Mayor DiCarlo advised me Windsor’s response would be made public.
The red annotation in the redacted version on the town’s site is obvious:
**Schedule 1 – The full response to the Request for Proposals by the Windsor Police Service is being redacted from the public version as it is subject to a confidentiality clause. MFIPPA exemption 8.(1) Law Enforcement may apply.**
Section 8(1) is a discretionary exemption:
8 (1) A head may refuse to disclose a record if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to,
(c) reveal investigative techniques and procedures currently in use or likely to be used in law enforcement;
(e) endanger the life or physical safety of a law enforcement officer or any other person;
(g) interfere with the gathering of or reveal law enforcement intelligence information respecting organizations or persons;
(l) facilitate the commission of an unlawful act or hamper the control of crime.
The confidentiality clause was referenced in the June 2018 Ombudsman Report into council’s and the JPAC’s in camera meetings to discuss the policing RFP.
The Ombudsman concluded:
64 While I appreciate the municipality’s concerns about complying with this confidentiality clause, at the time of the committee’s meetings, there was no closed meeting exception that generally allowed a municipality to proceed in camera to protect the confidential information of a third party. However, new exceptions to the Municipal Act’s closed meeting requirements came into force on January 1, 2018, including exceptions related to information supplied in confidence. It is possible this matter may have fallen under one of the new exceptions, but they were not yet in force when the committee met. (emphasis added).
An FOI Appeal regarding Windsor’s refusal to disclose is ongoing.