Town should reveal lawsuit costs: report
Privacy commissioner says Paradise should publicly release the amounts of recent lawsuit settlements
The Town of Paradise should publicly release the amounts of taxpayers’ money paid out to settle lawsuits filed against the town over the past two years, the province’s Information and Privacy Commissioner Donovan Molloy states in a report released Thursday.
A summary of the report notes that the Town of Paradise received a request under the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (ATIPPA, 2015) seeking records including: the minutes of a public meeting approving a legal settlement; a list of all active lawsuits against the town; and a list of all settled lawsuits against the town for the past two years.
The request also asked for all minutes approving the settlements.
The commissioner’s report stated the town did provide access to the public minutes that it located, but withheld privileged minutes, relying on Section 28(1) (c) of ATIPPA, 2015 to do so.
In addition, while the town provided the active lawsuit information requested, it denied access to the settlement amounts, claiming Section 30(1) (legal advice) and Section 35(1) (f) and (g) (disclosure harmful to the financial or economic interests of a public body) of the ATIPPA, 2015.
The town also relied on settlement privilege to withhold releasing information about the settlement amounts.
Molloy determined that the town conducted a reasonable search for the minutes even though not all minutes were located.
He also found that the town could not rely on Section 35(1)(f) or (g) to withhold information about the settlement amounts, that Section 30(1) does not contain an exception for settlement privilege and that the town could not rely on common law settlement.
Molloy recommended that the town disclose the settlement amounts to the applicant.
The report notes the “town stated that while the public may have an interest in the expenditure of public funds, the potential harm associated with the release of the information prevails over that interest. The town argues that the harm would undermine the very protection that settlement privilege affords, as parties may be less willing to settle if their negotiations and results are subject to disclosure.”
Meanwhile, the applicant stated, as noted in the report, that “the settlement amounts should be disclosed and be available publicly as it is money the town is paying out. It is also the complainant’s position that the settlement amounts require approval in a public meeting and therefore the minutes should exist and should have been located.”
Molloy found the town did not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that harm would arise from disclosing the information requested.
“The town argued that releasing negotiated settlements in claims against the town could put the town at risk of increased claims, resulting in increased legal costs,” the report stated. “The town further argued that releasing this information could complicate and infringe future settlement negotiations of the town.
“The settlements relate to claims against the town involving different scenarios and the
town acknowledged that the settlement amounts are for closed files. The town has not
advised of any ongoing settlement negotiations that are similar to any of the previously
settled claims or why releasing settlement amounts would put the town at risk for increased
claims. The town has not substantiated its statements with evidence of harm.
“The town may believe that these things ‘could’ happen, however, it must provide evidence of
harm in order to rely on Section 35(1)(g) of the ATIPPA, 2015 to withhold the settlement amounts.”
Under the recommendations section, Molloy suggests the town continue to withhold the privileged meeting minutes based on Section 28(1)(c) of the ATIPPA, 2015, but disclose to the applicant the settlement amounts.
The Town of Paradise must give written notice of its decision with respect to the recommendations to the commissioner within 10 business days of receiving the report.