Employment and Labour Law

A police officer requested access to an internal investigation report regarding a complaint he had made.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denied access, claiming the record was excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3).

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the report was prepared in relation to consultations and communications about employment-related or labour relations matters in which the Police have a legal interest.

A teacher requested access to his personnel file and a file containing student complaints kept by the school principal under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board denied access to certain records, claiming they were excluded under section 52(3)3 as employment-related matters.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were prepared and maintained by the principal on behalf of the Board in relation to an employment-related matter in which the Board had an interest.

The appeal was dismissed as the records were excluded from the scope of the Act.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto for access to her personnel, grievance, workers' compensation, and pay equity records.

The Municipality denied access to certain records, claiming they were excluded from the Act under section 52(3) as they related to labour relations and employment proceedings.

The Municipality also severed portions of other records under section 38(b) to protect the privacy of third parties.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Municipality's decision, finding that the records were excluded under section 52(3) and that disclosure of the severed information would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Officer also found that the Municipality had complied with the appellant's request to view the original records by offering her the opportunity to do so.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Town of Oakville for copies of test and interview results related to a job competition.

The Town denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under section 52(3).

On appeal, the adjudicator applied a three-part test and found that the records were collected, prepared, maintained, or used in relation to employment-related matters in which the Town had an interest.

Consequently, the records fell within the section 52(3)3 exclusion and were outside the scope of the Act.

The Town's decision was upheld.

A police officer appealed the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board's decision to deny access to records in his medical file under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police claimed the records were excluded from the Act's jurisdiction under section 52(3) because they related to employment and disciplinary proceedings.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected in relation to potential disciplinary hearings and fitness for duty investigations, which are employment-related proceedings.

The decision of the Police to deny access was upheld, as the records fell outside the scope of the Act.

A union requested access to a forensic auditor's report regarding the City of Scarborough's Works and Environment Department.

The City denied access, and the union appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the report was prepared in relation to meetings and discussions about employment-related and labour relations matters in which the City had an interest.

Consequently, the record was excluded from the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)3, and the appeal was dismissed.

The requester appealed the Region's decision to deny access to portions of his human resources file and notes from a workplace investigation into allegations of misconduct.

The adjudicator found that the Region had conducted a reasonable search for the records.

Furthermore, the adjudicator determined that the records were excluded from the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)3, as they were prepared by the Region in relation to an employment-related matter in which the Region had a legal interest.

The Region's decision was upheld.

A former employee of the City of Toronto appealed the City's decision to deny access to records relating to his employment and specific incidents.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the remaining records, a memorandum and a police occurrence report, were collected and maintained for use in pending grievance arbitrations.

As the arbitrations were proceedings relating to labour relations before an 'other entity', the records fell within the section 52(3)1 exclusion.

The City's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to her corporate and human resources personnel files from the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

The Municipality provided the records but withheld notations made on her resume during a job competition.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the notations were prepared and used in relation to a job competition, which is an employment-related matter in which the Municipality has an interest.

Therefore, the records were excluded from the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)3, and the Municipality's decision was upheld.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Toronto for medical reports, rehabilitation assessments, job descriptions, and performance evaluations.

The City denied access on the basis that the records were excluded under section 52(3) of the Act as employment-related records.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that the records were collected and used in relation to employment-related matters in which the City had an interest, specifically the duty to accommodate an employee with a disability and workers' compensation claims.

The appellant appealed the Regional Municipality of Halton's decision to deny access to records relating to an internal investigation of workplace misconduct.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Region conducted a reasonable search for the requested records.

Furthermore, the records were excluded from the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)3, as they were prepared and maintained by the Region in relation to an employment-related matter in which the Region had an interest.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board for records relating to his unsuccessful employment applications.

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

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search for the records.

Furthermore, the Inquiry Officer determined that the records fell within the employment-related matters exclusion in section 52(3)3, as they were prepared in relation to a job competition in which the Police had an interest.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records relating to an investigation of a 1993 workplace complaint from the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected, prepared, and maintained in relation to proceedings before the Ontario Human Rights Commission concerning employment matters.

Therefore, the records fell within the section 52(3) exclusion and the Municipality's decision was upheld.

The appellant, an employee of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board, requested access to records concerning an internal investigation into problems between staff, in which the appellant was the complainant.

The Police denied access under section 52(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the records were collected, prepared, maintained, or used by the Police in relation to communications about employment-related matters in which the Police have an interest, and were therefore excluded from the scope of the Act.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Metropolitan Separate School Board for records relating to meetings, interviews, and complaints involving the appellant and another individual.

The Board denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Act under section 52(3)1.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's decision, finding that the records were collected, prepared, maintained, or used in relation to grievance arbitration proceedings and a human rights complaint, which relate to labour relations and employment.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board denying access to records related to a complaint of police misconduct.

The Inquiry Officer found that one record was exempt from disclosure as it would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy.

The remaining record, an internal investigation report, was found to be excluded from the scope of the Act under section 52(3)3 because it was collected and prepared in relation to an employment-related matter in which the Police have an interest.

The appellant, a former employee, submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to a workplace harassment investigation that resulted in a reprimand.

The Township denied access to the consultant's investigation report, citing the employment records exclusion in section 52(3)3 of the Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Township's decision, finding that the report was prepared and used by the Township in relation to communications about an employment-related matter in which the Township had a legal interest.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of Order M-835, which denied access to police disciplinary records under section 52(3)1 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant argued that police officers are not 'employees' at common law, and therefore disciplinary proceedings do not relate to 'employment' under the Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while police officers may not be employees at common law, the Police Services Act characterizes their work as employment.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the original decision was correct and declined the request for reconsideration.

The appellant sought access to records concerning a job competition in which he was an unsuccessful candidate.

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 Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected in relation to a job competition, which is an employment-related matter in which the Ministry has an interest.

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

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services requested a reconsideration of Order P-1264, which had found that certain records were not excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6)3.

The Inquiry Officer determined that the previous order contained a jurisdictional error because the Ministry did have a legal interest in the records, which concerned staffing, attendance, and training.

Consequently, the records met all requirements of section 65(6)3 and were excluded from the Act.

The relevant provision of the previous order was rescinded.