Other Tribunals

The appellant requested access to correspondence and briefs containing complaints about the principal or teaching staff at a named school.

The Metropolitan Separate School Board denied access under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records did not contain personal information or contained only the appellant's personal information and ordered them disclosed.

The remaining records were found to contain personal information of other individuals, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Board's decision to deny access to those records was upheld.

The appellant requested information relating to the costs of investigating two cases and the Green Ribbon Task Force.

The Police responded that no records exist, as expenses are paid directly by the province.

The appellant appealed, arguing additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found the Police's search unreasonable, noting that the Police possess payroll records and general orders that would contain responsive information regarding wages and overtime.

The Police were ordered to inform the appellant of their record holdings and issue a new decision.

The complainant alleged that a police services board improperly disclosed his personal information to his former employer.

The information was contained in an occurrence report prepared after an investigation initiated by the employer.

The complainant discovered the disclosure during a mediation hearing for a wrongful dismissal complaint, when the employer's lawyer provided an unsevered copy of the report.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner's investigation concluded that the information in the report constituted personal information under section 2(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The investigation further found that the police services board's disclosure of this information to the employer was not in compliance with section 32 of the Act.

The police services board was recommended to ensure future disclosures comply with the Act.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission's decision to deny access to portions of a 'Management Function Review' report.

During mediation and inquiry, the Commission agreed to release most of the requested portions, leaving only page 53 at issue.

The Inquiry Officer found that page 53 contained the personal information of an identifiable former employee, specifically an evaluation of their performance.

As the only representations supported the view that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, the Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the section 21 mandatory exemption and ordered the disclosure of the remaining agreed-upon pages.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision regarding a freedom of information request for personal notes taken by four employees during a meeting that resulted in disciplinary action.

The Ministry disclosed a three-page compilation but stated the original notes had been destroyed.

The sole issue was whether the Ministry's search for responsive records was reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer found the search reasonable based on an affidavit and representations confirming the destruction of the original notes, and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The applicants, neighbouring property owners, brought an application under the Farm Practices Protection Act complaining about the respondents' practice of burning horse manure on their hobby farm.

The respondents argued that burning was necessary to keep their barns clean for handicapped visitors and that it was a common practice.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board found that it had jurisdiction to determine what constitutes a normal farm practice, even if the practice potentially violated the Environmental Protection Act.

Relying on evidence from local farmers and an agricultural engineer, the Board concluded that burning manure is not a normal farm practice and ordered the respondents to cease the practice, recommending alternative disposal methods such as composting or spreading.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to withhold five pages of a policy document regarding the licensing of specimen collection centres.

The Ministry claimed the pages were exempt from disclosure under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they contained advice or recommendations.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld pages merely set out alternative courses of action and possible consequences without identifying a preferred option.

Following previous orders, the Inquiry Officer held that such options do not constitute advice or recommendations.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the withheld pages.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Town of Pickering for records relating to a property ownership dispute and ongoing litigation.

The Town denied access to numerous records, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the request was within the scope of the Act despite the ongoing litigation.

The Commissioner upheld the application of solicitor-client privilege and litigation privilege to the majority of the records, including settlement negotiations and lawyer's briefs.

However, several records consisting of council meeting agendas and by-laws were ordered to be disclosed, as they did not qualify for the privilege exemptions and did not contain exempt third-party or personal information.

The requester appealed a decision of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to a Crown Brief on the basis that the record did not exist.

The sole issue was whether the Police conducted a reasonable search.

The Inquiry Officer accepted the affidavit evidence of the Police detailing their search efforts across multiple divisions and offices, concluding that the search was reasonable despite the record not being located.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant appealed the City of Cambridge's decision to deny access to the name of a person who filed a zoning by-law complaint against her.

The City relied on the law enforcement exemption under section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing that disclosure would reveal a confidential source.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that the by-law complaints process relies on confidentiality and that the City properly exercised its discretion under section 38(a) to refuse disclosure of the appellant's personal information where section 8 applies.

The appellants requested the name and address of a complainant who reported them for by-law violations.

The City of North York denied access, citing the confidential source exemption under section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that disclosing the complainant's position and address would not identify them, ordering those details released.

However, the Officer upheld the City's decision to withhold the complainant's name, confirming it qualified as a confidential source.

The appellant requested access to a by-law occurrence report and the identity of the complainant from the City of Nepean.

The City granted partial access but withheld the complainant's name, address, and telephone number under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that the by-law enforcement process qualifies as a law enforcement matter and that the complainant's identity is protected as a confidential source under section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The applicants brought an application before the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board regarding the respondents' manure storage and removal practices.

Following the commencement of a hearing and the submission of evidence, the parties agreed to a consent order.

The Board ordered the respondents to adopt a dry technique for manure removal, repair leaking water bowls, and ensure immediate off-farm disposal of manure.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Citizenship's decision to deny access to a three-page letter and its attachment under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under sections 21(1) and 49(b) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the attachment, written by the appellant's client's solicitor, would not result in an unjustified invasion of privacy and ordered its disclosure.

However, the main record contained highly sensitive information supplied in confidence, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the author's personal privacy.

The Ministry's decision to deny access to the main record was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to deny access to minutes of a meeting attended by representatives of various provincial and federal revenue ministries regarding tax assessing policies.

The Inquiry Officer found that portions of the record were exempt under section 17(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they contained taxpayer-specific information.

The remaining portions, except for a few paragraphs, were found exempt under section 15(a) as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice intergovernmental relations.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions.

The requester appealed Ontario Hydro's decision to deny access to a list of user accounts with Unix-to-Unix Copy Program (UUCP) addresses.

Ontario Hydro claimed the record was exempt under the security exemption in section 14(1)(i) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that disclosure of the user account names could lead to unauthorized access to Ontario Hydro's internal computer systems, thereby endangering the security of a system established to protect items for which protection is reasonably required.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Board of Education for the City of Hamilton under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the Board failed to locate records relating to an investigation into alleged human rights violations.

The Board indicated that no new responsive records existed beyond those already provided in response to previous requests.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's internal consultations to determine if new records had been created were sufficient, and that a new full-scale search was not required.

The Board's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed Ontario Hydro's decision to deny access to an agreement for the sale of synthetic gypsum to a third party company.

Hydro attempted to raise additional discretionary exemptions late in the appeals process, which the Inquiry Officer refused to consider due to lack of extenuating circumstances.

Applying the three-part test for third party information under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Inquiry Officer found that only specific portions of the agreement containing pricing and business arrangements were supplied in confidence and could reasonably cause competitive harm if disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the remaining portions of the agreement.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Peel Regional Police Services Board for records pertaining to investigations into computer bulletin board services.

The Police refused to confirm or deny the existence of such records under section 8(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while the records, if they existed, would qualify for the law enforcement exemption, the Police failed to establish that merely confirming their existence or non-existence would communicate exempt information.

The Inquiry Officer did not uphold the Police's decision and confirmed that no responsive records exist.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Niagara Regional Police Services Board denying access to records relating to the investigation of the disappearance and death of an individual.

The Police relied on the invasion of privacy exemption under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b).

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, as there was no compelling public interest that clearly outweighed the purpose of the exemption.

The decision of the Police was upheld.