IPCO 1993

The appellant requested access to records detailing expenditures charged against the Discretionary Expense Account of the Director of Education for the Halton Board of Education.

The Board provided a fee estimate of $685.00.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the records were 'current accounts' under the Education Act and should be provided free of charge.

The Inquiry Officer found that the requested records, which included invoices and processed cheques, were not 'current accounts' and therefore the fee provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applied.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the fee estimate, with a minor deduction for travel time, setting the final fee estimate at $670.00.

The appellant appealed a decision by the London Police Services Board to deny access to witness statements and an investigating officer's report regarding an arson investigation.

The Commissioner found that the records contained personal information of individuals other than the appellant.

Applying the presumption that disclosure of information compiled during a law enforcement investigation constitutes an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, the Commissioner upheld the Police's decision to withhold the records under sections 14(1) and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The City of Toronto received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to an application for a special event permit for the use of a public park.

The applicant for the permit objected to disclosure, claiming the exemption for third party information under section 10(1)(a).

The Inquiry Officer found that the information was not supplied in confidence, either explicitly or implicitly, as the application was subject to review in a public meeting.

Furthermore, the information would become publicly evident upon the staging of the event, so disclosure could not reasonably be expected to prejudice the appellant's competitive position.

The City's decision to disclose the record was upheld, with the exception of the appellant's home telephone number.

The appellant requested records from the Township of Mariposa relating to specific council meetings.

The Township provided a fee estimate of $390.00 for search and preparation time, which the appellant appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Township failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate its fee estimate, noting that the estimate of three hours per councillor was not reasonable and improperly combined search and preparation time.

The Township was ordered to process the request without charging a fee.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to investigations about him from 1981 to 1984.

The Waterloo Regional Police Services Board disclosed some records but withheld portions containing the personal information of other individuals, claiming the discretionary exemption under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information qualified as personal information and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the other individuals, upholding the Police's decision to deny access.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Halton Board of Education for five years of detailed expense accounts, including receipts and invoices, for five named individuals.

The Board issued a fee estimate of $10,677.60 and denied the appellant's request for a fee waiver.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the records should be available free of charge under section 207(4) of the Education Act as 'current accounts', and alternatively, that the fee should be waived due to financial hardship.

The Inquiry Officer found that the requested records were not 'current accounts' and that the fee provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applied.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's decision not to waive the fee, finding it would not be fair and equitable given the voluminous nature of the request, the appellant's refusal to narrow the scope, and the significant burden it would place on the Board.

The appellant requested access to rough notes and tests used by an independent psychologist to draft a psychological report for the Regional Municipality of Halton Police Services Board regarding the appellant's suitability for promotion.

The Police denied access, claiming the records were not in their custody or under their control.

The Inquiry Officer applied the factors from Order 120 and found that the records were held by the psychologist, not integrated with Police records, and the Police had no right to possess or dispose of them.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant submitted two freedom of information requests to the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission seeking original documents that would explain inaccuracies in his home address on previous correspondence.

The institution provided a photocopy of the appellant's initial request, stating it was the only record in its custody.

The appellant appealed, arguing he was denied legible copies of an original record.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the institution's search for the original version of the request was reasonable in the circumstances and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant requested attendance records from the Halton Board of Education under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board provided a fee estimate for search, preparation, and photocopying costs, which the appellant appealed as excessive.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the fee estimate and found that some of the manual search time and photocopying charges were not justified or exceeded the maximum allowable rates.

The fee estimate was reduced to $166.70.

The requester appealed the Town of Gravenhurst's decision to deny access to records concerning a development and an Ontario Municipal Board hearing under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Town claimed the solicitor-client privilege exemption under section 12.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption for a letter from the Town's solicitor but ordered the disclosure of handwritten notes taken by the Town's Planning Director during the hearing, finding they did not meet the requirements for privilege.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Durham Region Board of Commissioners of Police for records relating to a complaint and a parking ticket.

The Police provided access to some records, including audio tapes, but the appellant appealed, arguing that additional responsive records existed and that portions of the tapes had been deleted.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the search efforts of the Police, which included sworn affidavits detailing computer, manual, and audio searches, and accepted the Police's explanation that gaps in the tapes were due to the deletion of non-responsive conversations.

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

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission (OC Transpo) for records relating to a grievance file and records retention policies.

OC Transpo claimed the grievance records were outside the jurisdiction of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act due to interjurisdictional immunity, as it is a federally regulated interprovincial undertaking.

The Commissioner agreed, finding that disclosure of grievance records would affect labour relations governed by the Canada Labour Code.

The Commissioner also found that OC Transpo conducted a reasonable search for the records retention policies.

The appellant sought access to his personnel and grievance records from the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commission denied access, arguing the records fell outside the Act's jurisdiction.

The Commissioner determined that the records related to grievance proceedings governed by the federal Canada Labour Code.

Applying the principle of interjurisdictional immunity, the Commissioner concluded that applying the provincial Act to these records would affect the labour relations of an interprovincial undertaking.

Consequently, the records were found to be outside the jurisdiction of the Act.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Licensing Commission denying access to various records related to an investigation into an alleged illegal taxi brokerage.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the application of several exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer upheld the Commission's decision to withhold records under solicitor-client privilege (s. 12), law enforcement exemptions (s. 8(2)(a)), and the protection of personal privacy (ss. 14 and 38(b)).

However, the Officer ordered the disclosure of certain records that did not contain personal information or where personal identifiers could be reasonably severed.

The requester appealed the Metropolitan Licensing Commission's decision to deny access to various records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also found that one record was partially exempt under solicitor-client privilege, but ordered the disclosure of another record that did not meet the criteria for the exemption.

The appellants requested access to their son's Ontario Student Record from the Simcoe County Board of Education.

After receiving the records and an inventory, the appellants made a second request for nine items listed in the inventory but not provided.

The Board located two records and stated its search was complete.

The appellants appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Commissioner had jurisdiction to review the appeal as it was filed within the statutory time limit following the second request.

The Inquiry Officer also concluded that the Board conducted a reasonable search for the remaining records, accepting the Board's explanations regarding typographical errors in the inventory and the destruction of obsolete records.

The requester, acting on behalf of an assault victim, appealed the Waterloo Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to identifying information of the accused and witnesses in a police investigation file.

The Inquiry Officer found that the requested information constituted 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) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester's need for the information to commence a civil proceeding did not outweigh this presumption.

The decision of the Police to deny access under section 38(b) was upheld.

A requester sought access to records containing their personal information from the Halton Board of Education.

The Board decided to grant access, and an affected person (a school trustee) appealed the decision, arguing the records contained their personal information.

The Commissioner found that the views and opinions expressed by the appellant in the records were made in their capacity as a publicly elected official, not in a personal capacity.

Therefore, the records did not contain the appellant's personal information, and the Board's decision to disclose the records was upheld.

The requester appealed the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board's decision to deny access to portions of a police investigation file regarding a suspicious death.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and upheld the Police's decision to deny access.

The requester appealed the Halton Board of Education's decision denying access to an auditor's working papers on the basis that no responsive records exist.

The sole issue was whether the papers were in the custody or under the control of the Board.

Applying the factors from Order 120, the Inquiry Officer found that the working papers were the property of the auditor, were not in the Board's possession, and the Board had no authority to regulate their use or disposition.

The appeal was dismissed, as the records were neither in the custody nor under the control of the Board.