Employment and Labour Law

The appellant, a former employee of the Toronto Board of Education, sought access to records relating to her sexual harassment complaint and the subsequent investigation.

The Board denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, third party information, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that records held by independent consultants were not in the Board's custody or control.

The Officer ordered the disclosure of the complaint summary and portions of the Fact-Finder's report that did not identify witnesses, finding that the appellant's interest in adequate disclosure outweighed privacy concerns.

The Board's search for records was deemed reasonable.

The complainant, a successful candidate in a job competition, filed a privacy complaint after the Ministry of Community and Social Services disclosed their resume and cover letter to the union (OPSEU) during a grievance process.

The Ministry argued the disclosure was permitted under section 42(e) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to comply with a disclosure agreement related to the collective agreement.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the records contained personal information and that the disclosure agreement did not expressly authorize the disclosure of resumes and cover letters.

The Commissioner concluded the disclosure violated section 42 of the Act and recommended the Ministry implement procedures to sever personal identifiers before disclosing such documents.

The appellant appealed London Hydro's response to a freedom of information request for employment records, specifically concerning an alleged familial relationship that rendered the appellant ineligible for permanent employment.

The sole issue was whether London Hydro conducted a reasonable search for the requested records.

The Inquiry Officer found that London Hydro failed to provide sufficient details of its search efforts and ordered it to conduct a further search.

The appellant requested access to statements and submissions pertaining to a workplace harassment complaint made against her.

The Regional Municipality of Waterloo denied access to several records, citing the invasion of privacy exemption under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the decision and alleged a conflict of interest by the decision-maker.

The Inquiry Officer found no conflict of interest and determined that one disputed record was responsive to the request.

The Officer ordered partial disclosure of the interview notes, finding that disclosing certain portions would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy, while upholding the denial of access to the remainder.

The appellant requested records relating to a sexual harassment complaint, written discipline correspondence, and her personnel file from the Metropolitan Separate School Board.

The Board denied access to the investigation records citing invasion of privacy and refused to confirm or deny the existence of the discipline correspondence.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board could not refuse to confirm or deny the existence of the discipline records as it had already confirmed their existence.

The Officer ordered the disclosure of the response to the complaint and meeting minutes, finding it would not be an unjustified invasion of privacy, but upheld the exemption for the Board's conclusion letter.

The Officer also found the Board conducted a reasonable search for records.

The requester, a former employee, appealed the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's decision to deny access to portions of their personnel file, including supervisors' notes.

The Inquiry Officer found that certain records were exempt under section 38(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they were prepared for counsel in contemplation of litigation, satisfying the requirements for solicitor-client privilege under section 12.

The remaining records were found to be exempt under section 38(b) because they contained personal information of other individuals supplied in confidence, and disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(2)(h).

The Municipality's decision was upheld.

An employee complained that the Ministry of Community and Social Services improperly destroyed handwritten notes taken during a meeting about his workplace harassment concerns.

The notes were used to prepare a memo, after which they were destroyed.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner's Compliance Review Officer found that the notes contained personal information and that the Ministry failed to retain them for the mandatory one-year period after use, as required by section 5(1) of Regulation 460 under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer recommended that the Ministry remind staff of the retention requirements.

The appellant, representing an employer, requested access to records concerning the Ministry of Labour's investigation of an Employment Standards Act complaint made by a former employee.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b).

The complainant, a former employee of the Municipality who had previously received General Welfare Assistance (GWA), filed a privacy complaint alleging that his personal information was improperly disclosed.

Following his termination for allegedly failing to declare assets while receiving GWA, the complainant grieved the dismissal.

He alleged that his GWA file was improperly disclosed to his Unit Manager and the Manager of Employee Relations.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information was personal information, but that its disclosure to both managers was in compliance with section 32(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as they needed the information in the performance of their duties related to the employment relationship and the grievance process.

The complainant, an employee of the Ministry of Housing, alleged that her manager disclosed her personal information to the Director and the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) Co-ordinator without her consent, in breach of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information was 'personal information' under the Act.

The disclosure to the WDHP Co-ordinator was not in compliance with section 42 of the Act, as the Co-ordinator did not need the complainant's identity at that initial stage.

However, the disclosure to the Director was in compliance with section 42(d), as the Director needed the information to consider the complainant's request for a transfer.

A Board of Education appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to records from a police investigation into allegations against a teacher.

The teacher was fired and the matter was referred to a Board of Reference.

The Police denied access citing personal privacy and solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer found the records contained sensitive personal information of the teacher, children, and parents, and were exempt under section 14(1) as they were compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

The Officer also held that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, as the Board of Reference has independent statutory powers to subpoena the records if necessary, and the privacy interests of the children outweighed the public interest in disclosure under the Act.

The appellant, an employee of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, appealed the Municipality's decision to deny access to various employment-related records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Municipality claimed exemptions based on advice or recommendations, solicitor-client privilege, invasion of privacy, and the discretion to refuse a requester's own information.

The Inquiry Officer found that certain records containing investigation recommendations and documents prepared for a human rights complaint were exempt.

However, the Officer ordered the disclosure of other records that did not contain advice, recommendations, or privileged information.

A former employee of the City of Oshawa appealed the City's decision to deny access to records relating to the position of City Manager and a forensic accounting investigation that led to the employee's termination.

The Inquiry Officer found that the internal investigation did not qualify as a 'law enforcement' matter under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, several records were found to be exempt under solicitor-client privilege, either as confidential communications or as records prepared in contemplation of litigation.

The draft by-law exemption was applied strictly to actual drafts, not to staff comments, and the advice exemption was applied only to specific suggested courses of action.

The City was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records.

An employee of the Ministry of Finance complained that the Ministry's collection of Social Insurance Numbers (SIN) on three internal forms violated the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the SIN is personal information under section 2(1) of the Act.

The collection of the SIN on the 'Request for Leave of Absence' form was found to comply with section 38(2) because it was necessary for payroll administration.

However, the collection of the SIN on the 'Statement of Travelling Expenses' and 'Request for Advance' forms was not necessary for the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity and therefore violated section 38(2).

The Ministry was recommended to cease collecting the SIN on the latter two forms.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to Thunder Bay Hydro for records relating to a workplace harassment investigation conducted by an external lawyer.

Hydro denied access, claiming it did not have custody or control of the lawyer's investigation notes.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner applied the 10-factor test for custody and control, finding that the lawyer was retained as an independent investigator, not in a solicitor-client relationship, and created the notes for his own benefit.

The Commissioner upheld Hydro's decision that the records were not in its custody or control under section 4(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the Board of Education's response to a freedom of information request for records relating to her union activities.

The Board claimed it had already provided all documents in her personnel file.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's search for records relating to requests for time off was reasonable, but its search for other records relating to union activities was not, as such records would not necessarily be in a personnel file.

The Board was ordered to conduct a further search.

The appellant requested her complete personnel, employee relations, and legal services files from the Board of Education for the City of Hamilton relating to her grievance proceedings.

The Board granted partial access, claiming exemptions for solicitor-client privilege and evaluative material.

The Inquiry Officer allowed the late appeal and refused to consider new discretionary exemptions raised late by the Board.

The Officer upheld the exemption for solicitor-client privilege for one record but ordered the disclosure of other records, finding they did not qualify as third-party information or evaluative material.

The Officer also found the Board's search for legal records inadequate and ordered a further search.

The requester appealed the Nipissing Board of Education's decision to deny access to four records from his grievance file under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board claimed exemptions for solicitor-client privilege, closed meetings, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that one record was exempt under the solicitor-client privilege exemption and another under the closed meeting exemption.

The remaining two records did not qualify for the solicitor-client privilege exemption and were ordered to be disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer also confirmed his delegated authority to issue the order.

The complainant, an employee of the Ministry of Health, alleged that her personal medical information regarding a severe shellfish allergy and workplace accommodation requirements was disclosed to the Hospital's Director of Medical Services without her consent.

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

However, the disclosure was permitted under section 42(d) of the Act because the Director needed the information to ensure the complainant's accommodation needs were met while minimizing health and safety risks to patients.

The Ministry was recommended to clarify its procedures regarding the disclosure of personal information for employment accommodations.

A newspaper reporter appealed the Barrie Public Library Board's decision to deny access to Minutes of Settlement between the Board and a former employee.

The Board claimed exemptions for third party information, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third party and solicitor-client privilege exemptions did not apply.

While the record contained personal information, the Inquiry Officer concluded that public scrutiny and public confidence considerations favoured disclosure of the settlement terms.

However, the former employee's identifying information and a letter of reference were found to be exempt as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Board was ordered to disclose the severed record.