Other Tribunals

The appellant appealed the decision of the Ottawa Police Services Board to deny access to portions of general occurrence reports containing his personal information.

The Police relied on exemptions for invasion of privacy and facilitating the commission of an unlawful act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that the withheld information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Police properly withheld a police message code and had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny a full fee waiver for an access to information request.

The Ministry had reduced the initial $950 fee estimate to $275 based on the appellant's financial hardship.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's partial fee waiver was fair and equitable, noting that the appellant did not constructively work to narrow the scope of the request and that a full waiver would shift an unreasonable burden of cost to the Ministry.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, a former auxiliary officer, requested access to all records in his personnel file, specifically seeking documentation pertaining to his dismissal.

The Barrie Police Services Board provided the records located in his file but claimed no further documents existed regarding his dismissal.

The appellant appealed, arguing additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police's search was not reasonable, as it was unlikely a dismissal would occur without written documentation, and ordered the Police to conduct further searches and provide affidavits detailing the search efforts.

The requester, an insurance adjuster, appealed the Sudbury Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to a statement provided by an individual convicted of arson.

The Police claimed the statement was exempt under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the statement constituted personal information and that the presumption against disclosure in section 14(3)(b) applied, as the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

The public interest override in section 16 did not apply.

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

L'appelant, un employé de la Direction de l'alphabétisation, a demandé l'accès à un mémorandum contenant des allégations de conflit d'intérêts.

Le Ministère du Procureur général a refusé l'accès en invoquant plusieurs exceptions.

La responsable de l'enquête a conclu que le document contenait des renseignements personnels d'autres employés et que sa divulgation constituerait une atteinte injustifiée à leur vie privée en vertu de l'article 49(b) de la Loi sur l'accès à l'information et la protection de la vie privée.

La décision du Ministère a été maintenue.

The requester appealed a decision by the Management Board Secretariat denying access to the names and addresses of all government machines connected to the Internet.

The Secretariat claimed the security exemption under section 14(1)(i) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the security of the government's computer systems and the sensitive data stored within them.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Township of Emily regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to a road allowance dispute.

The appellant challenged the delegated authority of the Clerk Treasurer to make the access decision and argued that further responsive records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Township had rectified the delegation issue during the appeal process.

Furthermore, based on the affidavit evidence provided by the Township detailing the search efforts, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the Township had conducted a reasonable search for the requested records.

The Township's decision was upheld.

The applicant appealed an arbitrator's decision denying his claim for expenses after he withdrew his application for arbitration at the start of the hearing.

The applicant sought an oral rehearing to re-establish his statutory accident benefits and claim expenses.

The Director of Arbitrations held there was no jurisdiction to hear the benefits claim as it was never arbitrated.

The Director also declined to admit fresh evidence and found no reason to interfere with the arbitrator's discretionary decision to deny expenses, noting the applicant's withdrawal was capricious.

The appeal was dismissed with no expenses awarded.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Education and Training's decision to deny access to records containing the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of certified electricians and registered apprentices.

The Inquiry Officer found that the requested information constituted personal information and that its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the appellant failed to demonstrate a compelling public interest in disclosure under section 23.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The complainant alleged that the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines improperly disclosed his personal information in a letter from the Minister to a Member of Provincial Parliament.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information disclosed, which included details about the complainant's property, mining taxes paid, and his personal dealings with the Ministry, constituted personal information under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner concluded that the disclosure was not in compliance with section 42 of the Act, as the complainant had not consented to the disclosure and it was not for a consistent purpose.

The Ministry was recommended to remind staff of the Act's requirements.

The appellant requested access to an engineering report prepared for the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville's insurer regarding a flooded property.

The Town denied access, claiming the report was not in its custody or control.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer applied the factors from Order 120 and found that the report was created independently by the Town's insurers, and the Town had no right to obtain, retain, or dispose of it.

The appeal was dismissed as the Town did not have custody or control of the record under section 4(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board's decision that no responsive records existed regarding his request for intelligence squad files.

The appellant, a political activist, suggested specific areas to search, such as 'Red Squad' and 'Anti-war Demonstrators'.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as detailed affidavits, to demonstrate that a reasonable search was conducted.

The Police were ordered to conduct a further search focusing on the areas identified by the appellant and to provide detailed affidavits explaining their search process and retention schedules.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's deemed refusal to provide access to requested records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry failed to respond within the 30-day statutory timeframe and did not request a time extension.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to comply with sections 26 and 28(7) of the Act and ordered the Ministry to issue a decision letter within 14 days.

The appellant requested police records relating to the death of her husband.

The Police denied access to portions of the records and photographs, citing personal privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant could not exercise her deceased husband's right of access because her request did not relate to the administration of his estate.

The Officer upheld the Police's decision to withhold records containing only the deceased's personal information under section 14(1), as they were compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

For records containing both the appellant's and the deceased's information, the Officer ordered disclosure of the appellant's information and required the Police to provide representations on their exercise of discretion under section 38(b) for the remaining portions.

The appellant appealed the City of Mississauga's decision to deny access to portions of a Corporate Report and its appendices under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The records related to a homeowners association's request for reimbursement of expenses incurred opposing a land severance application.

The City relied on the closed meeting exemption under section 6(1)(b).

The Inquiry Officer found that the records would reveal the substance of deliberations of in camera meetings of the City's Planning and Development Committee, which were properly held in the absence of the public under section 55(1) of the Municipal Act.

The exception under section 6(2)(b) did not apply as the subject-matter was not considered in an open meeting.

The City's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested records from the Public Complaints Commissioner relating to complaints against several police officers.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board granted partial access, withholding information under the invasion of privacy and published information exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that disclosure of certain portions of the appellant's statements and record of arrest would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy and ordered their disclosure.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the exemptions for the remaining records, including court transcripts, but ordered the Police to advise the appellant of the location where the transcripts could be obtained.

The appellant requested access to their probation and parole file from the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services.

The Ministry disclosed most of the file but withheld certain handwritten notes and a page regarding a parole variation under section 49(e) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming they were confidential correctional records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information constituted personal information and a correctional record, and that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal information supplied in confidence.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of his employment records and occurrence reports under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's application of the invasion of privacy exemption under section 49(b) for the withheld information, which contained personal and medical history of other individuals.

However, the Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to conduct a reasonable search for additional occurrence reports and ordered it to conduct a further search after consulting with the requester.

The appellant sought access to an internal investigation report and related documents regarding a complaint about a racist remark allegedly made by a staff member to an inmate at a correctional facility.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services granted partial access, claiming the invasion of privacy exemption under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the remaining records.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records contained highly sensitive personal information of inmates and other individuals, the disclosure of which would cause excessive personal distress or unfairly expose them to harm.

The Ministry's decision to deny access to certain records was upheld, while other records containing only the appellant's personal information or information of individuals acting in their professional capacities were ordered to be disclosed.

A newspaper reporter appealed the Ottawa Police Services Board's decision to deny access to minutes and audio tapes of a closed meeting regarding a city councillor's conduct.

The Inquiry Officer found that the meeting was properly held in camera under the Police Services Act and that most of the records were exempt from disclosure under the closed meeting exemption in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, portions of the records relating to the appellant's solicitor's submission to the Board were ordered to be disclosed, as they did not reveal the Board's deliberations and their disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.