IPCO 1992

The appellant requested a staff report on poverty in Etobicoke from the Etobicoke Board of Education.

The institution denied access under section 10 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the record contained information purchased from a research company that refused consent to disclose.

The Commissioner found that the information did not qualify as a 'trade secret' or 'commercial information' under the Act.

The institution was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant, acting as an agent for a person accused of mischief, requested the names and addresses of two witnesses to the alleged offence from the Metropolitan Toronto Police.

The police denied access, citing privacy exemptions.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the requested information was personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

The Commissioner concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the witnesses' personal privacy, and the presumption against disclosure was not rebutted by the appellant's desire to pursue civil or criminal action against the witnesses.

The appellant requested access to records showing the standings of the institution's schools in provincial reviews and system-wide tests.

The institution provided the test results but identified the schools by alphabetical codes rather than names, claiming the records correlating codes to school names were exempt under sections 11(c) and 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the records did not contain personal information of identifiable individuals, such as teachers or principals.

Furthermore, the Commissioner held that the institution failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice its economic interests or competitive position.

The institution was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant requested the names of temporary and part-time employees hired by the Regional Municipality of Sudbury in 1990 and 1991.

The institution denied access, claiming the names constituted personal information and their disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that while the names were personal information, section 14(4)(a) applied, meaning disclosure of the names of individuals who are or were employees does not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The institution was ordered to disclose the names.

The appellant requested access to their personnel file and correspondence relating to the management of the Toronto Fire Department.

The City of Toronto granted partial access, severing portions of two letters under the personal information exemption in section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the letters, exchanged between two employees in their professional capacities regarding institution policy, did not contain personal information.

The institution was ordered to disclose the letters in full.

The requester appealed the City of Toronto's decision that it could not locate a 1956 Permanent Ward Order relating to the requester and his siblings.

The City provided evidence that records of this nature were transferred to Metropolitan Toronto or destroyed in 1967 when welfare ceased to be a City function.

The Commissioner found that the City had taken all reasonable steps to locate the record and dismissed the appeal.

The Town of Gravenhurst received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to the employment of its Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk.

The Town denied access to the written employment agreement under the personal privacy exemption in section 14.

On appeal, the Commissioner found that the agreement was a contract of employment, not a contract for personal services.

The Commissioner ordered the disclosure of the agreement, with the exception of the specific salary steps, as disclosure of the classification, salary range, and benefits did not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant requested access to all police records relating to herself and her uncle from the Windsor Police Service.

The police granted partial access but denied the remainder under various exemptions, including law enforcement and personal privacy.

On appeal, the Commissioner found that the records did not qualify for the law enforcement exemptions under sections 8(1)(a), 8(1)(c), or 8(2)(a).

However, the Commissioner upheld the application of the personal privacy exemption under section 38(b), finding that disclosure of the withheld personal information would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other identifiable individuals.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Kitchener for records relating to a survey marker and property boundaries.

The City informed the appellant that no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that records should exist.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner reviewed the affidavits of search provided by the City's employees and concluded that the institution's search for records was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought access to the name of an individual who made a by-law complaint about the appellant's property.

The institution denied access under section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming it would disclose a confidential source in a law enforcement matter.

The Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that by-law enforcement qualifies as law enforcement and the complainant had a reasonable expectation of confidentiality.

The appellant requested a copy of a legal opinion regarding a potential conflict of interest involving an individual's appointment to a municipal committee.

The municipality denied access, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that while the record was initially privileged, the municipality waived the privilege by releasing a copy to the affected individual.

The Commissioner also determined that although the record contained some personal information, its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14.

The municipality was ordered to disclose the record.

The requester appealed the institution's decision to deny access to the exact salaries of its director and superintendents under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that exact salaries are presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(f) and that no compelling public interest outweighed this exemption.

However, noting that section 14(4)(a) permits disclosure of salary ranges, the Commissioner ordered the institution to create and disclose salary ranges for the affected positions to balance the public's right to know with the employees' privacy rights.

The appellant requested access to notes taken by a Licensing Enforcement Officer regarding a complaint about a kitchen floor installation.

The Metropolitan Licensing Commission denied access, claiming the notes were exempt as a law enforcement report under section 8(2)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Commissioner applied the three-part test for this exemption and found that the notes were merely observations and recordings of fact, not a formal 'report'.

The institution was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant appealed a decision by the City of Oshawa denying access to the names of individuals who complained about by-law violations at two properties.

The institution claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including section 8(1)(d) for confidential sources in law enforcement matters.

The Commissioner upheld the institution's decision, finding that by-law enforcement qualifies as law enforcement and that disclosing the names would reveal the identity of a confidential source.

The appellant requested copies of work orders issued by the City of Waterloo against various rental residential properties.

The City denied access, claiming the records contained personal information and were exempt under law enforcement provisions.

The Commissioner found that municipal addresses and property repair information do not constitute personal information.

The Commissioner also found that the work orders were not 'reports' prepared in the course of law enforcement, and their disclosure would not interfere with a law enforcement matter since the orders had already been complied with.

The City was ordered to disclose the records with the owners' names and addresses severed.

The appellant requested copies of work orders issued by the City of Cambridge against various rental residential properties.

The institution denied access to portions of the records, claiming exemptions for personal privacy and the right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication.

The Commissioner found that municipal addresses do not constitute personal information under the Act.

The Commissioner also found that the institution failed to provide sufficient evidence that disclosure could reasonably be expected to deprive a person of the right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication.

The institution was ordered to disclose the records with the names and addresses of the owners severed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission (OC Transpo) denying access to personal information, arguing that the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applied.

OC Transpo claimed it was a federal undertaking exempt from the Act because it operated an interprovincial bus service into Quebec.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that while OC Transpo is an interprovincial undertaking, the Act is a valid provincial law of general application.

The Commissioner held that the Act does not conflict with federal legislation and does not impair the essential federal function or vital management of the transit service.

The Commissioner ordered OC Transpo to process the access request under the Act.

The appellant requested an unedited copy of a 1978 Metropolitan Toronto Police Department report regarding an investigation of the Metropolitan Licensing Commission.

The institution denied access to portions of the record under the law enforcement exemption in section 8(2)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner applied a three-part test and found that the record was a report prepared in the course of law enforcement by an agency with the function of enforcing compliance with a law.

The Commissioner upheld the institution's decision to deny access to the severed portions.

The requester appealed the Wentworth County Board of Education's decision to deny access to a legal opinion regarding the validity of noon hour bible clubs.

The institution claimed the record was exempt under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act due to solicitor-client privilege.

The Commissioner found that a solicitor-client relationship existed and the confidential written communication was directly related to seeking legal advice.

The Commissioner upheld the head's decision to deny access, noting that the public interest override in section 16 does not apply to section 12.

The appellant sought access to an engineering report regarding an underground garage from the City of North York under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The City denied access, claiming exemptions for law enforcement and investigations under sections 8(1)(a) and (b).

The third-party owner objected to disclosure under section 10 (third-party information) and section 12 (solicitor-client privilege).

The Commissioner found that the City failed to provide sufficient evidence that disclosure would interfere with a law enforcement matter.

The Commissioner also found that the third-party harms test under section 10 was not met, and declined to apply section 12 as it was not raised by the institution.

The City was ordered to disclose the record.