Employment and Labour Law

The requester appealed the Township's decision to deny access to records relating to her complaint of sexual and other harassment.

The Township claimed the records were excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)3.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were prepared by the Township's solicitors for use in meetings and discussions about employment-related matters in which the Township had a legal interest.

As a result, the records fell within the section 52(3)3 exclusion, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to her personnel file and other records held by the Essex County Board of Education.

The Board denied access to 13 records, claiming they fell outside the scope of the Act under sections 52(3)1 and 3.

The appellant appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected, prepared, maintained, or used in relation to a grievance arbitration concerning the appellant's termination, which constitutes a proceeding relating to labour relations.

As such, the records were excluded from the Act under section 52(3)1, and the Board's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Regional Municipality of Peel for records relating to a workplace harassment investigation against the appellant.

The Municipality denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under sections 52(3)1 and 52(3)3.

The Inquiry Officer found that while section 52(3)1 did not apply because the records were not prepared in relation to the subsequent grievance proceeding, section 52(3)3 did apply.

The records were prepared in relation to meetings and communications about an employment-related matter in which the Municipality had an interest, specifically its potential liability under the Human Rights Code.

The appeal was dismissed and the Municipality's decision was upheld.

The appellant, a lawyer representing clients involved in incidents with a police officer, submitted a freedom of information request to the Sudbury Regional Police Services Board for the officer's disciplinary records.

The Police denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records relating to anticipated disciplinary proceedings and legal indemnification fell within the employment and labour relations exclusions of section 52(3)1 and 52(3)3.

As none of the exceptions in section 52(4) applied, the records were outside the scope of the Act, and the Police's decision was upheld.

The appellant, a former police officer, requested access to records concerning his disciplinary matter under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police denied access, claiming the records were excluded under section 52(3) of the Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the records were collected and used in relation to proceedings before a tribunal relating to the employment of a person by the institution.

The records were therefore excluded from the scope of the Act, and the decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant, a former employee of the LCBO, submitted a freedom of information request for records relating to his civil, criminal, and arbitration cases following his suspension and termination.

The LCBO denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(6).

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the LCBO's decision, finding that the records were prepared and maintained in relation to proceedings before the Grievance Settlement Board, which relate to labour relations, and thus fall outside the scope of the Act.

The appellant, an employee of the Ministry of Transportation, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to a grievance and a refusal to work under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the grievance records related to proceedings before the Grievance Settlement Board and the OHSA records related to an investigation in which the Ministry had an interest.

Both sets of records were held to fall within the section 65(6) exclusions and were therefore outside the scope of the Act.

The appellant, an employee of the City of Hamilton Fire Department, appealed the City's decision to deny access to records relating to a promotional job competition under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were collected and used in relation to employment-related matters in which the City has an interest, specifically to ensure compliance with the Ontario Human Rights Code and the collective agreement.

As a result, the records fell within the exclusionary provision of section 52(3)3 of the Act, removing them from the Commissioner's jurisdiction.

The City's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted three requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) for records relating to his retirement and study grant.

OISE denied access to some records, claiming they were excluded under the labour relations and employment provisions of section 65(6), and claimed no responsive records existed for the remainder.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the withheld records were maintained in relation to the appellant's civil lawsuit against OISE for breach of his employment contract, and thus fell within the section 65(6) exclusion.

While OISE's search for some records was found to be unreasonable, no further search was ordered because OISE had been dissolved and integrated into the University of Toronto, removing the records from the scope of the Act.

The appellant requested a copy of a letter of complaint from a fire department employee that may have led to the fire chief's departure.

The City of Orillia refused to confirm or deny the existence of the record under section 14(5) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that confirming or denying the existence of the record would reveal personal information about the former fire chief and constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply.

The appellant requested access to records from the Liquor Control Board of Ontario relating to a sexual harassment investigation undertaken in response to her complaint.

The LCBO denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were prepared and maintained in relation to anticipated proceedings before the Grievance Settlement Board, which relate to labour relations.

Therefore, the records fell within the parameters of section 65(6)1 and were excluded from the scope of the Act.

The LCBO's decision was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, an employee of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, made a freedom of information request for records relating to a workplace harassment investigation he had initiated against his supervisor.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were collected, prepared, and used in relation to meetings and communications about an employment-related matter in which the Ministry had an interest, specifically potential liability under the Human Rights Code.

Therefore, the records fell within the section 65(6)3 exclusion and the Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, a former employee of the City of Toronto who was dismissed following an investigation into workplace improprieties, made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for his personal information.

The City denied access to a portion of the records, claiming they were excluded from the Act under section 52(3) as they related to labour relations and employment matters.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were collected, prepared, maintained, or used by the City in relation to the appellant's grievance arbitration, which constitutes a proceeding relating to labour relations.

Consequently, the records were excluded from the scope of the Act, and the City's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs' decision to deny access to a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Investigation Report.

The Ministry claimed the report was excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the report was prepared in relation to anticipated proceedings before the Grievance Settlement Board relating to labour relations.

Therefore, the record fell within the parameters of section 65(6)1 and was excluded from the scope of the Act.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, a teacher, submitted an access request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for lists of the Board's probationary staff appointments.

The Board disclosed the records but severed the teachers' names under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the recent amendments to the Act under Bill 7 did not apply retrospectively to the request.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's decision, finding that the disclosure of the names would reveal employment history, constituting a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy.

The public interest override did not apply as the appellant's interest was essentially private.

The appellant, a former employee of the Management Board Secretariat, appealed the Secretariat's decision to deny access to three pages of handwritten notes regarding a workplace complaint made against him.

The Secretariat claimed the records were exempt under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information in the record was "highly sensitive" under section 21(2)(f) and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other individuals.

The Secretariat's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records relating to severance arrangements for six former employees of the Town of Ancaster.

The Town denied access to certain records, claiming solicitor-client privilege and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer refused to allow the Town to raise new discretionary exemptions late in the process.

The Officer found that only one record was subject to solicitor-client privilege, but that all records contained personal information and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Officer also found that the Town's search for records was reasonable and upheld the decision to deny access.

The appellant requested access to witness statements from an internal Ministry investigation into her complaints of workplace discrimination.

The Ministry denied access under sections 21(1) and 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 some information could be disclosed without identifying the witnesses, the remaining information was highly sensitive and supplied in confidence.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the highlighted portions of the records and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to the rest.

The appellant appealed Ontario Hydro's decision to deny access to a document containing recommendations from an internal investigation into a harassment complaint initiated by the appellant.

Ontario Hydro claimed exemptions under sections 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 21 (invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected persons' privacy under section 49(b), as the highly sensitive information pertained primarily to the appellant.

Furthermore, the record did not qualify for the advice or recommendations exemption under section 13(1) because the suggested course of conduct was not sufficiently specific.

Ontario Hydro was ordered to disclose the record in its entirety.

The appellant, an instructor at the College, requested access to records relating to a harassment investigation conducted against him.

The College denied access to portions of the interviewers' notes, citing exemptions for solicitor-client privilege, danger to safety or health, and invasion of privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the College's decision to withhold witness names and identifying information to protect personal privacy, as well as one page subject to solicitor-client privilege.

However, the Commissioner ordered the disclosure of notes relating to the substance of the complaint, finding that the appellant's right to adequate disclosure outweighed privacy concerns.