IPCO 1993

The appellant requested records relating to the planning of a military display from the City of Kingston.

The City denied access to two records under section 9(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming they were received in confidence from the Department of National Defence.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the City failed to establish that the records were received in confidence, as they were distributed at meetings without explicit expectations of confidentiality.

The City was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant submitted three requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Town of Markham for records relating to construction change orders, computer equipment, and consultant invoices.

The Town refused to confirm or deny the existence of some records under section 8(3) and claimed exemptions under sections 8(1)(a) and (b) for law enforcement matters.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Town failed to justify its use of section 8(3) and did not provide sufficient evidence that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or investigation.

The Town was ordered to disclose the responsive records, subject to severing personal information.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a development project known as Landport from the City of Brampton.

The City and affected persons objected to disclosure under section 10 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records contained technical, commercial, or financial information supplied in confidence, and their disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in similar information no longer being supplied to the City.

These records were exempt under section 10(1).

The Inquiry Officer also found that a record of an in-camera council meeting was exempt under section 6(1)(b).

The City was ordered to disclose the remaining records.

The appellant requested copies of an audit report regarding the operations of the Toronto Board of Education.

The Board claimed the record did not exist and failed to locate it.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board did not conduct a reasonable search, as it failed to consult the accounting firm mentioned in the request and its solicitors misunderstood the scope of the request.

The Board was ordered to conduct a further search.

The appellant appealed the Halton Board of Education's decision to deny access to records describing agreements with computer hardware and software suppliers for a new secondary school.

The Board and the affected suppliers objected to disclosure under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer applied the three-part test for third-party commercial information and found that the records contained commercial information supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the suppliers' competitive position.

The decision to deny access to the remaining records was upheld, while parts of the records consented to by one supplier were ordered disclosed.

The appellant requested access to their personnel and medical records from the Metropolitan Toronto Police.

The Police denied access to six pages of Employer Reference forms under various exemptions, including section 38(c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained the appellant's personal information but not the personal information of the references.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the records disclosed because the Police failed to establish that the references were supplied in circumstances where it could reasonably have been assumed that the identity of the source would be held in confidence.

The appellant requested access to reports concerning an attack on a student at Aurora High School.

The York Region Board of Education denied access under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the records contained personal information of identifiable individuals and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, as no factors weighing in favour of disclosure were established.

The requester appealed the Town of Parkhill's decision to deny access to an employee attendance record showing the vacation and sick days taken by the Town Clerk.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained the personal information of the Town Clerk under section 2(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer further held that the mandatory exemption under section 14(1) applied, as disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Town's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested records detailing discussions between the former Chair of the Halton Board of Education and a newspaper.

The Board denied access, stating no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing records must exist.

The Assistant Commissioner reviewed the Board's search efforts, including affidavits from the Board's Manager of Freedom of Information and the former Chair, who confirmed the discussions were by telephone and no written records were created.

The Assistant Commissioner found the Board's search was reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $934.40 issued by the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission for processing a freedom of information request for pension policy agreements and reports.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the fee estimate under section 45(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The search fee and a portion of the preparation fee were disallowed due to lack of supporting evidence.

The preparation fee for severing personal information was reduced to $0.50 per page, and the photocopying fee was set at $0.20 per page.

The appellant requested access to information about new building permits issued by the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, including the names and addresses of property owners and builders.

The Town denied access to the names and addresses, claiming they were exempt as personal information under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the names and addresses of individuals qualify as personal information, but those of business entities do not.

The Town was ordered to disclose the names and addresses of business entities, while the exemption was upheld for the personal information of individuals.

The requester appealed the City of Brockville's decision to deny access to the results of a physical test and its claim that general knowledge test results were not kept for a firefighter/mechanic job competition.

The Inquiry Officer found that the general knowledge tests had been destroyed prior to the interviews.

The Inquiry Officer also determined that the physical test scores of the successful candidate constituted personal information and that their disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The City's decision was upheld.

The complainant alleged that the Ministry of the Attorney General, Family Support Plan breached the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by disclosing details of his support payments to his ex-wife.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated and found that while the general ledger record contained the complainant's personal information, the disclosure was made for a consistent purpose under section 42(c) of the Act.

The purpose of disclosing the information to the ex-wife was reasonably compatible with the purpose for which the Family Support Plan obtained the information, which was to enforce the court order on her behalf.

An employee of a Ministry of Health psychiatric hospital filed a privacy complaint after her medical certificate was disclosed to the Assistant Administrator, HR Administrator, and Legal Counsel.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information was personal information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The disclosure of the employee's name, date, and reason for absence to the administrators was authorized under section 42(d) as they needed it to verify her absence.

However, the disclosure of this information to Legal Counsel, and the disclosure of the physician's name and address to all three individuals, was not authorized as it was not needed in the performance of their duties.

The complainant alleged that the Workers' Compensation Board improperly collected and disclosed personal information concerning her sexual life to her employer.

The information was contained in a psychiatrist's Non Economic Loss (NEL) Assessment.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the information was personal information, but that the Board had the authority to collect it as it was necessary to assess the complainant's permanent impairment.

The Commissioner also found that the disclosure to the employer was authorized by the Workers' Compensation Act.

The Commissioner recommended that the Board use confidential envelopes when mailing medical information to employers.

An investigation was initiated following a complaint that the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services collected and disclosed personal information regarding employee attendance and sick time without proper notice or authority.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the attendance review letters and summary list contained personal information.

The Officer concluded that the Ministry failed to provide adequate notice of collection to employees hired before the implementation of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as relying on the Directory of Records was insufficient.

Furthermore, the disclosure of the summary list on a public notice board violated the disclosure provisions of the Act.

The Ministry was ordered to provide proper notice and update its policies.

A hospital employee complained that the Ministry of Health was improperly storing and disclosing employee personal information, including injured worker records, pay stubs, and time sheets containing Social Insurance Numbers (SINs).

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated and found that the information constituted 'personal information' under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The disclosure of SINs to payroll staff was permitted, but disclosure to other departments and supervisors was not in accordance with the Act.

The Commissioner found that reasonable security measures were otherwise in place and recommended changes to the collection of time-worked information.

The complainant, an employee of the Municipality, filed a complaint with the Information and Privacy Commissioner alleging that the Municipality improperly disclosed his Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) records to an insurance company.

The disclosure occurred during the insurance company's investigation of a civil suit filed by the complainant against the Municipality for a motor vehicle accident.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the WCB records and a 'Skills Inventory' record contained personal information under section 2(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer concluded that the disclosure to the insurance company was not for the purpose for which the information was obtained, nor for a consistent purpose, and therefore violated section 32 of the Act.

The Officer recommended that the Municipality ensure future disclosures comply with the Act and remind employees of facsimile transmission guidelines.

An employee of a psychiatric hospital complained that her medical diagnosis was improperly disclosed to hospital staff during the process of arranging employment accommodation.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated and found that the information was 'personal information' under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner concluded that while disclosure to the Assistant Administrator was necessary and proper under section 42(d), disclosures to the Personnel department and the Director of Materials Management were not in accordance with the Act.

The Ministry was recommended to educate staff and establish guidelines for processing accommodation requests.

The complainant alleged that a board of education improperly investigated her to determine her first name and sex, and subsequently disclosed this personal information to its law firm when responding to her access requests.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated and found that the complainant had provided her first name in her own correspondence.

The disclosure to the law firm was found to be in accordance with section 32(c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as the lawyer was acting as the interim Freedom of Information Co-ordinator and the disclosure was for the consistent purpose of responding to the access requests.