IPCO 1993

The requester appealed the Guelph Police Services Board's decision to deny access to internal police memoranda pertaining to the requester's employment.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the requester's personal information but qualified for exemption under section 8(2)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as reports prepared in the course of law enforcement.

The Police's exercise of discretion to withhold the records under section 38(a) was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records respecting the payment of honoraria to Board Trustees, including a legal account issued to the Board by its solicitors.

The Board denied access to the legal account, claiming it was exempt under the solicitor-client privilege exemption in section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the legal account did not contain or reveal legal advice and had no direct connection with seeking, formulating, or giving legal advice.

The Board was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant requested access to records relating to workplace harassment complaints made against him.

The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto denied access to parts of the records under various exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information and that disclosure of certain information provided by third parties would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b).

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the application of the advice or recommendations exemption under section 7(1) for specific portions of the records.

The Municipality was ordered to disclose the remaining non-exempt portions of the records to the appellant.

The requester appealed the Regional Municipality of Niagara's decision to deny access to 8 records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The records related to concerns about the requester's management style.

The Inquiry Officer found that all records contained the requester's personal information.

For one record containing another individual's personal information, the Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption under section 38(b) as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The remaining 7 records were ordered disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer also found the Municipality's search for records was reasonable.

Three requesters appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to records relating to the positions of Archivist and Records & Information Analyst.

The City claimed exemptions under sections 7, 10, 11, and 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while some records contained personal information, the exception for employment classification and salary applied to most, meaning disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also rejected the City's claims under sections 7, 10, and 11, ordering the disclosure of the majority of the records.

The Corporation of the Town of Dunnville received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for an environmental audit on land it proposed to purchase.

The Town denied access, claiming exemptions under sections 11(c) and 11(g) of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Town failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of harm to its economic interests or competitive position under section 11(c).

The Officer also found that the record did not meet the two-part test for exemption under section 11(g).

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

The requester appealed the Corporation's decision to deny access to its 1992 draft 'line item' budget and its claim that no records existed regarding replacement employees.

The Inquiry Officer found that the draft budget was exempt under section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as it would reveal the substance of deliberations of an in camera meeting.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Corporation met its obligation to conduct a reasonable search, as it had not hired any replacement employees and therefore no responsive records existed.

The requester appealed the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board's decision not to process freedom of information requests submitted by fax.

The Police argued that a fax does not satisfy the requirement under section 17(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that a request be 'in writing'.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Act does not restrict the method of transmission or require an original signature, and ordered the Police to process the requests.

The requester, acting on behalf of the executrix of a deceased former employee's estate, sought access to various records relating to allegations against the deceased.

The Board denied access to several records, citing exemptions for personal privacy and closed meeting deliberations.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information and that the requester's right of access under section 54(a) was limited to records relating to the administration of the estate, which these were not.

The Officer upheld the Board's decision to exempt the records under sections 14 and 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and found the Board's search for records was reasonable.

The appellant, acting on behalf of the executrix of a deceased individual's estate, requested access to police records relating to allegations, criminal charges, and the death of the deceased.

The Police denied access under various exemptions, including the personal privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information and that the appellant was not entitled to access them under section 54(a) of the Act because the request did not relate to the administration of the estate.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision to deny access under the mandatory personal privacy exemption in section 14 of the Act.

The requester appealed the Town of Gananoque's decision to deny access to a release agreement between the Town and a former employee, as well as records of monies paid under the agreement.

The Town claimed the records were exempt under the personal privacy provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the records contained personal information, the public interest in scrutinizing the expenditure of public funds outweighed the employee's expectation of confidentiality for most of the information.

The Town was ordered to disclose the records, with specific identifying information and exact salary details severed to protect the employee's privacy.

The requester appealed a fee estimate of $1,095 provided by the Metropolitan Licensing Commission for processing a request for records listing taxi license plates owned by 44 named licensees in 1975.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the components of the fee estimate, including manual search charges, photocopying, and preparation time.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Commission had double-counted some preparation time under the search charges.

The fee estimate was reduced to $785, allowing for 18 hours of manual search time, photocopying, and 8 hours of preparation time.

The requester appealed the decision of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board to deny access to portions of over 9000 pages of records relating to investigations of the requester.

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

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision to withhold the majority of the records under various exemptions, including unjustified invasion of personal privacy, law enforcement exemptions, and information received in confidence from other governments.

However, the Police were ordered to disclose 78 pages that did not qualify for any of the claimed exemptions.

The requester appealed the Township of Ignace's decision to deny a request to correct personal information contained in three personnel evaluations.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information qualified as personal information but concluded that it consisted of evaluative and opinion information rather than factual errors.

Applying the test from Order 186, the Inquiry Officer determined that the appropriate remedy was not correction under section 36(2)(a), but rather attaching a statement of disagreement under section 36(2)(b).

The Township's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested personal information from the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto relating to his employment and discharge in the 1960s, specifically seeking records substantiating an alleged promise of re-employment or retraining.

The Municipality granted partial access, transferring part of the request to the Workers' Compensation Board and withholding some third-party personal information.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the search efforts detailed in an affidavit by the Manager of Administrative Services, which included searches of departmental dockets, Workers' Compensation files, Corporate Personnel files, and inactive records.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the Municipality conducted a reasonable search for responsive records as required by section 17 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and upheld the Municipality's decision.

The appellant requested access to personal information collected by the police during a surveillance or investigation.

The police granted partial access to officers' handwritten notebook entries, withholding portions under sections 8(1)(l) and 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the exemptions, the comprehensibility of the handwritten records, and the reasonableness of the search.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the privacy exemptions for third-party information but found the law enforcement exemption did not apply to a police code.

The Officer also held that the police were not required to provide typewritten transcripts of legible handwritten notes, but ordered the disclosure of the decoded police code.

The search for records was deemed reasonable.

The appellant requested access to police records concerning an investigation into their complaint of being assaulted.

The Police granted partial access, denying the remainder under various exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

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

For the remaining records, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b) and that the records did not qualify as law enforcement reports under section 8(2)(a).

The requester appealed the Township of Maryborough's decision to deny access to owners' names and property descriptions contained in building permit summary reports.

The Inquiry Officer found that the names of individual owners (natural persons) qualified as personal information and were exempt from disclosure under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, except for one individual who consented to disclosure.

The property descriptions and the names of non-natural persons did not qualify as personal information and were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant requested access to a retirement settlement agreement between the City of Kingston and a former employee.

The City denied access, claiming the agreement was exempt under section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as its disclosure would reveal the substance of deliberations of an in camera meeting.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that the agreement was the subject of an authorized closed meeting and its disclosure would reveal the substance of those deliberations.

The public interest override in section 16 was found inapplicable to section 6(1)(b).

The appellant requested a list of Residential Care Facilities licensed by the City of Toronto, including the facility's name, address, phone number, and type.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the requested information related solely to services provided by business entities and did not constitute personal information about identifiable individuals.

The City was ordered to disclose the responsive portions of the records.