected to embody these values in their decision-making processes. This expectation is reflected in several statutes that require public access to meetings, records and planning processes.
Alena Butusava: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
This article argues that such conflicts are more apparent than real. Properly interpreted, the statutes operate harmoniously. Transparency statutes define what must be public; MFIPPA ensures that unnecessary or excessive disclosure does not occur. The challenge for municipalities lies not in resolving legal contradictions, but in applying a principled balancing approach.
2. Transparency obligations under the Municipal Act, 2001
A core responsibility of a municipal council is to ensure the accountability and transparency of the operations of the municipality, including the activities of its institutions, lower boards and the senior management (Municipal Act, 2001, s. 224(d.1)).
Open meetings
The Municipal Act, 2001, s. 239 requires that council and committee meetings be open to the public, subject to limited exceptions. One such exception permits closed meetings where the subject matter involves “personal matters about an identifiable individual.” Municipalities must record all meetings, and subject to MFIPPA requirements members of the public may request access to meeting records.
Openness is the default (see Nipissing (Township of) (Re), 2023 ONOMBUD 2 at para. 3), and municipalities must strictly interpret and ensure compliance with closed-meeting exceptions and err on the side of transparency. Members of the public can request an investigation into whether a municipality has complied with the Act in its decision to close a meeting to the public.
Public access to records
Section 253 of the Municipal Act requires municipalities to make records available for public inspection and to provide certified copies upon request. This provision reinforces the principle that municipal records are presumptively public unless an exemption applies. With respect to personal information, subsection 14(1) of MFIPPA requires institutions to not disclose personal information where such disclosures constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.
3. Transparency requirements under the Planning Act
The Planning Act is a transparency-driven statute that mandates public participation and access to information in the planning and decision-making process.
Public submissions and records
Sections 16, 17 and 20 of the Planning Act permit any person or public body to make written submissions to the council before a plan is adopted, and these submissions must be made available to the public. Information related to the planning process, including the names of individuals and their submissions to council committees, become public records and are to be disclosed to ensure transparency and public participation.
Public meetings
Subsection 34(12) of the Planning Act requires municipalities to hold public meetings on zoning matters and provide sufficient information for the public to understand the proposal. This statutory requirement supports the disclosure of planning reports, staff recommendations and delegation by members of the public containing the identities of the individuals involved to ensure transparency of the process.
Committee of adjustment records
Subsection 44(10) of the Planning Act requires municipalities to keep minutes and records of Committee of Adjustment proceedings. These records form part of the public record and may include personal information.
Case example: Vaughan (City) (Re)
In Vaughan (City) (Re), (2015), a resident complained that her name and address were posted online as part of a minor variance application. The Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) held that the Planning Act and Municipal Act require such information to be public and that applicants are notified of this at the time of collection. However, the IPC recommended that municipalities should consider adopting measures that obscure the information from public search engines and automated agents.
This decision illustrates that transparency obligations may require disclosure of personal information, but municipalities can still adopt privacy-protective practices.
4. Other statutes requiring transparency
Environmental Assessment Act
Environmental assessments require public notice, consultation and access to project documentation. Personal information included in submissions may become part of the public record.
Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act
Subsection 2.1(1) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act authorizes the disclosure of information, including personal information, where necessary for public safety. However, this authority is not unlimited; municipalities must assess whether disclosure is in the public interest.
Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act, 1996
The “Sunshine List” requires disclosure of names, positions and salaries of public-sector employees earning above the statutory threshold. This is a clear example of legislated transparency overriding privacy interests.
Conclusion
The statutory framework governing municipal decision-making in Ontario demonstrates that transparency is not discretionary, but a legal obligation embedded across multiple legislative regimes. The Municipal Act, the Planning Act and other sector-specific statutes expressly require public access to meetings, records and decision-making processes, even where this results in the disclosure of limited personal information. These statutes reflect a legislative judgment that openness, accountability and public participation are foundational to municipal governance. As a result, municipalities must approach transparency as the starting point of their analysis, while remaining mindful of how personal information is managed within these legally mandated public processes.
This is part one of a two-part series.
Ayo Adesomoju is a corporate privacy officer with the Regional Municipality of Hamilton and a certified privacy professional. He has extensive experience advising on privacy, data governance and regulatory compliance, with a background in commercial law. His work focuses on operationalizing privacy compliance, risk mitigation and responsible use of emerging technologies. Ayo may be contacted via amadesomoju@gmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the views of the author’s employer, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Yvette Trancoso at Yvette.Trancoso-barrett@lexisnexis.ca or call 905-415-5811.