The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) of Newfoundland and Labrador has determined that the Town of Gander must release portions of a resignation package related to its former Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) following an access to information dispute. The decision concluded that certain financial details qualified as remuneration and should be disclosed, while other aspects of the record were appropriately withheld to protect personal privacy.
The case stemmed from multiple access to information requests submitted by a complainant seeking records related to the resignation of the CAO. The Town initially provided heavily redacted documents, citing legal advice (section 30(1)(a)), personal privacy (section 40(1)), and financial harm (section 35(1)(g)) as justifications for withholding the information. When the complainant disputed the redactions, the matter proceeded to an OIPC investigation.
During the inquiry, the OIPC discovered that the Town had failed to identify the ratified resignation package as a responsive record until 45 days into the investigation. The Town maintained that the document was protected under various provisions of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015 (ATIPPA), including settlement privilege, which it argued should be recognized as an exemption from disclosure.
The Commissioner rejected this argument, determining that settlement privilege is not explicitly recognized under ATIPPA. Citing previous rulings and case law, the Commissioner noted that solicitor-client privilege and litigation privilege are distinct from settlement privilege and that the legislation does not include the latter as an exemption.
The ruling also addressed the Town’s assertion that disclosing the resignation package would be an unreasonable invasion of the former CAO’s privacy. The Commissioner found that some details, such as specific remuneration figures, should be disclosed under section 40(2)(f), which states that information related to an employee’s salary, benefits, or severance is not an unreasonable invasion of privacy. However, other details concerning the former CAO’s employment history were deemed to fall under section 40(4)(c) and could remain withheld.
Additionally, the OIPC determined that the Town had not met the threshold required under section 35(1)(g) to justify withholding the record on the basis of financial harm. The decision emphasized that speculation about potential harm was insufficient and that the Town had provided no concrete evidence of financial prejudice.
Beyond the substantive disclosure issues, the Commissioner found that the Town had not conducted a reasonable search for records, noting that the ratified resignation package was not identified in response to the initial request, despite being clearly relevant. The delay in identifying this document raised concerns about the adequacy of the Town’s search process.
As a result, the Commissioner recommended that the Town disclose specific portions of the resignation package, including its initial and final lines, as well as listed remuneration details, while continuing to withhold certain personal information. The Town must now decide whether to comply with the recommendations or challenge the ruling.
For more information, see Report A-2025-004
