Tom Wright

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Town of Penetanguishene asking what by-laws would apply to a specific hypothetical littering scenario.

The Town refused to provide an opinion, stating the Act does not require municipalities to supply opinions.

The appellant appealed, arguing the definition of 'record' includes information in an individual's mind.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner dismissed the appeal, holding that the Act does not require an institution to produce information from an individual's memory or knowledge, nor does it impose a duty to transcribe oral views or create a record.

The appellant requested access to reports regarding refillable soft drink containers submitted to the Ministry of the Environment.

The Ministry denied access to the monthly reports under the third-party information exemption in section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that while the sales information was supplied in confidence, the ratio information was not, as the Ministry had previously stated that ratio information might be made public.

The Commissioner ordered the disclosure of the ratio reports and the audit reports with the sales information severed.

The appellant sought access to the name of the original requester who had requested information about the appellant from the Midland Public Utilities Commission.

The institution denied access under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that while the name is personal information, its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of the original requester's personal privacy.

The Commissioner ordered the institution to disclose the name of the original requester to the appellant.

The appellant appealed the City of Oshawa's decision to deny access to the names of individuals who filed a by-law complaint regarding the appellant's property.

The institution relied on the law enforcement exemption under section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Relying on previous orders involving the same institution and identical information, the Commissioner found that by-law enforcement qualifies as law enforcement and that disclosure would reveal a confidential source of information.

The head's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested the names of temporary and part-time employees hired by the City of Sudbury for a specific period.

The City denied access, claiming the names were personal information and their disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that while the names constituted personal information, section 14(4)(a) applied, meaning disclosure of the names of individuals who are or were employees of the institution does not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The City was ordered to disclose the names.

The appellant requested a staff report on poverty in Etobicoke from the Etobicoke Board of Education.

The institution denied access under section 10 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the record contained information purchased from a research company that refused consent to disclose.

The Commissioner found that the information did not qualify as a 'trade secret' or 'commercial information' under the Act.

The institution was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant requested access to resumes, applications, and selection criteria related to a job competition at the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

The Ministry denied access to the applications and resumes under the personal information exemption.

The Commissioner found that the applications and resumes constituted personal information and their disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant failed to rebut this presumption.

However, the Commissioner ordered the disclosure of portions of the 'Qualifying Guide' after severing identifying information.

The appellant, acting as an agent for a person accused of mischief, requested the names and addresses of two witnesses to the alleged offence from the Metropolitan Toronto Police.

The police denied access, citing privacy exemptions.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the requested information was personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

The Commissioner concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the witnesses' personal privacy, and the presumption against disclosure was not rebutted by the appellant's desire to pursue civil or criminal action against the witnesses.

The appellant requested access to records showing the standings of the institution's schools in provincial reviews and system-wide tests.

The institution provided the test results but identified the schools by alphabetical codes rather than names, claiming the records correlating codes to school names were exempt under sections 11(c) and 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the records did not contain personal information of identifiable individuals, such as teachers or principals.

Furthermore, the Commissioner held that the institution failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice its economic interests or competitive position.

The institution was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant requested the names of temporary and part-time employees hired by the Regional Municipality of Sudbury in 1990 and 1991.

The institution denied access, claiming the names constituted personal information and their disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that while the names were personal information, section 14(4)(a) applied, meaning disclosure of the names of individuals who are or were employees does not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The institution was ordered to disclose the names.

The appellant requested access to their personnel file and correspondence relating to the management of the Toronto Fire Department.

The City of Toronto granted partial access, severing portions of two letters under the personal information exemption in section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the letters, exchanged between two employees in their professional capacities regarding institution policy, did not contain personal information.

The institution was ordered to disclose the letters in full.

The requester appealed the City of Toronto's decision that it could not locate a 1956 Permanent Ward Order relating to the requester and his siblings.

The City provided evidence that records of this nature were transferred to Metropolitan Toronto or destroyed in 1967 when welfare ceased to be a City function.

The Commissioner found that the City had taken all reasonable steps to locate the record and dismissed the appeal.

The Town of Gravenhurst received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to the employment of its Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk.

The Town denied access to the written employment agreement under the personal privacy exemption in section 14.

On appeal, the Commissioner found that the agreement was a contract of employment, not a contract for personal services.

The Commissioner ordered the disclosure of the agreement, with the exception of the specific salary steps, as disclosure of the classification, salary range, and benefits did not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant requested access to all police records relating to herself and her uncle from the Windsor Police Service.

The police granted partial access but denied the remainder under various exemptions, including law enforcement and personal privacy.

On appeal, the Commissioner found that the records did not qualify for the law enforcement exemptions under sections 8(1)(a), 8(1)(c), or 8(2)(a).

However, the Commissioner upheld the application of the personal privacy exemption under section 38(b), finding that disclosure of the withheld personal information would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other identifiable individuals.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Kitchener for records relating to a survey marker and property boundaries.

The City informed the appellant that no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that records should exist.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner reviewed the affidavits of search provided by the City's employees and concluded that the institution's search for records was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought access to the name of an individual who made a by-law complaint about the appellant's property.

The institution denied access under section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming it would disclose a confidential source in a law enforcement matter.

The Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that by-law enforcement qualifies as law enforcement and the complainant had a reasonable expectation of confidentiality.

The appellant requested a copy of a legal opinion regarding a potential conflict of interest involving an individual's appointment to a municipal committee.

The municipality denied access, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that while the record was initially privileged, the municipality waived the privilege by releasing a copy to the affected individual.

The Commissioner also determined that although the record contained some personal information, its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14.

The municipality was ordered to disclose the record.

The requester appealed the institution's decision to deny access to the exact salaries of its director and superintendents under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that exact salaries are presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(f) and that no compelling public interest outweighed this exemption.

However, noting that section 14(4)(a) permits disclosure of salary ranges, the Commissioner ordered the institution to create and disclose salary ranges for the affected positions to balance the public's right to know with the employees' privacy rights.

The appellant requested access to notes taken by a Licensing Enforcement Officer regarding a complaint about a kitchen floor installation.

The Metropolitan Licensing Commission denied access, claiming the notes were exempt as a law enforcement report under section 8(2)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Commissioner applied the three-part test for this exemption and found that the notes were merely observations and recordings of fact, not a formal 'report'.

The institution was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant appealed a decision by the City of Oshawa denying access to the names of individuals who complained about by-law violations at two properties.

The institution claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including section 8(1)(d) for confidential sources in law enforcement matters.

The Commissioner upheld the institution's decision, finding that by-law enforcement qualifies as law enforcement and that disclosing the names would reveal the identity of a confidential source.