Other Tribunals

The appellant requested copies of two termination agreements between the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk and two former employees under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Municipality denied access, relying on the closed meeting exemption under section 6(1)(b) and the invasion of privacy exemption under section 14.

The Inquiry Officer applied the three-part test for section 6(1)(b) and found that the meetings were held in camera, authorized by the Municipal Act, and that disclosure of the agreements would reveal the substance of the deliberations.

The Municipality's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board for information relating to police computer systems, radio frequencies, and equipment inventories.

The Police refused to confirm or deny the existence of records relating to an alleged computer system transmission failure under section 8(3), and denied access to the remaining items under section 8(1).

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that confirming the existence of the transmission failure records would communicate exempt information, and that disclosure of the radio frequency and computer service information could reasonably be expected to facilitate the commission of an unlawful act or hamper the control of crime.

The requester appealed the Nipissing Board of Education's decision to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of additional records responsive to a request for his personnel file and related documentation.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board improperly relied on section 14(5) to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of the records, as confirming their existence would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer confirmed the existence of 33 additional records and reviewed the Board's alternative exemption claims.

Several records were found to be exempt under solicitor-client privilege (section 12) and the personal privacy exemption (section 38(b)), while others were ordered to be disclosed.

The Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Police Services Board applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services under s. 39(4) of the Police Services Act to resolve a $50,000 budget shortfall.

The Board argued that previous budget cuts left no room for further reductions, citing increased costs for vehicle replacement and insurance premiums.

The Regional Municipality opposed the application, pointing to a high incidence of tax arrears and the need to be sensitive to property taxpayers' ability to pay.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding that the Board could operate within the budget approved by the Municipality, and suggested the Board review its vehicle replacement allocation.

The appellant requested access to all information relating to the involvement of a company for which he was acting, which led the Workers' Compensation Board to seek a search and seizure order for the company's employment records.

The Board initially responded that no records existed, but later disclosed several files after the appellant provided additional information.

The appellant appealed, arguing the Board failed to provide all records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board had conducted a reasonable search and disclosed all records relating specifically to the appellant's client, upholding the Board's decision.

The appellant appealed his assessment for the improvement of the Escott Drain, which involved enclosing a portion of the open drain along a road allowance.

The appellant argued the drain should remain open and objected to the assessment.

The Tribunal found the assessment equitable, noting the benefits to the appellant's lands, including eliminated cleanout costs, reduced maintenance, and enhanced property value.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Inquiry Officer issued a Final Order following Interim Order M-310, which had directed the Belleville Police Services Board to reconsider its exercise of discretion under section 38(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

After reviewing the Board's written representations regarding the factors it considered, the Inquiry Officer found nothing improper in the exercise of discretion and upheld the Board's decision.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to deny access to 36 records relating to a named company's compliance with capitalization, bonding, and insurance requirements under the Ontario Securities Act and the Commodity Futures Act.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13 and 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained financial and commercial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the company's competitive position.

The records were held to be exempt under section 17(1), and the Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the fee charged and the adequacy of the search conducted by the Frontenac County Board of Education in response to a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records related to the V.I.P. program.

The Inquiry Officer found that the fee of $44.50 was calculated in accordance with the Act and was reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Board's search for responsive records was reasonable in the circumstances.

The Board's decisions were upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to an incident involving contraband drugs and ammunition at a detention facility.

The Inquiry Officer found that several records contained personal information and were exempt under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer also upheld the application of the advice and recommendations exemption under section 13(1) for certain documents.

However, the Officer rejected the Ministry's claim that disclosure would jeopardize facility security or facilitate escape under sections 14(1)(j) and (k).

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

The appellant requested records relating to the police investigation of a fatal motor vehicle accident involving their child.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access to portions of the records, citing personal privacy exemptions.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Peel Regional Police Services Board to deny access to certain records related to an investigation of an alleged assault and subsequent prosecution involving the appellant.

The Police claimed exemptions under sections 14(1) and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information and that their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other individuals, as the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision to deny access to most of the records, but ordered the disclosure of two records containing only the appellant's personal information.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to a 1989 meeting at the Township of King offices.

The Township provided one page from the Mayor's diary and claimed no other records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing more records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Township provided sufficient affidavit evidence detailing searches by the Clerk, By-law Enforcement, and the Mayor, demonstrating a reasonable effort to locate responsive records.

The Township's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested that the Ministry of Community and Social Services correct a memorandum regarding the start date of her developmental secondment.

The Ministry refused, offering instead to attach a statement of disagreement.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the information was the appellant's personal information, was factually incorrect, and was not merely an opinion.

The Ministry was ordered to attach a memorandum to the record reflecting the corrected start date.

A father requested access to records relating to himself and his son from the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Ministry granted access to the father's personal information but withheld the son's and other individuals' personal information under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The father appealed, arguing he was entitled to the information on behalf of his son under section 66(c).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the father was seeking the information for his own objectives, not on behalf of his son, and that disclosure would not serve the child's best interests.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the information, finding that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The applicant was involved in three separate accidents while travelling on a Toronto Transit Commission bus.

She sought statutory accident benefits for ongoing disability and medical expenses following the third accident in June 1991.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered from severe pre-existing chronic pain and depression resulting from the first two accidents.

The arbitrator concluded that the third accident was minor and did not materially contribute to or aggravate her pre-existing physical or psychological condition.

The claims for ongoing weekly benefits and medical expenses were dismissed, though the applicant was awarded her reasonable arbitration expenses.

The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to investigations of a named real estate broker.

The Ministry denied access to 31 responsive records, claiming various exemptions including law enforcement and personal privacy.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that inspection reports and related documents were exempt under section 14(2)(a) as reports prepared in the course of law enforcement.

The remaining records, consisting of correspondence and complaints, were found to contain personal information and were exempt from disclosure under section 21 as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The complainant objected to a private issuer requesting his telephone number as a condition for accepting a cheque for a driver's licence renewal.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether the telephone number constituted personal information and whether its collection by the private issuer on behalf of the Ministry of Transportation complied with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Compliance Review Officer concluded that the telephone number was personal information and that its collection for cheque acceptance was not necessary to the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity, meaning it would violate section 38(2) of the Act.

The Ministry was recommended to issue an electronic bulletin clarifying its cheque acceptance policy.

The appellant sought access to records relating to three actions filed with the Ontario Court of Justice involving the Ministry of Health and a mental health centre.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to numerous records, claiming exemptions under sections 19, 21, and 65(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that section 65(2)(b) did not apply as the records lacked clinical purpose.

However, the Officer upheld the application of section 19 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege) for most records, while ordering the disclosure of records that lost privilege upon the completion of litigation.

The Officer also upheld the application of sections 21 and 49(b) to protect the personal privacy of individuals other than the appellant.

The applicant union sought interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, requesting an order that the responding party employer re-open a logging camp that had recently been closed.

The union alleged the employer failed to disclose the impending closure during collective bargaining.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the balance of harm strongly favoured the employer.

The harm alleged by the union was primarily financial and could be remedied if the main application succeeded.

Furthermore, the union failed to act promptly, waiting until after the camp had closed and equipment had been moved before filing the application.