IPCO 1993

The appellants requested access to police investigation and autopsy records relating to the death of their son.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denied access to most of the records under various exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that most records contained personal information of individuals other than the appellants and were exempt under section 14, as disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Police were ordered to disclose three specific records, and the search for records was deemed reasonable.

The appellant requested access to cash register receipts for 16 purchases charged to the Township's Visa account by the Reeve under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Township provided two receipts and stated the others were never in its possession.

The appellant appealed, arguing more receipts should exist.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed affidavits from Township staff and the Reeve detailing the search efforts and concluded that the Township had taken all reasonable steps to locate the records.

The search was deemed reasonable in the circumstances.

The City of Toronto received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records mentioning the requester.

The City decided to disclose certain records after notifying a third-party company, which objected and appealed the decision.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant failed to establish that disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause the harms specified in section 10(1) of the Act.

The appeal was dismissed and the City was ordered to disclose the records.

The requesters appealed a decision by the York Regional Police Services Board denying access to records pertaining to a fatal motor vehicle accident and charging a fee for reproducing photographs.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision to withhold the records, finding they contained personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation, the disclosure of which would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

However, the Inquiry Officer did not uphold the fee estimate for the photographs, ordering the Police to provide a revised estimate based on the time spent preparing the records for disclosure rather than a flat fee per photograph.

The appellant requested access to the identities of individuals who responded to a municipal market survey regarding lot development.

The City of Elliot Lake denied access to the names, addresses, and telephone numbers under the personal privacy exemption of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that the records contained personal information, disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, and the public interest override did not apply.

The Commissioner also found that the City conducted a reasonable search for responsive records.

The appellant requested the correction of personal information contained in a letter from the Chairman of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton by deleting a specific sentence.

The Municipality refused the deletion but offered to attach a statement of disagreement.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while the sentence contained the appellant's personal information, it was not shown to be inexact, incomplete, or ambiguous.

The sentence reflected the Chairman's opinion and presumption at the time it was written.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Municipality's decision, concluding that the appropriate remedy for disagreeing with opinion information is a statement of disagreement under section 36(2)(b) of the Act.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Scarborough for records relating to their employment termination.

The City denied access to two records, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12.

The Inquiry Officer found that Record 1, a letter from the City Solicitor to the Mayor, qualified for exemption under the common law solicitor-client privilege branch of section 12.

However, Record 2, a memorandum from the Director of Planning and Development Law, was found to contain administrative comments rather than legal advice, and was not prepared in contemplation of litigation.

The City was ordered to disclose Record 2 to the appellant.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a job competition at Toronto Hydro under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Hydro denied access to the employment applications, interview packages, and selection matrix forms of other candidates, citing the mandatory exemption for personal information.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision to withhold the applications and interview packages, finding their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

However, the Officer ordered the disclosure of the selection matrix forms with the names of the other candidates severed.

The appellant requested access to a contract between the Board of Education and a management services company under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board denied access, citing the third-party information exemption in section 10(1)(a).

The Inquiry Officer found that the contract was the product of negotiation and therefore the information was not "supplied" by the third party, failing the second part of the section 10(1) test.

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

The appellant requested a correction to her Supervisor's Temporary Employee Evaluation form under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, specifically disputing a checkmark indicating the supervisor had shared the evaluation with her.

The City denied the correction but attached her statement of disagreement.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while the information was the appellant's personal information, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the supervisor's entry was false or inaccurate.

The City's decision to deny the correction was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to Transit Windsor for correspondence and supporting records related to labour relations.

Transit Windsor initially found no responsive records but, after mediation and further searches, located and disclosed several documents.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that Transit Windsor's search for responsive records was reasonable in the circumstances and upheld the institution's decision.

The appellant, an insurance company, appealed the decision of the Waterloo Regional Police Services Board to deny access to witness statements provided by two individuals under the age of 12 regarding a fire.

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

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

The decision of the Police to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to invoices, payments, and by-laws relating to a named sole proprietorship from the Township of Cavan.

The Township denied access, claiming exemptions under sections 7(1) and 14(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records did not contain advice or recommendations, so section 7(1) did not apply.

Furthermore, the information related to a sole proprietorship and did not qualify as 'personal information' under section 2(1).

The Township was ordered to disclose the records in their entirety.

The requester appealed a decision by the Stratford Police Services Board denying access to the criminal record of another individual.

The Inquiry Officer found that the requested record contained the personal information of the affected person.

The Officer further determined that the information was highly sensitive and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's personal privacy under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The requester appealed the Kirkland Lake-Timiskaming Roman Catholic Separate School Board's decision to deny access to a record detailing the Ministry of Education's contribution toward transition costs for the amalgamation of two school boards.

The Board claimed exemptions under sections 9(1)(b), 10(1)(a) and (c), and 11(c) and (d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board failed to establish that the information was received or supplied in confidence, and failed to demonstrate a direct link between disclosure and any alleged harm to its economic or financial interests.

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

The requester appealed the Kingston Police Services Board's decision not to waive a $2,250 fee for processing a broad freedom of information request.

The requester argued that payment would cause financial hardship and that dissemination of the records would benefit public health or safety.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the requester failed to establish a public health or safety benefit.

Assuming financial hardship, the Assistant Commissioner concluded it was fair and equitable not to waive the fee because the requester did not work constructively to meaningfully narrow the massive scope of the request.

The decision not to waive the fee was upheld.

The appellant requested access to a report regarding a claim for compensation arising from the Municipality's efforts to expropriate property.

The Municipality granted partial access, exempting certain pages under various sections of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained the appellant's personal information and qualified for exemption under section 6(1)(b) as it would reveal the substance of deliberations of an in camera meeting.

The Municipality's exercise of discretion under section 38(a) to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate and the denial of a fee waiver by the City of Mississauga regarding a request for records related to renovation work.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City failed to fulfill its obligations under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by not issuing a final access decision when it had already reviewed the records.

The Inquiry Officer disallowed the City's estimated search and preparation fees due to lack of justification, but allowed photocopying charges at $0.20 per page.

The City's decision to deny a fee waiver was upheld as the appellant failed to demonstrate financial hardship.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board for records relating to a charge laid against him.

After receiving partial access, the appellant appealed, arguing that additional responsive records, specifically certain police officers' notebook entries, existed.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the searches conducted by the Police, including additional searches prompted by the appeal, and concluded that the Police had made a reasonable effort to identify responsive records as required by section 17(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester appealed a decision by the Niagara Regional Police Services Board denying access to certain incident reports under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information of both the requester and other identifiable individuals.

Applying section 38(b) and the presumption in section 14(3)(b), the Inquiry Officer concluded that the records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other individuals.

The Police's decision to deny access was upheld.