Names and salaries of N.L. public servants are public info, Court of Appeal rules

In a 2-1 decision, the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal has ruled that the names of public servants must be released in addition to their salaries under provincial access to information laws.

"The public has a legitimate and significant interest in the identities of the people who receive public money," Justice Charles White wrote in the decision, released Tuesday.

"People have a right to inquire whether politicians or senior civil servants are hiring or promoting family members or friends. People have a right to inquire whether campaign donors or volunteers are proliferating on the payroll. Names are necessary to satisfy these inquiries."

Justice Lois Hoegg concurred with the decision, which overturneda lower court ruling.

Justice Gale Welsh dissented.

Case dates back to 2016

The origins of the case date back to early 2016, when then-Telegram reporter James McLeod requested the "name, job title and corresponding taxable income for the 2015 tax year for all English School District employees earning more than $100,000."

The school board was going to release the information, but the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association (NLTA) went to court to appeal that decision on behalf of its members. Other public sector unions also intervened in the case.

Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court Justice Gillian Butler concluded those employees' names were "personal information, the release of which is presumptively an invasion of their personal privacy."

• 'An unnecessary invasion of privacy': NL teachers' union pleased with judge's ruling on salary disclosure

The salariescould be released, but not the names.

The provincial government then appealed Butler's decision.

Clyde Wells review cited

In overturning the Butler ruling, the Court of Appeal cited the review of access to information laws led by former premier and chief justice Clyde Wells four years ago.

"The (current) act is the bill suggested in the Wells Report with minor amendments," White wrote in the decision.

"It passed unanimously. Every member who spoke about the Wells Report did so favourably."

He noted that the Wells Report "considered several models, all of which required disclosure of names."

The committee led by the former premier "reviewed the public interest and the privacy consequences, concluded that the public's right to know was more important, and suggested the current wording. It expressed no reservations about disclosing names. I cannot read the Wells Report as supporting any conclusion apart from that the act was meant to allow the disclosure of employees' names."

Employment equity is also "another important value at stake," the ruling noted.

The public has a legitimate and significant interest in the identities of the people who receive public money.- Justice Charles White

"The public has a legitimate interest in knowing whether historically disadvantaged groups are fairly represented in the civil service. Individuals who lose job competitions have a legitimate interest in knowing who won. Here, again, the identities of public employees are relevant."

Dissenting opinion

In her dissent, Justice Gale Welsh said "it is difficult to understand how knowing the names of all teachers and other board employees who earn more than $100,000 annually is necessary to permit citizens to participate meaningfully in the democratic process."

She added that it is similarly difficult to understand how that disclosure would address the objective that "elected officials, officers and employees of public bodies remain accountable," and how it is consistent with protecting the privacy of those individual teachers and employees.

"Providing the names of teachers or employees earning an annual salary of more than $100,000 would provide little, if any, information useful in assessing the board's accountability regarding the expenditure of public funds," Welsh wrote.

"Rather, statistical information, for which the names of individuals would be irrelevant, would achieve that purpose."

Decision appears to apply to all salaries

The $100,000 threshold in this case was at least partially rendered moot when the province passed a new sunshine law nearly two years ago.

• 'Sunshine List' law introduced to the House of Assembly

That law sees an annual list published of all civil servants who earn more than $100,000. It includes their names, with very limited exceptions.

The Court of Appeal decision appears to apply to all salaries, not just those in the six figures.

"I have concluded that (the section of the law) is meant to ensure that members of the public can know who is on the public payroll, what their duties are, and how much they are being paid," White wrote.

"My analysis would have general application regardless of the amount of income."