Employment and Labour Law

The complainant, a teacher on medical leave, filed a privacy complaint after the College's Human Resources Manager accessed his medical file under threat of termination.

The College argued the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6)1 because they were maintained in relation to ongoing and anticipated proceedings, including grievances and a human rights complaint.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were collected, maintained, and used in relation to labour relations and employment-related proceedings.

Consequently, the records fell within the section 65(6)1 exclusion and were outside the Commissioner's jurisdiction.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to La Cité Collégiale for records relating to the classification of a job position.

The College denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(6)3.

The adjudicator found that the records were collected, prepared, and used in relation to communications about employment-related matters in which the College has a legal interest, specifically a grievance filed by the appellant.

The adjudicator upheld the College's decision and found the records fell outside the jurisdiction of the Act.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Community and Social Services for records relating to a job competition, including interview questions, answers, and seniority dates.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(6)3 as employment-related matters in which the Ministry had an interest.

The adjudicator found that while the records related to an employment matter, the Ministry failed to establish a reasonable prospect that its legal interests would be engaged, as there were no active human rights complaints or relevant grievances.

The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to issue an access decision under the Act.

The appellant requested records relating to a job competition for a Legal Counsel position with the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6)3 as employment-related matters in which the Ministry had an interest.

The Assistant Commissioner found that because the job competition was completed and all dispute resolution avenues were exhausted, the Ministry no longer had a legal interest in the records.

The records were found to be within the scope of the Act and ordered disclosed.

The appellant requested access to performance appraisal notes and forms under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

In a previous order, the Commissioner found that section 65(6)3 did not apply because there was no ongoing grievance, and ordered a further search.

The Ministry subsequently denied access, claiming the records did not exist.

After the appellant filed a grievance, the Ministry argued the records were now excluded under section 65(6)3.

The Commissioner rejected the appellant's argument that issue estoppel prevented reconsideration of the jurisdictional issue, finding that the new grievance constituted a special circumstance.

The Commissioner concluded that the records, if they exist, relate to an employment-related matter in which the Ministry has an interest due to the ongoing grievance, and are therefore excluded from the Act's jurisdiction.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for information regarding the ranks and educational levels of former municipal Chiefs of Police who joined the Ontario Provincial Police following police service amalgamations.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(6)3 as employment-related matters in which the Ministry had an interest.

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner found that while the records related to an employment-related matter, the Ministry failed to establish a sufficient legal interest, as there was no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable dispute that had the capacity to affect the Ministry's legal rights or obligations.

The Ministry was ordered to issue an access decision under the Act.

An employee of the Toronto Police Services Board appealed a decision denying access to 73 pages of his departmental medical file.

The Police claimed the records fell outside the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act pursuant to section 52(3).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were collected and used in relation to an employment-related matter in which the Police had a legal interest, specifically the maintenance of discipline and a potential grievance regarding the employee's transfer.

The records were therefore excluded from the Act's jurisdiction.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Toronto for various employment and labour relations files.

The City denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Act pursuant to section 52(3)1.

The adjudicator found that the records were collected, prepared, maintained, or used by the City in relation to ongoing legal proceedings concerning the appellant's employment.

Consequently, the records met the three-part test under section 52(3)1 and were excluded from the Act's jurisdiction.

The City's decision was upheld.

A member of the media requested access to a settlement agreement between the City of Hamilton and a former employee regarding a wrongful dismissal lawsuit.

The City denied access, claiming exemptions for economic interests, solicitor-client privilege, and personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the settlement agreement was not exempt under the economic interests or solicitor-client privilege exemptions, as it was an executed contract intended to end litigation and the City failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of financial harm.

The adjudicator also found that, with the exception of a schedule containing a letter of reference, disclosure of the agreement would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, given the public interest in scrutinizing the expenditure of public funds.

The City was ordered to disclose the agreement and two of its schedules.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Education and Training for records relating to a specific job competition.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Act under section 65(6)3.

The adjudicator found that the records were collected in relation to an employment-related matter in which the Ministry had an ongoing legal interest, as the appellant had expressed continued dissatisfaction, had an outstanding grievance, and might pursue a human rights complaint.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, concluding the records were excluded from the Act.

A member of the media requested access to the attendance records of the Chief of the Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Police Service.

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

The adjudicator found that the records were collected and used in relation to discussions about the Chief's compensation and termination agreement, which are employment-related matters in which the Police Services Board has a legal interest.

Therefore, the records were excluded from the Act's jurisdiction, and the Municipality's decision to deny access was upheld.

An employee of the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board requested access to her personal information relating to her long-term disability benefits and return to work.

The Board denied access to 13 records, claiming they fell outside the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)3.

The adjudicator found that while the records related to an employment matter, the Board failed to establish a sufficient legal interest, as there was no pending or reasonably foreseeable grievance or legal action.

The records were ordered to be processed under the Act.

The appellant, a municipal employee on long-term disability, requested access to his personal records, including notes, personnel files, and correspondence regarding his employment and a previous threat of legal action for workplace harassment.

The Town of Oakville denied access to several records, claiming they were excluded from the Act under sections 52(3)1 and 52(3)3, or exempt under various provisions including solicitor-client privilege and closed meeting exemptions.

The Adjudicator found that because the threatened legal action was no longer current or reasonably proximate, the records were not excluded under section 52(3).

However, the Adjudicator upheld the Town's decision to withhold certain records under the exemptions for unjustified invasion of personal privacy, closed meetings, and solicitor-client privilege, while ordering the disclosure of the remaining records.

The appellant, a suspended police officer, requested access to the notebooks of two other officers relating to the events leading to his suspension.

The Toronto Police Services Board denied access, claiming the records were employment-related and 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 records were collected in relation to an anticipated disciplinary hearing under the Police Services Act, which constitutes a proceeding relating to employment, thereby excluding the records from the Act's jurisdiction.

An occasional supply teacher requested records from the Toronto District School Board regarding teacher hirings and supply lists.

The Board denied access, claiming the records fell under the labour relations exclusion in section 52(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester appealed.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Board's decision, finding that because the requester had subsequently filed a grievance, the records were being maintained in relation to a labour relations proceeding before an arbitrator, thereby excluding them from the Act's jurisdiction.

The appellant, a representative of the Toronto Fire Fighters Association, requested access to written, practical, and oral examination materials for a Fire Captain job competition.

The City of Toronto denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3).

The Adjudicator found that the records were collected, prepared, maintained, and used by the City in relation to meetings, discussions, and consultations about employment-related matters in which the City has an interest.

Consequently, the records were excluded from the Act's jurisdiction under section 52(3)3, and the City's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant, a member of the Terrace Bay Police Services Board, requested access to a complaint filed against him by a co-worker.

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 Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the records were collected and maintained for an anticipated disciplinary proceeding relating to the employment of a person by the institution, and thus fell within the section 52(3)1 exclusion.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Near North District School Board denying access to records relating to a job competition in which the appellant was an unsuccessful candidate.

The appellant alleged the delegated head had a conflict of interest due to bias.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the bias claim, finding no personal interest or reasonable perception of bias.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record relating to the successful candidate's qualifications fell outside the scope of the Act under the employment records exclusion in section 52(3)3.

While the Board breached its records retention policy by destroying the interview notes prematurely, the Inquiry Officer concluded the search for those records was reasonable because they no longer existed.

The appellant, an employee of the City of Toronto, requested access to an independent investigator's report regarding workplace concerns.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the record was collected, prepared, maintained, or used in relation to meetings, consultations, discussions, or communications about employment-related matters in which the City had an interest.

The appeal was dismissed as the record fell outside the jurisdiction of the Act.

A police officer requested access to records concerning allegations made about her to the Internal Affairs Bureau.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denied access, claiming 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 records were collected in relation to an anticipated disciplinary hearing, which constitutes a proceeding relating to employment.

The decision to deny access was upheld.