IPCO 1993

The appellant requested access to records relating to meetings held between the appellant, a student, and the school principal.

The Hamilton Board of Education responded that no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that records should exist given the sensitive nature of the meetings.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the Board's search for records, which included manual searches and consultations with relevant staff, was reasonable in the circumstances.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to all information concerning himself in the custody or control of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

The Municipality provided access to a number of records, but the appellant appealed, claiming additional records were missing from his file.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the affidavit evidence detailing the search efforts and file maintenance procedures of the Municipality.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the Municipality had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records and that the search was reasonable in the circumstances.

The appellant requested access to personnel records regarding her unsuccessful application for a nursing aide position with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

The Region withheld a 'Reference Inquiry' form under section 38(c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the record contained the appellant's personal information.

Applying a three-part test, the Assistant Commissioner determined that portions of the record would reveal the identity of a confidential source and were exempt under section 38(c).

The Region was ordered to disclose the remaining non-identifying portions of the record.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ottawa Board of Commissioners of Police for records relating to an internal investigation of a police officer.

The Police denied access on the basis that no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that records should exist.

The Police provided evidence of their search efforts and their records retention and destruction schedules, which indicated that any responsive records from the 1986 incident would have been destroyed.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Police had taken all reasonable steps to locate the records and that the search was reasonable.

The appellant requested access to a report regarding radio transmission towers from the City of Nepean.

The City denied access under sections 11(c), (d), and (e) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Appeals Officer also raised the mandatory exemption under section 10.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that any of the discretionary exemptions under section 11 applied.

Furthermore, the mandatory exemption under section 10 did not apply because the record was not supplied in confidence by the third party, and there was insufficient evidence of harm.

The City was ordered to disclose the record.

A requester sought records revealing which Regional Councillors participated in a voluntary unpaid leave program.

The Region decided to disclose the records, and a councillor appealed, arguing the records contained personal information exempt under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that while the records contained personal information, disclosure of the councillors' identities would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, given the public interest in accountability and the reduced expectation of privacy for elected officials.

The Region was ordered to disclose the records, subject to severing the appellant's employee number, a handwritten note, and the specific pay period for the deduction.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Commissioners of Police denying access to certain records relating to his arrest.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records did not contain personal information and ordered their disclosure.

For records containing the appellant's personal information, the Police claimed they were received in confidence from the RCMP via the CPIC database.

The Inquiry Officer found insufficient evidence that the RCMP supplied the information and ordered its disclosure.

Records containing the personal information of other individuals were withheld under the mandatory privacy exemption.

The requester sought access to police records regarding a search conducted in a courtroom.

The Police denied access, claiming exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for law enforcement reports and building security.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained only the appellant's personal information and did not qualify as reports or pose a security risk.

The Police were ordered to disclose the responsive portions of the records.

The appellant appealed the Halton Board of Education's response to a freedom of information request, claiming that additional responsive records, including a tape recording of a meeting, should exist.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the steps taken by the Board to locate the records, including searches by the Director of Education's secretary and the Board secretary, and concluded that the Board's search was reasonable in the circumstances.

The appellants appealed a decision by the Durham Region Board of Commissioners of Police to grant partial access to records related to an assault investigation under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester was the alleged victim of the assault, and the appellants were the alleged perpetrators.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information and that disclosure of certain identifying information on pages 1 and 3 would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's exercise of discretion under section 38(b) to disclose parts of pages 4 and 14, balancing the requester's right to their own personal information against the appellants' privacy rights.

The appellant requested access to records regarding OC Transpo's records description, personal information banks directory, and record retention by-law schedules under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

OC Transpo provided several records, but the appellant appealed, believing more current versions of a policy document existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that OC Transpo had conducted several thorough searches and concluded that the search was reasonable in the circumstances, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Town of Caledon for materials submitted by a municipal councillor to a consultant regarding a planning study.

The Town identified one sketch, denied access under s. 7(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and claimed no other records existed.

After the councillor consented to disclosure, the Town agreed to release the sketch but failed to do so.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Town to disclose the sketch and dismissed the appeal regarding the existence of additional records, finding the Town's search was reasonable.

A teacher requested access to two letters and a report containing complaints about their conduct from parents.

The Board denied access to the letters under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and claimed the report did not exist.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the letters contained personal information but that disclosing the substance of the complaints would not constitute an unjustified invasion of the parents' personal privacy, as the information was relevant to the teacher's fair determination of rights in an upcoming grievance hearing.

The Board was ordered to disclose the letters, severing only the parents' home address and telephone number.

The Board's search for the report was found to be reasonable.

The requester appealed a deemed refusal by the Metro Toronto Licensing Commission regarding a request for her personal information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commission later claimed exemptions under sections 12, 14, and 38(a).

The Inquiry Officer found that while some records contained personal information of other individuals, their names could be severed under section 4(2) to allow disclosure.

The Officer also rejected the Commission's claim of solicitor-client privilege under section 12, finding the records were not prepared with the dominant purpose of contemplation of litigation.

The Commission was ordered to disclose the records with necessary severances.

The appellant, an employee of the Metro Toronto Licensing Commission, requested access to documents relating to an allegation of assault she made at her workplace.

The Commission denied access to several records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing exemptions for advice or recommendations, solicitor-client privilege, and personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the exemptions for advice and recommendations and personal privacy for certain records.

However, the Inquiry Officer rejected the solicitor-client privilege exemption, finding the records were not prepared with the dominant purpose of contemplating litigation, and ordered their disclosure.

The Durham Region Board of Commissioners of Police received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a police report and statements regarding a fire.

The Police decided to disclose the records, and three affected persons appealed the decision to protect their personal information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information and that the requester failed to establish that the information was required to prepare for a related civil proceeding.

Consequently, the disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, and the Police were ordered not to disclose the appellants' personal information.

A City Councillor requested access to the City of Toronto's mailing lists related to development at two locations.

The City provided partial access, withholding certain names and addresses under the personal privacy exemption in section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that names and addresses of individuals acting in a professional or business capacity did not constitute personal information and ordered their disclosure.

However, the remaining names and addresses were personal information, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Commissioner rejected the requester's argument that administrative ease and cost savings justified disclosure.

The appellant requested copies of notes and scores from a job re-evaluation committee regarding the position of Council/Committee Secretary.

The City denied access, claiming exemptions under sections 11(c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of harm to its economic or financial interests, and that the records (score sheets and handwritten notes) did not constitute plans, policies, or negotiation positions.

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

The requester appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board to deny access to portions of a Staff Sergeant thesis written by six police officers during a management course in 1979.

The severed information included names, signatures, and badge numbers.

The Inquiry Officer found that the severed information qualified as personal information under section 2(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer further held that the mandatory exemption under section 14 applied, as the disclosure of the authors' identities in the context of an academic exercise would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, and was not desirable for the purpose of subjecting the activities of the institution to public scrutiny.

The Halton Board of Education received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to a motion made by a school trustee.

The trustee objected to the disclosure of the records, arguing they contained his personal information, and appealed the Board's decision to grant access.

The Inquiry Officer found that the trustee's views and opinions expressed in his capacity as an elected official did not qualify as his personal information.

While the records contained the trustee's views about other identifiable individuals, those individuals consented to disclosure.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the records, with the exception of the trustee's home address, which was exempt from disclosure as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.