Other Tribunals

The appellant, a taxi owner, requested access to a 1975 record containing names corresponding to missing numbers on a taxicab fleet owners waiting list.

The Metropolitan Licensing Commission responded that the record did not exist.

The appellant appealed, arguing a reasonable search was not conducted.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Commission had taken all reasonable steps to locate the records, noting that the list had been reformatted and superseded over the years, and upheld the Commission's decision.

The appellant, a private investigation firm, appealed the decision of the Peel Regional Police Services Board to deny access to an occurrence report related to a sudden death at a water park.

The Police claimed the report was exempt under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer applied the three-part test for the law enforcement exemption under section 8(2)(a) and found that the record was a report prepared by a law enforcement agency in the course of a law enforcement investigation.

The decision of the Police to deny access was upheld.

The parties jointly requested an adjournment of the proceedings sine die.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request on consent, noting that the matters would be terminated one year after the date of the decision unless brought on for hearing before the expiry of that period.

The appellant appealed an Engineer's Report regarding the repair of washouts in the Abray Drain.

The Report assessed the majority of the erosion control costs against upstream landowners, theorizing the damage was caused by water flowing in the drain.

The Tribunal found that the physical evidence overwhelmingly indicated the washouts were caused by surface waters flowing from the adjoining landowner's property into the drain.

Consequently, the Tribunal varied the assessment, ordering that the costs of the erosion control work be levied primarily against the adjoining landowner.

A tenant complained that the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority (MTHA) improperly collected personal information by requiring proof of vehicle ownership to obtain a parking sticker.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the vehicle registration information was 'personal information' under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, the collection was authorized under section 38(2) as it was necessary for the proper administration of the MTHA's parking management program, which required proof of both residency and personal ownership.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the MTHA's form failed to provide the required notice of collection under section 39(2) and recommended that the form be amended.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Board of Education for the City of Hamilton for a list of probationary secondary school teachers hired over the last seven years.

The Board initially directed the appellant to publicly available minutes, but during mediation, located and disclosed lists for 1992, 1993, and 1994 with names redacted.

The appellant appealed, arguing the Board ought to have more responsive records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the request was proper under the Act and that the Board's search for responsive records was reasonable in the circumstances.

The Board's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed a decision by the Peterborough County Board of Education denying access to records concerning the conditions and costs of assisting an expelled student.

The Board claimed exemptions under section 6(1)(b) (closed meetings) and section 14 (invasion of privacy) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records, which included minutes of an in camera committee meeting and a letter to the student's parents, were properly exempt under section 6(1)(b) because they would reveal the substance of deliberations from a meeting authorized to be closed under the Education Act.

The Board's decision was upheld.

A parent complained that a grade nine school project requiring students to disclose personal information about their ancestry, race, and country of origin violated the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board of Education argued that the project was part of the common curriculum designed to promote multiculturalism and that alternative assignments were offered.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the requested information was 'personal information' under the Act, its collection was necessary to the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity, specifically providing instruction in a prescribed course of study under the Education Act.

The collection of personal information was therefore in compliance with the Act.

The complainant, a police constable, alleged that the Police Services Board improperly disclosed his personal information to his wife and to the Police Complaints Commissioner (PCC) in the course of handling a public complaint.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information was personal information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The disclosure to the complainant's wife was not in compliance with section 32 of the Act, as it was not required by the Police Services Act.

However, the disclosure to the PCC was in compliance with section 32(f) of the Act, as it was a disclosure by a law enforcement institution to a law enforcement agency.

The appellant appealed the Townships' decision regarding a freedom of information request for road subsidy reports, arguing that additional records should exist for a specific four-month period.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Townships failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as an affidavit detailing the search efforts, to demonstrate that a reasonable search had been conducted.

The Townships were ordered to conduct a further search for the requested records and issue a new decision.

The appellant appealed the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton's response to a freedom of information request concerning a severance agreement with a senior employee.

The appellant argued that additional responsive records should exist.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Region's search for records was reasonable.

However, the Region was ordered to issue a supplementary decision letter regarding certain located records that it claimed were not responsive to the request, detailing the exemptions it would apply if the records were deemed responsive.

The appellant requested a severance permit from the Townships.

The Townships initially withheld the record under the personal privacy exemption, but later claimed during mediation that the record did not exist.

The appellant appealed, arguing the permit must exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Townships failed to provide sufficient evidence of a reasonable search and failed to make reasonable inquiries to determine if another institution had custody of the record.

The Townships were ordered to conduct a further search and issue a new decision or transfer the request.

The complainants alleged that a separate school board collected their child's personal medical information without consent, contrary to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The school board's psychologist had contacted the child's clinician to ask if a status report was available for an upcoming Special Education Appeal Board hearing.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information collected—that no report was available—constituted personal information.

However, the collection was in compliance with section 28(2) of the Act because it was necessary for the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity, namely preparing for the appeal hearing.

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 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 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 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 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.