On April 3, 2025, I received notice from Stewart McKelvey lawyer Jayna Green that Memorial has filed an Originating Application at the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador for a Declaration that it does not have to comply with the recommendation of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, as set out in Report A-2025-015, to release the employment contract of the Associate Vice-President (Harlow Campus and Global Partnerships).
Report A-2025-015 recommended that Memorial release the record sought except for a small amount of personal information (the employee’s home address, prospective home address, and the signatures of the parties.)
The Commissioner found that MUN UK (Harlow Campus) is part of Memorial University and is subject to ATIPPA, that Memorial has custody and control of the record, that UK laws do not apply, and that disclosure of the record is desirable for the purpose of subjecting Memorial to public scrutiny under section 40(5)(a) of the ATIPPA.
The Commissioner stated that there is significant jurisprudence on the issue of disclosure when it involves the expenditure of public money, that confidentiality must take second place to transparency and accountability, and that items such as salary and benefits sought to be disclosed regardless if an employee had an expectation that the salary and benefits would be confidential.
In its Supreme Court application, Memorial’s arguments include that it does not have custody or control of the record sought and that it only has bare possession of the record because the President signed it in his capacity as the Chair of MUN UK’s Board of Directors, that MUN UK (Harlow Campus) is not part of Memorial University and thus not subject to the ATIPPA, that MUN UK is a distinct and separate legal entity from Memorial and is incorporated under United Kingdom law, that employees of MUN UK are not MUN employees, that disclosure and protection of the requested information is governed by UK law, and that UK privacy and data protection legislation prohibits disclosure of employee’s personal information including employment contracts.
Memorial argues that in the event that it did have custody and control of the requested information and was subject to ATIPPA, disclosure would constitute a violation of the employee’s personal privacy under section 40(4) of the ATIPPA. Memorial stated that the employee is a UK citizen employed by a UK-based company and has a legitimate expectation that their personal information is protected from disclosure under UK privacy laws.
Download the application below:
Matt Barter is a graduate of the Humanities and Social Sciences Faculty at Memorial University of Newfoundland, holding a degree in Political Science with a minor in Sociology. He enjoys reading thought-provoking articles, taking walks in nature, and volunteering in the community.
Leave a Reply