Sault’s PUC Services must respond to freedom of information requests, adjudicator rules

PUC Services Inc. qualifies as an institution and is covered by Ontario’s Freedom of Information Act, the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario has ruled. (File)

PUC Services Inc. qualifies as an institution and is covered by Ontario’s Freedom of Information Act, the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario has ruled.

PUC is a private corporation owned by the City of Sault Ste. Marie. It received an FOI request for information related to a contract with a transmission company and new electricity infrastructure proposals.

The request also wanted details of PUC’s record retention policies and copies of certain emails from May 1, 2019, and May 27, 2022.

Initially, PUC said it would take eight to nine months to process the request. The requester then appealed that decision and the issue headed to mediation.

“During mediation, the PUC took the position that it is not an institution under the Act and refused to identify records responsive to the appellant’s request,” said the decision from an Information and Privacy Commission adjudicator.

That moved the process to the adjudication level.

In its submissions, the PUC argued that it is not covered by the FOI Act because it doesn’t qualify under the definitions of the Electricity Act, which only covers utilities that are “generating, transmitting, distributing or retailing electricity.”

“It submits that it provides management, operations and maintenance services to its customers, including electrical and water utility companies in the city and surrounding areas,” the decision said.

“It submits that it provides services to facilities owned by other entities and does not own any facilities or infrastructure for generating, transmitting, distributing or retailing electricity.”

But the person requesting the information countered that PUC is a municipal, public entity that is “clearly intended to be covered by the Act.”

‘Transparency objectives’

“The appellant also argues that information about public expenditures and public utility operations is at the core of the transparency objectives underpinning access to information legislation and that excluding the PUC from the Act would undermine those objectives,” the decision said.

Adjudicator Anna Truong agreed, ruling that whatever corporate restrictions the PUC undergoes don’t change the fact that it is a public institution.

“The PUC exists for the purpose of delivering public utilities on behalf of the city and is wholly owned and controlled by the city,” Truong wrote.

“Its activities are inherently public in nature and involve the management of public infrastructure and public funds. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that finding that the PUC is not an institution, and therefore, outside the scope of the Act, would be inconsistent with the legislative scheme and the Act’s purpose, including ensuring access to information about public institutions and the expenditure of public funds.”

Read the full decision here.