Other Tribunals

The City of Toronto received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a 'Life Safety Study' regarding a hospital.

The City decided to disclose the record, and two affected parties appealed, arguing the record was exempt under section 10(1) and that disclosure would infringe copyright.

The Inquiry Officer found that the affected parties failed to establish that the record was supplied in confidence or that disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause the specified harms.

The Inquiry Officer also held that disclosure under the Act does not constitute copyright infringement.

The City's decision to disclose the record was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Environment for records relating to chemical levels in municipal wells.

After narrowing the request to records held at the Ministry's Drinking Water Section in Toronto, the appellant appealed on the basis that additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records and that its search was reasonable.

The appellants requested access to a student's intellectual assessment from the Lincoln County Board of Education under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board denied access to portions of the intelligence test answer booklet, claiming exemptions under sections 11(h) and 10(1).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the remaining portions of the record, which included only the student's answers and scores and the examiner's comments, did not contain questions to be used in an examination under section 11(h), nor did they contain trade secrets or other protected information under section 10(1).

The Board was ordered to disclose the severed record.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission (OC Transpo) regarding a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a letter of reprimand allegedly issued in 1990.

OC Transpo claimed no such record existed after conducting searches.

The Assistant Commissioner found that OC Transpo's search was reasonable, noting that under the collective agreement, minor disciplinary entries are removed after two years, meaning the record would likely have been destroyed if it ever existed.

The appellant appealed the decision of Seneca College to deny access to a booklet of final examination questions under section 18(1)(h) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The College argued the questions were part of a 'test bank' for future use.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the exemption does not apply to questions used in examinations that have already been completed, ordering the College to release the record.

The appellant requested access to records pertaining to a former employee of the Ministry of Health.

The Ministry refused to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records under sections 14(3) and 21(5) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence that disclosing the mere existence of the records would compromise a law enforcement activity or constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

Furthermore, the Ministry had already confirmed to the appellant that an investigation had taken place.

The Ministry was ordered to issue a substantive decision under the access provisions of the Act.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Correctional Services' decision to deny access to portions of his personal and medical files from four correctional centres.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the withheld temporary absence application records were exempt under section 49(e) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they would reveal information supplied in confidence.

Additionally, a confiscated record was properly withheld under section 14(1)(h) as it was seized by a peace officer during a search authorized by the Ministry of Correctional Services Act.

The applicant unions sought declarations that the responding parties, Malvern Drywall Systems Ltd. and Lakeridge Acoustics, were related employers under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, and referred grievances for arbitration.

The responding parties failed to attend the hearing despite receiving notice.

The Board found that the two businesses carried on related activities under the common control and direction of the same principal.

The Board granted the section 1(4) declaration, binding Lakeridge to the collective agreements of Malvern, and ordered the responding parties to pay outstanding remittances and previous settlement amounts to the unions.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of the Attorney General relating to a complaint filed with the Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner.

The Ministry denied access to two memoranda under the law enforcement and advice/recommendations exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the records did not qualify as law enforcement records because they related to administrative processes rather than investigatory functions.

However, the Commissioner upheld the application of the advice/recommendations exemption to specific sentences within the records, ordering the Ministry to sever those sentences and disclose the remaining factual information to the appellant.

The applicant applied to the Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's Order.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached an agreement on an amended pay equity plan and jointly requested that the Tribunal revoke the Order.

The Tribunal declined to issue the consent order, noting that the Memorandum of Settlement did not disclose the basis for certain conclusions regarding job rates, gender predominance, and comparability of job classes.

The Tribunal requested that the parties provide specific information in writing or schedule a hearing day before it would consider revoking the Order.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Ottawa Board of Commissioners of Police to sever portions of records responsive to her request for her personal information.

The severed information included the address, telephone number, date of birth, and personal reference number of other individuals identified as suspects in a criminal investigation.

The Inquiry Officer found that the police search for records was reasonable, the severed information qualified as personal information, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the other individuals under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Financial Institutions' decision that no records existed responsive to a request for documents concerning the Superintendent of Insurance.

The Ministry provided an affidavit detailing its search efforts, which located one responsive memorandum that it agreed to release.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry's search was reasonable, noting that other records from the relevant time period would have been destroyed in accordance with records retention schedules.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the located memorandum.

The appellant requested access to the toxicology reports of two individuals killed in a boating accident, which were relevant to a civil lawsuit.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General denied access under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records constituted personal information and that their disclosure would be a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(a).

The appellant failed to establish that the information was required to prepare for the civil proceeding under section 21(2)(d).

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records relating to the Ministry's investigation into possible violations of the Discriminatory Business Practices Act by the Ontario Science Centre.

The Ministry denied access under sections 14(2)(a) and 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that two of the three records qualified for exemption under section 14(2)(a) as reports prepared in the course of a law enforcement investigation.

The third record, prepared after the investigation concluded, did not qualify under section 14(2)(a) or section 13(1).

The public interest override in section 23 was found inapplicable to section 14 exemptions.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the third record with witness names severed.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to two internal memoranda regarding an investigation of alleged irregularities at a cemetery.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records met the three-part test for the law enforcement exemption, as they were reports prepared in the course of an investigation by an agency enforcing the Cemeteries Act.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to the name of the individual who filed a by-law complaint against them with the City of Etobicoke.

The City denied access to the complainant's identity under section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that the by-law enforcement process qualifies as law enforcement and that the release of the record would disclose the identity of a confidential source of information.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for purchase orders relating to computer hardware and software at an adult computer training centre.

The Board provided some purchase orders, but the appellant appealed, arguing that additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Board's affidavit evidence detailing its search efforts and concluded that the Board had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Thunder Bay Police Services Board denying access to portions of records relating to an investigation of an alleged assault on his mother.

The Police claimed the severed information, consisting of names of hospital personnel, was exempt as personal information under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the names related to the individuals' professional responsibilities and did not qualify as personal information.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search for a missing supplementary report.

The Police were ordered to disclose the severed information.

The requester appealed the Collingwood Police Services Board's decision to deny access to a report written by the Durham Regional Police Special Investigation Unit regarding an internal investigation.

The Board claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record met the three-part test for exemption under section 8(2)(a) as a report prepared in the course of law enforcement by an agency enforcing compliance with the law.

The Board's decision to refuse disclosure was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records relating to compliance investigations undertaken by the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario.

The Ministry of Health denied access, claiming the records were privileged under section 52(9) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer held that the privilege under section 52(9) applies only to records produced in the course of an inquiry, not a compliance investigation.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.