IPCO 1993

A school board trustee appealed the Halton Board of Education's decision to disclose records relating to his failed motions on a board program.

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

Views about other individuals were the personal information of those individuals, who had consented to disclosure.

Only the trustee's home address qualified as his personal information and was exempt from disclosure under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board was ordered to disclose the remaining records.

A requester sought access to the rationale provided by a school trustee regarding motions on a Board program.

The Board decided to grant access, and the trustee appealed, arguing the record contained his personal information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the trustee's views and opinions were expressed in his capacity as a publicly elected official and did not qualify as personal information under section 2(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, the trustee's home address contained in the record was found to be personal information and exempt from disclosure under section 14(1).

The Board was ordered to disclose the record with the home address severed.

The requester appealed the Municipality's decision regarding a freedom of information request, arguing that additional responsive records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the affidavits detailing the Municipality's search efforts and concluded that the Municipality had taken all reasonable steps to locate the requested records.

The search was deemed reasonable and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for police records relating to an investigation of harassing phone calls.

The Police released 21 pages of records with some severances.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional responsive records should exist.

The Assistant Commissioner reviewed the detailed representations and sworn affidavit provided by the Police regarding their search efforts and concluded that the Police had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records.

A student requested access to a letter written by a police officer to their college complaining about the student's conduct.

The police denied access under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the police made no representations.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information of both the requester and the police officer.

Weighing the privacy interests under section 38(b), the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of the police officer's personal privacy and ordered the record disclosed.

The appellant requested a mailing list of all persons on contract with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to provide subsidized home child care services.

The Municipality denied access under the personal privacy exemption in section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the record contained personal information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Norfolk Board of Education received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for supportive documentation for a committee meeting, including an accounts list.

The Board denied access to the names of individuals on the accounts list, claiming the personal information exemption under section 14(1).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the names of employees and co-op students reimbursed for expenses, and individuals paid for fee-for-service work, did not constitute personal information under section 2(1).

The Board was ordered to disclose the record in its entirety.

The appellant requested access to a summary of disbursements and an accounts list from the Norfolk Board of Education.

The Board denied access to the names on the accounts list, claiming the personal privacy exemption under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the names of employees receiving expense reimbursements and individuals receiving fee-for-service payments did not qualify as personal information under section 2(1) of the Act, as the payments related to their professional or employment capacities.

The Board was ordered to disclose the record in its entirety.

The appellant requested access to an accounts report listing cheques issued by the Norfolk Board of Education.

The Board denied access to the names on the list, claiming the personal privacy exemption under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the names of employees, co-op students, and fee-for-service providers receiving payments in their professional or employment capacity did not qualify as personal information under section 2(1).

The Board was ordered to disclose the record in its entirety.

The requester appealed the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton's decision to deny access to three complaint-driven restaurant investigation reports under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Municipality claimed the records were exempt under section 8(2)(a) as reports prepared in the course of law enforcement.

The Assistant Commissioner applied a three-part test and found that the records were reports, prepared in the course of law enforcement inspections, by an agency with the function of enforcing compliance with the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

The Municipality's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant, a non-custodial father, appealed the Windsor Board of Education's decision to deny access to a registration maintenance screen for his child.

The record contained emergency contact information, including the address and telephone number of the student's mother and her spouse.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the appellant did not have lawful custody under section 54(c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The information was determined to be personal information, and its disclosure was found to constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the student, her mother, and her mother's spouse under section 14(1).

The Board's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Norfolk Board of Education.

The Board issued an interim decision with a fee estimate of $100, later revised to $80, and denied a fee waiver.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate and the interim access decision.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the reasonableness of its fee estimate under section 45(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Board's use of an interim decision was improper, as the estimated search time did not justify delaying a final access decision.

The Board was ordered to issue a final access decision without charging any fees.

The appellant requested access to the exact salaries of the Chief and Deputy Chief of Police for 1991.

The Board denied access under various exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the exact salaries were exempt as personal information whose disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

However, finding that the disclosure of salary ranges is in the public interest, the Commissioner ordered the Board to prepare and disclose salary ranges for the positions.

In a final order following Interim Order M-71, the Assistant Commissioner reviewed the Nipissing Board of Education's written representations regarding its exercise of discretion under section 38(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Board had properly considered factors personal to the requester and upheld the Board's decision to withhold the records from disclosure.

The appellant requested access to all personal information in the custody of the School Board pertaining to himself, his wife, and his three children.

The School Board granted partial access but denied access to four pages under section 13 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure could threaten the children's health and safety.

The Inquiry Officer found that the School Board conducted a reasonable search and that the records contained personal information.

However, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the section 13 exemption did not apply, as the appellant was already aware of the children's remarks and disclosure could not reasonably be expected to seriously threaten their safety or health.

The School Board was ordered to disclose the severed information.

The appellants requested access to the qualifications of a teacher's aide hired by the Board.

The Board denied access under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the records contained personal information.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Board's decision, finding that the requested application and resume contained personal information relating to employment and educational history, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's privacy.

The requester appealed the Halton Region Board of Commissioners of Police's decision to deny access to a Professional Standards Branch report.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the discretionary exemptions under sections 6(1)(b) and 8 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act did not apply, as the record did not reveal the substance of deliberations and the investigation was an internal employment matter rather than a law enforcement activity.

However, the mandatory personal information exemption under section 14(1) applied to specific portions of the record containing information about criminal charges against an individual.

The Police were ordered to release the record with those specific portions severed.

The requester appealed the decision of the Belleville Board of Commissioners of Police to deny access to the name of a deceased person found in a field, contained in a Sudden Death Report.

The Inquiry Officer found that the deceased person's name constituted personal information under section 2(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(1)(f) and upheld the decision to deny access.

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation requested access to the home phone numbers of its members from the Wellington County Board of Education under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board denied the request, claiming disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(1)(f).

The Federation appealed.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Board's decision, finding that the Federation's status as bargaining agent and the provisions of Part II of the Act were not relevant factors favouring disclosure under section 14(2).

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Commissioners of Police to deny access to portions of a General Occurrence Report, a Supplementary Report, and police notebook entries.

The Police claimed the severed portions contained personal information of other individuals and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, raising a presumption of an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The decision of the Police was largely upheld, though one page was ordered disclosed with a signature severed.