7(1)(p)

How the Public Access Counselor has treated 7(1)(p)

Section 7(1)(p) concerns records relating to collective bargaining negotiations, including draft proposals and preliminary contract language exchanged during negotiations. The decisions include a reporter's request for draft contract documents and salary information after a school board approved general terms of a teachers' contract, and a request for emails where a district invoked sections 7(1)(f), 7(1)(m) and 7(1)(p) together.

The PAC has focused on whether the public body proved the exemption applied. It concluded a confidential memorandum to the board could be withheld as predecisional, deliberative material, but the district failed to prove that draft proposals and language exchanged with the union were exempt on that basis. Where one exemption already justified withholding, the PAC declined to address additional claimed exemptions, and it found improper redactions where privilege was claimed without justification.

At a glance: 3 documents(0 binding opinions, 3 determination letters). Most often cited alongside: 7(1)(m) (Attorney/auditor communications and litigation-preparation materials) (2); 7(1)(c) (Personal privacy) (1); 7(1)(f) (Preliminary drafts, notes, and deliberative materials) (1); 7(1)(n) (Employee grievance/discipline adjudication records) (1).

Recurring issues

• Whether draft proposals and preliminary contract language exchanged with the union during bargaining are exempt from disclosure. (Draft contract language and salary schedules from union negotiations)
• Whether an internal confidential memorandum to the board should be treated differently from proposals shared with the other bargaining party. (Draft contract language and salary schedules from union negotiations)
• Whether correspondence can be withheld when a public body claims sections 7(1)(f), 7(1)(m) and 7(1)(p) together. (Correspondence about classroom observations and integration)
• Whether redactions claimed under privilege are proper when the public body does not justify the claim. (Invoices and purchase orders for legal services)

Practical points

• A public body should separately justify each group of records rather than applying the same exemption claim to all withheld material.
• A public body should distinguish internal predecisional communications from proposals and language already exchanged with the union.
• A requester seeking bargaining-related drafts should describe whether the request includes internal memos, exchanged proposals, or final terms.

Summary drafted from the linked decisions and checked against them; read the decisions themselves before relying on it. Not legal advice.