Other Tribunals

The appellant sought access to records relating to discussions at Belleville Police Services Board meetings regarding his salary and continued employment.

The Board denied access to four records under various exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that Records 3, 5, and 9 qualified for exemption under section 6(1)(b) as they revealed the substance of deliberations of in-camera meetings.

However, Record 4 did not qualify for exemption under sections 6(1)(b), 11(e), or 12, and was ordered disclosed.

Because the Board failed to provide representations on its exercise of discretion under section 38(a) for the exempt records, the Inquiry Officer ordered the Board to reconsider its discretion and provide written representations.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for any existing police records relating to him.

The Police conducted computer and microfilm searches but found no responsive records, providing only printouts of the search queries.

The appellant appealed, arguing that records should exist based on past incidents.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search in the circumstances and upheld their decision.

The appellant requested access to information in a police officer's notebook relating to an appearance before a Justice of the Peace.

The London Police Services Board denied access on the basis that the records did not exist, as the notebook contained no entries for that day and the Daily Duty List had been destroyed in accordance with their retention by-law.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police had provided a reasonable explanation and conducted a reasonable search for the records, upholding the decision.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to a letter regarding a property dispute over a fence, claiming exemptions under sections 14 and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record primarily contained information about a property rather than identifiable individuals.

The Officer ordered the City to disclose the record to the appellant, subject to the severance of a few personal identifiers of other individuals.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the results of an investigation by an Ontario Human Rights Commission employee.

The York Regional Police Services Board denied access, stating the record did not exist.

The appellant appealed, arguing the record should exist based on a 1983 letter.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police conducted a reasonable search, including reviewing meeting minutes and rough notes, and confirming with the OHRC employee that no such report was prepared.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Town of Cobourg's decision to extend the 30-day time limit for responding to a freedom of information request regarding a landfill site by 106 days.

The Town argued the request involved a large number of records and that the Information and Privacy Commissioner could not reasonably evaluate the head's decision.

The Inquiry Officer rejected this argument, finding the Commissioner has jurisdiction to review time extensions.

The Inquiry Officer found the Town failed to provide sufficient evidence that the request necessitated a search through a large number of records or would unreasonably interfere with operations, and ordered the Town to issue a decision letter within 21 days.

The appellant requested access to his institutional and health care records from a correctional facility.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services disclosed some records but withheld others under various exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that certain records contained personal information of other individuals and were exempt under section 49(b) as an unjustified invasion of privacy.

Other records were found to be exempt under sections 14(1)(e) and 14(1)(k) as their disclosure could endanger physical safety or jeopardize the security of the correctional facility.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose a few specific pages that did not meet the exemption criteria.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a management review of the Rent Review Hearings Board.

The Ministry of Housing denied access to portions of the records under the Cabinet records and personal privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Cabinet records exemption did not apply to the terms of reference and related memos, as they did not contain policy options or recommendations submitted to Cabinet.

The Inquiry Officer also found that while most of the interview notes contained personal information subject to the personal privacy exemption, information relating to individuals' professional capacities, the appellant's own personal information, and information for which consent was obtained had to be disclosed.

The requester appealed the decision of the Port Hope Police Services Board to deny access to portions of records relating to investigations and prosecutions pertaining to the requester.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that the withheld information qualified for exemption under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as it contained personal information of other individuals, law enforcement intelligence information, and information subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer issued a Final Order following Interim Order M-285, which required the City of Kitchener to reconsider its exercise of discretion under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

After reviewing the City's representations regarding the factors considered, the Inquiry Officer found nothing improper and upheld the City's decision.

In a final order following an interim order, the Inquiry Officer reviewed the York Region Board of Education's further representations regarding its exercise of discretion under section 6 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's exercise of discretion was proper and upheld the Board's decision.

The appellant, an employee of the Metropolitan Licensing Commission, appealed a decision denying access to records concerning workplace incidents involving the appellant and a former employee.

The Commission claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including unjustified invasion of personal privacy and advice or recommendations.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information but their disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption for a portion of one record containing advice, but ordered the disclosure of the remaining records.

The complainant alleged that the Workers' Compensation Board improperly disclosed his personal information to his spouse's employer.

The information was contained in a Non-economic Loss Assessment (NEL) related to his spouse's workers' compensation claim.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information in the NEL was personal information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, the disclosure was authorized under section 42(e) of the Act because section 42(12) of the Workers' Compensation Act required the Board to send a copy of the medical assessment to the accident employer.

The requester appealed a decision of the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, which claimed that no records responsive to a request for written notes and memos from a specific date existed.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police's search, which included checking the named officer's notebook, was reasonable in the circumstances and upheld the Police's decision.

The requester appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Licensing Commission to deny access to certain records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that all records contained personal information.

The Officer upheld the Commission's decision to deny access to Record 19 (publicly available), Record 65 (highly sensitive personal information), and portions of Records 16 and 41 (advice or recommendations).

The Officer ordered the disclosure of the remaining records, finding that their disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and that they were not exempt under solicitor-client privilege.

The appellant appealed a decision by the York Regional Police Services Board denying access to various police records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b).

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Police conducted a reasonable search for the requested records.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant requested access to personal information collected by the Ontario Provincial Police regarding their political activities and other matters.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access to the remaining 120 pages of records, claiming they consisted of an intelligence file.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information but qualified for exemption under section 14(1)(g) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal law enforcement intelligence information.

The Ministry's decision to deny access under section 49(a) was upheld.

A union requested the work assignments of occasional teachers from a school board, including the names of supply teachers.

The school board denied access to the names, citing the personal privacy exemption under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the names constituted personal information and that their disclosure would reveal employment history, triggering a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The union's arguments that disclosure was expressly authorized by the Labour Relations Act or necessary for research purposes were rejected.

The school board's decision to deny access was upheld.

The complainant objected to a municipality collecting and disclosing personal family information in relation to her son's enrolment in the Early Intervention Services Program.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether the municipality complied with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The investigation concluded that while the municipality had the authority to collect the personal information as it was necessary for the program, it failed to provide proper notice of collection.

Furthermore, the municipality improperly disclosed the complainant's personal information (her identity as an access requester) to a municipal commissioner and a committee, contrary to section 32 of the Act.

The municipality was ordered to provide proper notice of collection on its forms.

The requester appealed the Town of Gravenhurst's decision to withhold a 14-page record under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (solicitor-client privilege).

The record consisted of a summary of evidence from an Ontario Municipal Board hearing and two transmittal letters.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the summary of evidence initially qualified for privilege, the transmittal letters did not.

Furthermore, the Assistant Commissioner determined that the Town's solicitor had waived the privilege by disclosing the summary to the developer's solicitor.

As the Town had retroactively ratified its solicitor's actions, the waiver was binding on the Town.

The Town was ordered to disclose the record, with personal information severed.