IPCO 1992

The appellant submitted freedom of information requests to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board and the Public Complaints Commissioner for records relating to a complaint he filed.

The Police denied access to portions of the records under various exemptions.

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner determined that most of the withheld records contained personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, the Commissioner found that certain records containing only the appellant's personal information did not qualify as 'reports' under section 8(2)(a) and ordered their disclosure.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Thunder Bay Police Services Board for records detailing charges against a deceased individual between 1970 and 1989.

The Police initially denied access under sections 8(2)(a) and 14(1)(f), but later clarified that no responsive records existed for the specified time period.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Assistant Commissioner reviewed the steps taken by the Police to locate the records, including searches of index cards, online databases, and hard-copy records, and concluded that the search was reasonable in the circumstances.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Niagara Regional Board of Commissioners of Police asking why a specific individual was not charged with possession of stolen property.

The Police responded that no such report existed.

The appellant appealed.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Police's search for the requested records, which included database searches, incident report reviews, and officer interviews, was reasonable in the circumstances, particularly given the request was phrased as a question rather than a request for specific records.

The appellant requested a building permit for a boat house from the Township of Orillia.

The Township located a renovation permit but advised that the original building permit did not exist.

The appellant appealed, arguing the search was inadequate.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Township had conducted a reasonable search, supported by affidavit evidence detailing searches of computerized systems, physical files, and destruction reports.

The appeal was dismissed.

The requester appealed the City of Etobicoke's decision to sever the names of complainants from a memorandum regarding a by-law infraction on the requester's property.

The City relied on the law enforcement exemption under section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that by-law enforcement qualifies as law enforcement and that the complainants had a reasonable expectation of confidentiality, making their identities exempt as confidential sources of information.

The appellant requested access to a report submitted to the Town Council.

The Town denied access under section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the record revealed the substance of deliberations of an in-camera meeting.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Town's decision, finding that the record was discussed during an authorized in-camera meeting and that the Town properly exercised its discretion under section 38(a) to deny the appellant access to his own personal information contained within the record.

An individual appealed the decision of the Ottawa Board of Commissioners of Police to grant a requester partial access to a police investigation report.

The appellant argued that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of their personal privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the records contained personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation, raising a presumption of an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Police properly exercised their discretion under section 38(b) to grant partial access.

The decision of the Police was upheld and disclosure was ordered.

The Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to records relating to criminal charges against two individuals.

The Police decided to release certain information, and the two individuals appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

As the presumption was not rebutted, the Police were ordered not to disclose the records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Town of Westminster for an engineering report regarding municipal infrastructure.

The Town granted partial access, severing portions under the advice or recommendations exemption (s. 7(1)) and the solicitor-client privilege exemption (s. 12) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that only one sentence of the severed portions qualified as a recommendation under s. 7(1), and that the public interest override in s. 16 did not apply to that sentence.

The Inquiry Officer also rejected the application of s. 12, finding the report was not a communication with a legal advisor nor prepared for counsel.

The Town was ordered to disclose the remaining severed portions.

The appellant requested records relating to a 1989 meeting at her residence with two police officers.

The York Regional Police claimed no such records existed.

The appellant appealed, asserting that the officers took notes and used a tape recorder.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed affidavits from both parties and concluded that the Police had conducted a reasonable search for the requested records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Peterborough for fire inspection records.

The City denied access to certain records, claiming solicitor-client privilege and law enforcement exemptions, and argued that Fire Prevention Officers' notes and diaries were not in its custody or control.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of a transmittal memorandum, finding it did not qualify for solicitor-client privilege.

The Assistant Commissioner also affirmed jurisdiction to review law enforcement records, determined that the officers' notes and diaries were in the City's custody or control, and ordered the City to issue a new access decision and provide an affidavit detailing its search for records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the London Board of Commissioners of Police seeking records of any investigations into them, including wiretap applications.

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

The Assistant Commissioner found that wiretap application records fall outside the scope of the Act due to federal legislative paramountcy.

Regarding non-wiretap investigation records, the Assistant Commissioner held that the Police failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence that disclosing the mere existence of such records would compromise a law enforcement activity.

The Assistant Commissioner confirmed that no non-wiretap investigation records existed.

The appellant requested records from the City of Toronto relating to property disputes with an adjoining neighbour.

The City denied access to several pages of correspondence between the City and the neighbour's solicitor, claiming exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

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

Applying the section 38(b) exemption, the Officer determined that records supplied in confidence by the neighbour's solicitor were exempt from disclosure as their release would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

However, administrative records such as meeting notices were ordered disclosed.

The requester appealed Toronto Hydro's decision to deny access to a memorandum regarding the relationship between the requester and her supervisor under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Toronto Hydro claimed the record consisted of personnel evaluations and its release would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the record contained personal information, Toronto Hydro failed to establish that disclosure would result in an unjustified invasion of the supervisor's personal privacy.

Toronto Hydro was ordered to disclose the record to the requester, with the exception of one sentence containing only the supervisor's personal information.

The appellant, acting as an agent for the parents of a child injured in a stone-throwing incident at a school, requested access to the names and addresses of the child who allegedly threw the stone and the children who witnessed the incident.

The School Board denied access, citing the mandatory exemption for personal information under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that the appellant established a legal right to add the child who allegedly threw the stone to an existing civil action, making section 14(2)(d) a relevant consideration that outweighed the child's privacy interests.

The School Board was ordered to disclose the name of the child who allegedly threw the stone, but the decision to withhold the child's address and the names and addresses of the witnesses was upheld.

The Ottawa Police Force received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for all information relating to the requester.

The Police decided to release certain records relating to two third parties, who then appealed the decision.

The Commissioner found that the records contained personal information and that their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b).

However, the Commissioner upheld the Police's exercise of discretion under section 38(b) to disclose the records, noting that the information had already been revealed in court proceedings.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner considered nine appeals regarding access to a police investigation report concerning the Windsor Board of Education.

During the appeals, the Commissioner was notified of two Ontario Court (General Division) orders restricting the disclosure and dissemination of the record to parties in an ongoing civil action.

The Commissioner determined that proceeding with the appeals could violate the injunctive court orders and risk contempt of court.

Consequently, the Commissioner ordered the appeals discontinued and the files closed without deciding the substantive exemption issues.

The appellant requested access to police reports and witness statements concerning a first-degree murder charge.

The Sudbury Regional Police denied access to most of the records, citing various exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that most of the records contained personal information of individuals other than the appellant, compiled during a law enforcement investigation, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b).

The Commissioner also found that the 'Alcohol Influence Test Report' qualified for exemption under section 8(2)(a) as a law enforcement report.

However, the Commissioner ordered the disclosure of a few specific pages, including a consent form and a 'will say' statement, finding that they did not qualify for the claimed exemptions.

The appellant requested access to Toronto Fire Department records relating to an incident where a deceased individual was found.

The City denied access to portions of the records, citing the personal privacy exemption under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that while the records contained personal information, the appellant did not establish they were the personal representative of the deceased.

However, the Commissioner concluded that the privacy interest diminishes upon death, and in these circumstances, disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The City was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant requested access to ambulance incident reports relating to the discovery of a deceased individual's body.

The Municipality denied access under the personal privacy exemption in section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the appellant could not exercise the deceased's right of access under section 54(a) without proof of being the personal representative.

However, the Commissioner determined that disclosing the deceased's personal information would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy, as the privacy interest diminishes upon death.

The Municipality was ordered to disclose the records, with the personal information of other identifiable individuals severed.