Other Tribunals

An employee of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services complained that a Senior Assistant Superintendent contacted his physician to request an update on his medical certificate without his consent.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether this collection of personal information violated the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the collection of the medical information was necessary for the lawfully authorized activities of employee management and human resources planning under section 38(2), the indirect collection directly from the physician without the employee's consent violated section 39(1) of the Act.

The Ministry was recommended to ensure staff are aware that medical information must be collected directly from the employee unless consent or an exemption applies.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs received a freedom of information request for records relating to an investigation into the Township of Arthur.

The Ministry denied access to certain records, claiming they contained personal information.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the records, which consisted of observations and notes submitted by municipal councillors, were provided in their professional capacities and did not constitute their personal information.

However, some specific references to identifiable individuals in the community were found to be personal information and were ordered severed before disclosure.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to an incident that resulted in his arrest.

The Police disclosed some records but withheld others under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and stated that other records had been destroyed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the Police had not conducted a reasonable search for the records.

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

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board for information regarding an investigation of a named entity and a police radio frequency.

The Police refused to confirm or deny the existence of the records under section 8(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the refusal to confirm or deny the existence of the investigation records, finding they would qualify for exemption under sections 8(1)(a) and (b).

However, the Inquiry Officer found that the radio frequency records, if they existed, would not qualify for exemption under section 8(1)(l), and ordered the Police to issue a decision letter regarding that part of the request.

The requester sought a copy of a real estate examination they had written, which was administered by the Ontario Real Estate Association (OREA).

The Ministry denied the request, claiming it did not have custody or control of the record.

The requester appealed.

During the appeal, it was discovered that OREA had destroyed the examination pursuant to its retention schedule, rendering the request moot.

However, the Inquiry Officer determined that the Ministry did exercise control over such records for the purpose of conducting marking reviews under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act.

The appeal was discontinued as the record no longer existed.

The appellants submitted a freedom of information request for records relating to employment complaints made against one of them.

The Ministry granted partial access, denying the rest under sections 49(a) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information of the appellants and other individuals.

The Officer ordered the disclosure of portions relating primarily to the appellants, but upheld the exemption under section 49(b) for the remaining information, finding its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy as it was compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

The appellant requested access to police records regarding an assault investigation against them.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board granted partial access, denying parts under sections 8, 14, and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that pages 4, 5, and 11 could be severed to remove personal identifiers, ordering their disclosure.

However, the Officer upheld the Police's decision to withhold page 3 under section 38(b), as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy.

The requester sought access to records concerning the recommendation and approval process for a telephone system for the Town of Markham's Civic Centre.

The Town denied access under the law enforcement exemptions in sections 8(1)(a) and (b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police confirmed an ongoing criminal investigation related to the records.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Town's decision, finding that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with the law enforcement investigation under section 8(1)(b).

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Metropolitan Separate School Board for a specific 'Ministry confirmation' referenced in a previous letter.

The Board provided an internal memorandum summarizing a conversation with Ministry counsel and a subsequent letter from that counsel confirming the memorandum's accuracy.

The appellant appealed, arguing the records were not responsive and the Board should have stated no records exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records provided were fully responsive to the request as they represented the confirmation the Board had referred to, and upheld the Board's decision.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to ten pages of records responsive to a freedom of information request.

The records consisted of biographical information, a doctor's note, and an individual's statement.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information about identifiable individuals other than the appellant.

In the absence of representations weighing in favour of disclosure, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to Minutes of Settlement and an attached release executed between the Ministry, two individuals, and a real estate company.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected persons' personal privacy under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested copies of tape recordings of interviews conducted during a Ministry of Health investigation.

The Ministry claimed no such records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing the investigator had secretly taped interviews.

The Ministry provided affidavits confirming that a thorough search was conducted and that the investigator had not taped any interviews because the interviewees refused.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search for the requested records was reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The complainant alleged that the City improperly used his personal information from a freedom of information access request to deny his insurance claim.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information in the staff report and access request constituted personal information under section 2(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer concluded that the City's use of this information in considering the insurance claim appeal was not for the purpose for which it was obtained or a consistent purpose, thereby violating section 31 of the Act.

The Officer recommended the City take steps to ensure compliance with the Act.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Metropolitan Separate School Board for records relating to meetings conducted on external premises and the associated expenses.

After receiving a fee estimate, the appellant narrowed the request to view specific accounts.

The appellant subsequently appealed, arguing that the records provided contained accounting inconsistencies and that further records must exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant's concerns related to accounting accuracy rather than the existence of additional records, and concluded that the Board's search for responsive records was reasonable.

The appellant requested access to correspondence sent by a named individual to the Chairperson of the Hornepayne Board of Education containing allegations of unfair treatment.

The Board denied access under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information of both the appellant and affected persons.

However, the Board and affected persons failed to establish that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy under the criteria in section 14(2).

The Board was ordered to disclose the records to the appellant.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for accident benefits.

A priority dispute arose between the insurer of the vehicle he was in (State Farm) and his brother's insurer (Progressive).

The arbitrator found the applicant was principally dependent on his brother for financial support, making Progressive liable.

The applicant also claimed weekly income benefits based on a job offer made shortly before the accident.

The arbitrator accepted that a legitimate offer of employment existed but found the applicant's accident-related disability resolved by mid-June 1991.

Weekly income benefits were awarded for that limited period, along with arbitration expenses.

The requester appealed the City of Scarborough's decision denying access to a single-page letter on the basis that the record did not exist in its files.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the City's reliance on extensive searches conducted for a previous, related request, along with additional searches in the relevant department, constituted a reasonable search.

The City's decision was upheld.

The complainant alleged that the Ministry of Environment and Energy improperly disclosed his personal information in a publication and press release regarding his conviction for environmental offences.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information was personal information and that section 37 of the Act did not apply.

However, the disclosure was found to be in accordance with section 42(c) of the Act, as it was for a consistent purpose reasonably compatible with the purpose for which the information was originally compiled by the court.

The appellant requested records from the City of Oshawa regarding the fire department's responses to chemical spills on a specific property.

The City provided fee estimates and the appellant requested a fee waiver, arguing that disclosure would benefit public health and safety.

The City denied the fee waiver and the appellant appealed.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence that dissemination of the records would contribute meaningfully to public understanding of a health or safety issue, nor that the records would likely be disseminated to the public.

The decision not to waive the fees was deemed fair and equitable.

A school board trustee complained that the board disclosed her personal information during an open meeting by publicly reprimanding her for leaking information from an in camera meeting.

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

The Commissioner concluded that the board's disclosure was not authorized by the Act and recommended that the board amend its policies to ensure compliance.