Does MFIPPA's section 52(3)3 labour relations exclusion apply to staff at organizations my municipality funds?

No. In IPC Order MO-4780, the adjudicator found that the section 52(3)3 exclusion covers records about labour relations or employment of the institution's own employees only. Where records relate to staff at a legally separate external organization — even one the municipality funds or oversees, like a performing arts centre, community centre operated by a third party, or funded agency — the exclusion does not reach them. The practical test is whether the individuals in the records are employees of your municipality itself or of a separate employer. Review any pending section 52(3)3 claims against that boundary.

How should I sever records when an access request touches personal information about multiple people?

IPC Order MO-4781 is a useful walkthrough. Adjudicator Justine Wai applied the section 14(2) factors of MFIPPA to balance competing privacy interests under the section 38(b) personal privacy exemption. She upheld the school board's decision to withhold the personal information that would cause an unjustified invasion of privacy, but ordered disclosure of portions of the records that did not contain personal information. The order demonstrates the severing obligation in a concrete factual context — which factors weigh toward disclosure, which weigh against, and how to release non-personal portions even when personal information is properly withheld.

What does the Mississippi Mills BEC fraud case mean for our accounts payable procedures?

In Mississippi Mills (Town of) v. 16442676 Canada Inc., 2026 ONSC 2052, fraudsters impersonated a creditor and diverted $201,285.86 from the Town through a business email compromise. The Ontario Superior Court granted default judgment, awarding the diverted amount, punitive damages, and full indemnity costs to avoid burdening taxpayers. The procedural takeaway for your AP team: any request to change vendor banking details — by email, letter, or phone — should be confirmed by a phone callback to a known number already on file, not the number in the change request. If you don't have a written payment verification procedure, create one.

Labour Relations Exclusion Has Limits: IPC Order MO-4780 and a $201K BEC Fraud Warning for Municipal AP Teams

The IPC published a batch of new orders on April 8, and the headline for municipal clerks is MO-4780, which narrows the scope of the labour relations exclusion under section 52(3)3 of MFIPPA. The adjudicator found that the exclusion applies only to records about an institution’s own employees — not staff at external organizations, even where the municipality has a funding or oversight relationship. The practical question for your office is whether the people in the records are employees of the municipality itself or of a legally separate employer. Alongside that, MO-4781 provides a useful walkthrough of severing and balancing competing privacy interests under section 38(b). On the litigation side, the Ontario Superior Court handed down a judgment in a business email compromise case that every municipal treasurer and AP team should see: a small Ontario municipality lost over $200,000 to fraudsters who impersonated a creditor and redirected payments.

Privacy and FOI

Labour Relations Exclusion Applies Only to Own Employees — MO-4780

IPC Order MO-4780 (Appeal MA24-00407, City of Burlington, March 20, 2026) addressed a journalist’s request for records related to a performing arts centre. The City of Burlington withheld a report, claiming the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act did not apply to it under section 52(3)3 (labour relations or employment matters). As an alternative, the city claimed the closed meeting exemption under section 6(1)(b).

Adjudicator Marian Sami found that section 52(3)3 did not apply to the report. In the adjudicator’s analysis, the exclusion covers records relating to labour relations or employment of the institution’s own employees. On the facts of this case, where the records related to staff at an external organization — even one the municipality funds or oversees — the exclusion did not reach them.

The adjudicator did uphold the section 6(1)(b) closed meeting exemption, so the report was not ordered disclosed. But the section 52(3)3 finding is the one with broader implications.

What this means for your office: If your municipality has been claiming section 52(3)3 to withhold records that touch on employment matters at external bodies — community centres operated by third parties, funded organizations, boards with their own staff — MO-4780 says that approach does not hold. The key question is whether the individuals in the records are employees of your municipality or of a legally separate organization. Local boards, third-party operators, and funded agencies may have their own staff who are not “your” employees for the purposes of this exclusion, even where your municipality funds or oversees them. Review any pending or routine section 52(3)3 claims to make sure they fall within that boundary. Separately, the section 6(1)(b) finding reinforces the value of solid procedural records for closed sessions. If your closed meeting minutes and resolutions are well-documented, the exemption may be available on facts similar to those in MO-4780. If they are thin, this is a good prompt to strengthen them.

Severing Mixed Personal Information — MO-4781

IPC Order MO-4781 (Appeal MA23-00758, Algoma District School Board, March 23, 2026) addressed a request for all records relating to the appellant himself. The school board located records and granted partial access. Adjudicator Justine Wai considered whether two email records were exempt under the personal privacy exemption in section 38(b) of MFIPPA, applying the factors in section 14(2) to balance the competing privacy interests.

The adjudicator upheld the school board’s decision to withhold the records in part, finding that disclosure of the personal information at issue would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. But she ordered disclosure of portions that did not contain personal information — a practical demonstration of the severing obligation.

What this means for your office: MO-4781 is a useful reference the next time you are processing an access request where the records contain personal information about multiple individuals. The order walks through the section 14(2) factors in a concrete factual context: which factors weigh toward disclosure, which weigh against, and how to sever the record so that non-personal-information portions are released even when the personal information is properly withheld. Worth bookmarking alongside your existing section 38(b) processing template.

Court Decision

BEC Fraud — A $201K Warning for Municipal AP Teams

Mississippi Mills (Town of) v. 16442676 Canada Inc., 2026 ONSC 2052 is the kind of case that every municipal treasurer and accounts payable team should see. Fraudsters impersonated a creditor of the Town of Mississippi Mills and diverted $201,285.86 through a business email compromise. The Ontario Superior Court granted default judgment against the defendants, awarding the diverted amount, punitive damages to deter similar conduct, and full indemnity costs — specifically to avoid burdening municipal taxpayers with the legal costs of recovering stolen funds.

The court ordered the Bank of Nova Scotia to release frozen funds in partial satisfaction of the judgment. Per the CanLII editorial summary, the court characterized the misconduct as “highly reprehensible” and found that punitive damages were warranted for deterrence, notwithstanding any potential criminal sanctions.

What this means for your office: This is a concrete, local, recent example to share with your treasurer, AP staff, and anyone who processes vendor payments. The takeaway is procedural: any request to change vendor banking details — whether by email, letter, or phone — should be confirmed by a phone callback to a known number before processing. Not the number in the email requesting the change. A number you already have on file. BEC fraud targeting municipalities is not hypothetical. Mississippi Mills is a small Ontario town, and the fraud was straightforward. The court got some of the money back, but the disruption, legal costs, and reputational damage are real. If your municipality does not have a written payment verification procedure, this case is your prompt to create one.

Other Orders

Four additional orders were published April 8. MO-4783 (Appeal MA23-00688, City of Brockville) upheld the city’s denial of access to a legal invoice under the section 12 solicitor-client privilege exemption. PO-4800 (Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade) upheld the ministry’s partial access decision on records about paid plasma collection centres, applying the mandatory third-party information exemption at section 17(1) of FIPPA. PO-4803 (Ministry of the Solicitor General) addressed records relating to police complaints, upholding most withholdings under the personal privacy and solicitor-client privilege exemptions but ordering disclosure of internal police communications. PO-4805 (Ministry of Long-Term Care) is a deemed refusal case — the ministry failed to issue a decision within the prescribed time limit and was ordered to issue a final access decision by April 28, 2026.

Labour and Employment

Two OLRB procedural decisions from this week are worth noting for context, though neither requires direct municipal action.

Anderson v. Alstom Transport Canada Inc., 2026 CanLII 31658 (ON LRB) addresses an OHSA reprisal claim under section 50(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The Board identified deficiencies in the pleading, finding on those facts that the applicant had not established a clear factual link between protected safety activity and adverse employer action. For municipal employers: if you are responding to an OHSA reprisal complaint, document the independent justification for any employment action taken near a safety complaint. Showing that the action was based on legitimate, non-retaliatory grounds is what matters.

G.N. Johnston Equipment Co. Ltd. v. Bennett, 2026 CanLII 31645 (ON LRB) confirms that posting OHS appeal documents on a joint health and safety committee bulletin board does not constitute proper delivery under Rules 6.4 and 6.5 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure. Direct delivery to affected workers is required — email is acceptable only with prior consent. If your workplace relies on bulletin board posting as a catch-all delivery method for OHS documents, this decision found that approach does not comply with the Board’s service requirements on the facts before it.

Action items this week

Review any pending section 52(3)3 claims to confirm they relate to your own employees, not staff at external organizations. MO-4780 narrows the exclusion.
Bookmark MO-4781 as a reference for processing access requests with overlapping personal information under section 38(b).
Share the Mississippi Mills BEC case with your treasurer and AP staff. If you do not have a written payment verification procedure requiring phone callback to a known number for any banking change request, create one.
Check your OHS document delivery procedures. Bulletin board posting alone does not satisfy Board service requirements — direct delivery to affected workers is required.

Cedar Meridian builds compliance software for Ontario municipalities. Our Staff Compliance Manager gives clerks, CAOs, and HR leads an audit-ready record of policy acknowledgements, training completion, and procedural attestations — the kind of evidence that holds up when the IPC, the HRTO, or your insurer asks. If you want to see how it fits into your existing FOI and HR processes, get in touch.