Introduction

As municipalities and First Nations collaborate more frequently on planning, infrastructure, environmental stewardship and service delivery initiatives, questions regarding the governance of information are becoming increasingly common. One recurring challenge is how to reconcile the First Nations principles of Ownership, Control, Access and Possession (OCAP®) with municipal obligations under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA).

What is OCAP®?

OCAP® is a framework developed by the First Nations Information Governance Centre that addresses First Nations data sovereignty. At its core, it reflects the principle that First Nations should determine how information concerning their communities is collected, used, accessed and stewarded. Although OCAP® is not legislation, it has become an influential governance framework that increasingly informs research partnerships, consultation processes and government-to-government relationships.

The Tension Between OCAP® and MFIPPA

The most obvious point of friction arises in the context of freedom of information requests. Once information comes into the custody or control of a municipality, it may become subject to MFIPPA. While confidentiality provisions and OCAP® commitments are important, they cannot override statutory disclosure obligations.

Municipalities responding to access requests must assess records under the legislative framework, not solely by reference to the expectations of the party that supplied them. This can create challenges where information concerning traditional knowledge, cultural resources, archaeological sites, land use, environmental stewardship or community priorities is shared with an expectation that the First Nation will retain ongoing authority over how that information is used and disseminated. However, once records enter the custody or control of municipalities, they may acquire legal obligations that cannot simply be contracted away.

Managing the Tension in Practice

In many cases, the most effective way of respecting First Nations data sovereignty interests is to avoid unnecessary transfers of custody or control in the first place.

Increasingly, municipalities and First Nations are exploring collaborative arrangements that permit information sharing without requiring municipalities to become custodians of the underlying data. Depending on the circumstances, this may involve First Nations retaining the underlying records while providing summary reports, recommendations or conclusions; maintaining information on systems controlled by the First Nations while granting limited access to municipal staff; permitting review of records without transferring copies; or establishing governance processes through which additional access requests or proposed uses of information are jointly considered.

These approaches recognize that effective collaboration does not always require the transfer of records. Municipalities may be able to obtain the information necessary to discharge their responsibilities while allowing First Nations to retain stewardship over the underlying data.

Where municipalities do receive First Nations information, carefully drafted agreements can help establish clear expectations. Agreements may address confidentiality, retention periods, permitted uses, destruction requirements and procedures for responding to access requests. Counsel should exercise caution, however, when drafting provisions relating to OCAP®. A commitment that a municipality will fully implement or comply with OCAP® principles may create expectations that become difficult or impossible to satisfy if the municipality is later required to respond to an access request under MFIPPA. In many circumstances, a more appropriate approach is language recognizing the parties’ shared intention to give due consideration to OCAP® principles to the greatest extent legally permissible, while acknowledging that the municipality remains subject to applicable legislation.

Agreements may also provide for notice to the First Nation where a freedom of information request is received which may affect First Nations data sovereignty interests, together with an opportunity to make submissions concerning disclosure. Although such provisions cannot alter statutory obligations, they can help ensure that relevant perspectives are considered and reduce the likelihood that disclosure decisions are perceived as unilateral.

Importantly, information governance is not solely a legal issue. Municipalities increasingly work with First Nations through long-term relationships that depend on trust, transparency and predictability. Information-sharing practices that provide clarity, advance notice and meaningful opportunities for discussion can help strengthen those relationships, even where difficult disclosure decisions ultimately need to be made.

A Broader Policy Question: Has MFIPPA Kept Pace?

The issues raised by the interplay between OCAP® and MFIPPA also point to a broader policy question. Although municipalities are not directly subject to the federal UNDRIP Act, it reflects a broader shift toward recognizing Indigenous governments as decision-makers with respect to information concerning their communities.

MFIPPA was enacted long before concepts such as OCAP® and Indigenous data sovereignty achieved their current prominence. As governments continue to advance reconciliation commitments, there may be scope for Ontario to consider whether legislation should more explicitly address information in which First Nations assert governance interests. Potential reforms could include additional protections for culturally sensitive information, consultation requirements before disclosure, or statutory recognition of First Nations data sovereignty interests in information shared with public institutions.

Conclusion

The relationship between OCAP® and MFIPPA illustrates a broader challenge facing public institutions: reconciling legislative frameworks based on freedom of information with the growing recognition of First Nations data sovereignty. For municipal counsel, the issue is not simply whether information may be disclosed. Rather, it is how partnerships, consultation processes and information-sharing arrangements can be structured to respect First Nations data sovereignty interests while ensuring compliance with statutory obligations.

Any article or other information or content expressed or made available in this Section is that of the respective author(s) and not of the OBA.