Employment and Labour Law

The appellant sought access to records relating to a workplace harassment investigation conducted by the Management Board Secretariat.

The Secretariat withheld portions of the records under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information qualified as highly sensitive personal information supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure could unfairly expose affected persons to harm.

The Secretariat's decision to deny access was upheld.

A union representative, on behalf of a dismissed Corrections Officer, appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services' decision to withhold four occurrence reports under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 49(b) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained personal information and that their disclosure would unfairly expose the authors to harm or harassment under section 21(2)(e).

The appeal was dismissed and the Ministry's decision to withhold the records was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records relating to the investigation of sexual and workplace harassment complaints she brought under the Ministry of Housing's Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy Directive.

The Ministry denied access under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the records contained personal information, the exemptions under sections 21(2)(f) and (h) only applied to a small portion of the records containing highly sensitive information unrelated to the specific complaints.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the balance of the records to the appellant.

The appellant requested access to records regarding the formulation and implementation of pay equity plans at the Ottawa Civic Hospital from the Pay Equity Commission.

The Commission denied access to various records under several exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the majority of the records, including information supplied by the parties to the Review Officer, were exempt under section 17(1)(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as labour relations information supplied in confidence to a person appointed to resolve a labour relations dispute.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of signed pay equity plans, administrative correspondence, and certain notes, finding that they did not qualify for exemption under sections 14(1)(a), 14(1)(b), or 14(2)(a).

The requester appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to withhold portions of records relating to a workplace harassment complaint under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records contained personal information and qualified for exemption under sections 13(1) and 49(b) of the Act, as their disclosure would reveal advice or recommendations or constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the remaining records to the requester.

The appellant, an employee of the Metropolitan Licensing Commission, requested access to records pertaining to a work-related incident.

The Commission denied access to several records, claiming exemptions under sections 12, 38(a), and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the records were not prepared in contemplation of litigation and therefore did not qualify for exemption under section 12.

Furthermore, while the records contained personal information, their disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b).

The Commission was ordered to disclose the records to the appellant.

An employee of a Ministry of Health psychiatric hospital filed a privacy complaint after her medical certificate was disclosed to the Assistant Administrator, HR Administrator, and Legal Counsel.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information was personal information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The disclosure of the employee's name, date, and reason for absence to the administrators was authorized under section 42(d) as they needed it to verify her absence.

However, the disclosure of this information to Legal Counsel, and the disclosure of the physician's name and address to all three individuals, was not authorized as it was not needed in the performance of their duties.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a job competition at Toronto Hydro under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Hydro denied access to the employment applications, interview packages, and selection matrix forms of other candidates, citing the mandatory exemption for personal information.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision to withhold the applications and interview packages, finding their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

However, the Officer ordered the disclosure of the selection matrix forms with the names of the other candidates severed.

The appellant requested a correction to her Supervisor's Temporary Employee Evaluation form under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, specifically disputing a checkmark indicating the supervisor had shared the evaluation with her.

The City denied the correction but attached her statement of disagreement.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while the information was the appellant's personal information, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the supervisor's entry was false or inaccurate.

The City's decision to deny the correction was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records relating to workplace harassment complaints made against him.

The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto denied access to parts of the records under various exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information and that disclosure of certain information provided by third parties would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b).

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the application of the advice or recommendations exemption under section 7(1) for specific portions of the records.

The Municipality was ordered to disclose the remaining non-exempt portions of the records to the appellant.

The requester appealed the Town of Gananoque's decision to deny access to a release agreement between the Town and a former employee, as well as records of monies paid under the agreement.

The Town claimed the records were exempt under the personal privacy provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the records contained personal information, the public interest in scrutinizing the expenditure of public funds outweighed the employee's expectation of confidentiality for most of the information.

The Town was ordered to disclose the records, with specific identifying information and exact salary details severed to protect the employee's privacy.

The requester appealed the Township of Ignace's decision to deny a request to correct personal information contained in three personnel evaluations.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information qualified as personal information but concluded that it consisted of evaluative and opinion information rather than factual errors.

Applying the test from Order 186, the Inquiry Officer determined that the appropriate remedy was not correction under section 36(2)(a), but rather attaching a statement of disagreement under section 36(2)(b).

The Township's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Licensing Commission denying access to portions of records related to an investigation of the appellant's work performance.

The Commission claimed exemptions under sections 7(1) and 38(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the appellant's personal information.

The Inquiry Officer determined that some portions of the records contained advice or recommendations and were exempt under section 7(1), while other portions contained only factual material and were not exempt.

The Commission was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the records.

The appellant requested access to the severance and early retirement agreements of three commissioner-level employees of the City of Ottawa under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The City denied access, citing exemptions for personal privacy and solicitor-client privilege.

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner found that while the agreements contained personal information, the public interest in scrutinizing the expenditure of public funds outweighed the employees' expectation of confidentiality for most of the terms.

However, specific identifying information and certain financial details were protected from disclosure.

The Commissioner also rejected the City's claim of solicitor-client privilege, finding the agreements were negotiated contracts, not legal advice or documents prepared in contemplation of litigation.

The City was ordered to disclose the agreements with the protected personal information severed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission (OC Transpo) for records relating to a grievance file and records retention policies.

OC Transpo claimed the grievance records were outside the jurisdiction of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act due to interjurisdictional immunity, as it is a federally regulated interprovincial undertaking.

The Commissioner agreed, finding that disclosure of grievance records would affect labour relations governed by the Canada Labour Code.

The Commissioner also found that OC Transpo conducted a reasonable search for the records retention policies.

The appellant sought access to his personnel and grievance records from the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commission denied access, arguing the records fell outside the Act's jurisdiction.

The Commissioner determined that the records related to grievance proceedings governed by the federal Canada Labour Code.

Applying the principle of interjurisdictional immunity, the Commissioner concluded that applying the provincial Act to these records would affect the labour relations of an interprovincial undertaking.

Consequently, the records were found to be outside the jurisdiction of the Act.

The appellant requested access to their personnel and medical records from the Metropolitan Toronto Police.

The Police denied access to six pages of Employer Reference forms under various exemptions, including section 38(c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained the appellant's personal information but not the personal information of the references.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the records disclosed because the Police failed to establish that the references were supplied in circumstances where it could reasonably have been assumed that the identity of the source would be held in confidence.

A teacher requested access to two letters and a report containing complaints about their conduct from parents.

The Board denied access to the letters under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and claimed the report did not exist.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the letters contained personal information but that disclosing the substance of the complaints would not constitute an unjustified invasion of the parents' personal privacy, as the information was relevant to the teacher's fair determination of rights in an upcoming grievance hearing.

The Board was ordered to disclose the letters, severing only the parents' home address and telephone number.

The Board's search for the report was found to be reasonable.

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation requested access to the home phone numbers of its members from the Wellington County Board of Education under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board denied the request, claiming disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(1)(f).

The Federation appealed.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Board's decision, finding that the Federation's status as bargaining agent and the provisions of Part II of the Act were not relevant factors favouring disclosure under section 14(2).

The requester appealed the City of Hamilton's decision to deny access to records relating to an internal investigation of the requester's harassment complaint.

The Inquiry Officer found that most records contained personal information.

The Officer ordered the disclosure of information provided by the requester and the affected persons in direct response to the complaint, finding that its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, the Officer upheld the exemption for information provided by other individuals and witnesses.

Exemptions claimed under sections 38(c) and 10(1)(d) were rejected.