Employment and Labour Law

The appellant, a former employee, requested copies of all records containing her personal information related to her grievance proceedings.

The Municipality denied access, relying on solicitor-client privilege and litigation privilege.

The Inquiry Officer found that the majority of the records were prepared by counsel for use in litigation and were therefore exempt.

However, four pages relating to the access request itself were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant, a former employee of Ontario Hydro, requested access to his employment records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Ontario Hydro denied the request, stating that all responsive records had already been provided to the appellant's counsel during a civil lawsuit.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that Ontario Hydro had conducted a reasonable search by knowledgeable staff in locations where the records might reasonably be located, and upheld the institution's decision.

The appellant requested access to her grievance file and course completion documentation from the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Ministry withheld 29 pages, initially claiming the law enforcement exemption, but later relying on the exemption for plans relating to the management of personnel or administration of an institution under section 18(1)(f) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records, which outlined the Ministry's approach to dealing with a specific grievance, did not constitute a 'plan' within the meaning of the Act.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records, subject to severing personal information of other individuals.

A teacher employed by the Carleton Board of Education appealed the Board's decision to deny access to records relating to harassment and other complaints against him.

The Board relied on exemptions for advice to government, third party information, discretion to refuse a requester's own information, and invasion of privacy under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the advice or recommendations exemption did not apply to the records.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's decision to withhold several records on the basis that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of individuals other than the appellant.

The Board was ordered to disclose the remaining records.

The appellant requested access to materials relating to a Ministry job competition in which she was an unsuccessful candidate.

The Ministry denied access to the interview screening test questions, correct answers, and the appellant's answers, relying on exemptions for economic interests and proposed plans under sections 18(1)(c), (f), and (g) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to establish the required harms or that the records constituted 'proposed' plans not yet put into operation.

The exemptions did not apply, and the Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellants appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to records relating to a job competition in which they were unsuccessful candidates.

The records at issue included interview and examination questions, correct answers, and the appellants' own answers and scores.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 18(1)(c), (f), and (g) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to establish the requirements for any of the claimed exemptions, noting that the job competition materials had already been put into operation and were not 'proposed' plans.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records to the appellants.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of his personnel file and records relating to his 1990 dismissal, claiming additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold certain information under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of other individuals' personal privacy.

However, the Inquiry Officer found the Ministry's search for records relating to the dismissal was unreasonable and ordered a further search of the Grievance Administration and Negotiations Branch.

The appellant, an unsuccessful candidate in three internal job competitions, appealed the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's decision to deny access to technical interview questions, anticipated answers, and diagrams under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Municipality claimed the records were exempt under section 11(c) (economic and other interests), arguing disclosure would prejudice its ability to hire competent supervisory staff and maintain its competitive position.

The Inquiry Officer found the Municipality failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence linking disclosure to specific economic harm or prejudice to its competitive standing.

The Municipality was ordered to disclose the records in their entirety.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's claim that certain employment records did not exist, arguing that a Performance, Planning and Review and an Employee Separation/Work Performance Record should exist.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Ministry's representations and affidavits detailing the search of corporate personnel files, old staff files, training files, and the direct supervisor's files.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate the responsive records and upheld the Ministry's decision.

A requester sought access to a contract between the York Regional Police Services Board and its former Chief of Police.

The Board disclosed the contract but withheld the former Chief's salary under the personal privacy exemption in section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner determined that the former Chief was engaged as an independent contractor rather than an employee.

Consequently, the agreement constituted a contract for personal services under section 14(4)(b) of the Act, meaning disclosure of the salary would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Board was ordered to disclose the salary information.

The appellant requested records relating to the termination of her employment and the creation of a new job position from the Town of Dryden.

The Town provided some records and denied access to others.

The appellant appealed, arguing that more records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Town had conducted a reasonable search for the requested records, supported by a sworn affidavit detailing the search efforts, and upheld the Town's decision.

The appellant requested access to a report produced from an internal investigation into a workplace incident where she threatened harm to co-workers.

The Ministry of Environment and Energy denied access under various exemptions, including section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained highly sensitive personal information supplied in confidence by affected persons.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected persons' personal privacy and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access.

The appellant requested access to the entire contents of a file relating to their complaint under the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Program.

The Management Board Secretariat granted partial access, withholding the remainder under the personal privacy exemptions in sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the denial and claimed additional records existed.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the privacy exemptions to most of the withheld records, finding that they contained the personal information of other individuals, including witness statements and job competition records.

However, the Officer ordered the disclosure of certain records where personal identifiers could be severed, and found that the Secretariat's search for records was reasonable.

The complainant alleged that the Management Board Secretariat (MBS) breached the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act during the course of workplace harassment investigations.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether MBS improperly disclosed the complainant's personal information, failed to retain records, or failed to ensure the accuracy of the information used in the investigation reports.

The Assistant Commissioner concluded that the disclosures made to various MBS officials were necessary and proper in the discharge of the institution's functions under section 42(d) of the Act.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that MBS had retained the records in accordance with section 40(1) and had taken reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of the information under section 40(2).

However, the investigation revealed that MBS had breached certain terms of its indirect collection authorization, and recommendations were made to address these procedural issues.

The appellant sought access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to records relating to a sexual harassment complaint made against her, including witness interview notes and correspondence from the complainant's solicitor.

The Ministry denied access to these specific records under section 49(b), citing the protection of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the witness statements were highly sensitive and supplied in confidence, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the other individuals involved.

The Ministry of Natural Resources received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a workplace harassment investigation report concerning the requester.

The Ministry denied access, citing exemptions for advice or recommendations and personal privacy.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the report did not contain advice or recommendations under section 13(1).

However, the report contained personal information of the complainant and witnesses.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of information essential to the fair resolution of the complaint, but upheld the exemption under section 49(b) for the remaining personal information of other individuals to protect their privacy.

The complainant, an employee of the Municipality's licensing commission, alleged that her sensitive medical information contained in a Workers' Compensation Board report was improperly disclosed by the Municipality to a licensing commission, an insurance company, and at an arbitration hearing, contrary to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information was personal information under the Act.

However, the disclosures to the licensing commission and the insurance company were permitted as they were for a consistent purpose related to claims management and benefits adjudication.

The disclosure at the arbitration hearing was also permitted as the complainant's counsel did not object, constituting implied consent.

The investigation concluded that all disclosures were in accordance with section 32 of the Act.

An employee complained that the City improperly disclosed his personal information to the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) after his claim for a back injury was denied.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether the records contained personal information and whether they were disclosed in accordance with section 32 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The investigation concluded that most of the disclosures, including medical records, sick leave records, and claim-related employee history, were authorized under the Act.

However, the disclosure of non-claim-related employee history, such as speeding suspensions, breached the Act.

The City was recommended to sever non-claim-related personal information from records provided to the WCB.

The complainant alleged that the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations breached the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act during an internal investigation into a sexual harassment complaint against the complainant.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the harassment complaint and related correspondence contained the complainant's personal information.

While disclosures to the Deputy Minister, the investigator, and the aggrieved employee's supervisor were authorized under section 42(d), disclosures to the Acting Director and Human Resources Director were not.

The disclosure of the complainant's address to the aggrieved employee was also unauthorized.

However, the Ministry was found to have taken reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of the information before using it in the investigation report.

The appellant requested access to a report relating to the investigation of her complaint of sexual harassment by a co-worker.

The Ministry granted partial access, claiming exemptions under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, supported by sections 21(2)(f) and (h).

The Inquiry Officer found that while the record contained personal information, the appellant was entitled to portions of the report that directly addressed her complaint, as complete confidentiality cannot be guaranteed in workplace harassment investigations.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose specific highlighted portions of the record.