Mar 4, 2014

[en anglais seulement] Manitoba Ombudsman has released a report with five recommendations under The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) resulting from an investigation into a decision by the University of Manitoba to withhold its contract with Xerox Canada for the provision of managed print services.

Public bodies routinely enter into contracts for the provision of goods and services by the private sector. As with most documents in the custody or control of public bodies, business contracts and other related records are subject to the right of access under FIPPA, and must be disclosed to an applicant unless an exception to access applies to the record or information contained in the record. “Such contracts are often of considerable interest to the public,” said Acting Ombudsman Mel Holley.

In this case, the University of Manitoba initially concluded, after consulting with Xerox Canada, that the disclosure of any portion of the contract would harm Xerox’s business interests. The university, citing subsection 18(1) of FIPPA, withheld the contract from the applicant. The applicant exercised their right under FIPPA to make a complaint to the ombudsman.

The ombudsman’s investigation found that a considerable amount of information contained within the contract was available from public sources, including the U of M and Xerox websites. The ombudsman could not establish that releasing information such as standard contractual terms or general information about managed print services would be harmful to Xerox’s business interests. The ombudsman concluded that only the detailed cost projections and the detailed process descriptions were required to be withheld under FIPPA. The ombudsman recommended that the University of Manitoba release all of the remaining information in the contract to the applicant. The university complied with the ombudsman’s recommendations.

“This is a case where the law balances the public’s right to know, with the requirement that public bodies  protect information which, if released, could harm a third parties business interests,” said Holley. “The balance was tipped in this case by the fact that much of the information had already been made public by either the public body or the contractor.”

The full report with the ombudsman’s findings and conclusions (Case 2013-0024) is available at:

http://www.ombudsman.mb.ca/documents_and_files/investigation-reports.html