IPCO 1994

The complainant objected to the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade collecting her Social Insurance Number (SIN) on an application for a loan under the New Ventures program.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the SIN is personal information, but its collection was necessary to the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity (verifying that an applicant had not previously received a loan) and thus complied with section 38(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, the Ministry failed to provide proper notice of collection under section 39(2) because the application form did not include the contact information of a public official who could answer questions about the collection.

The complainant, a private in the Canadian Armed Forces, filed a privacy complaint against a regional police force after a police officer collected his Ministry of Transportation driver's licence number from the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) during a traffic stop.

The complainant had provided his military driver's licence but refused to provide his provincial licence.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether the collection and use of the complainant's personal information complied with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Compliance Review Officer concluded that the information was personal information, but its collection and use were authorized under the Act as they were for law enforcement purposes, specifically to check for driving suspensions and to issue a traffic ticket.

The complainant submitted a request for general records to a Municipality, explicitly asking that his identity remain confidential.

The Municipality's Freedom of Information Co-ordinator disclosed the complainant's letter, including his name and contact information, to the Director of Administration for the Community Services Department.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated and found that the information disclosed was 'personal information' under section 2(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner concluded that the disclosure was not in compliance with section 32 of the Act and recommended the Municipality take steps to ensure future compliance.

The complainant alleged that a regional municipality improperly disclosed his HIV-positive status to a home care company providing services to his mother.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information was personal information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, that the municipality had disclosed it to the company, and that the disclosure was not authorized under section 32 of the Act.

The municipality failed to demonstrate that the disclosure was necessary for health and safety, as the company already used universal precautions.

The Commissioner recommended staff training on the Act's disclosure requirements.

The complainant objected to a separate school board using her personal information, obtained from the municipal assessment roll, to solicit her tax support.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether the information was 'personal information' under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and whether its use complied with the Act.

The Commissioner concluded that the information was personal information, but the board's use of it to advise Roman Catholic ratepayers of their right to direct taxes to the separate school system was consistent with the purpose for which it was obtained, and therefore complied with section 31 of the Act.

The complainant alleged that a Police Services Board improperly collected his medical information during a background check for a Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC) renewal.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the medical note collected by the Police constituted personal information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, the collection was authorized under section 28(2) of the Act because it was necessary for the proper administration of processing the FAC application under the Criminal Code, specifically to ensure the applicant's safety.

The complainant, an employee of a Board of Education, alleged that her personal information was improperly disclosed during a job competition and that the Board improperly destroyed the competition records.

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

While the Officer could not conclude whether the information was improperly disclosed to other applicants or employees, she found that the Board failed to provide proper notice of collection and failed to retain the records for the required period.

The Board was ordered to implement recommendations to comply with the Act.

The complainant alleged that the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services improperly disclosed their personal information to a prospective employer in another province.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether the disclosure of the complainant's employment history and the former superintendent's opinion on rehire suitability violated the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The investigation concluded that while the information was personal information, its disclosure was for a consistent purpose under section 42(c) of the Act, as the complainant had signed an employment application acknowledging that references might be sought from unlisted sources.

The appellant requested a copy of a bus transportation contract from the Nipissing Board of Education.

The Board withheld the fee clauses and rate schedules, claiming the third party information exemption under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the contract rates were negotiated between the Board and the bus company, and therefore were not 'supplied' to the institution in confidence.

As the second part of the three-part test for the exemption was not met, the Board was ordered to disclose the agreement in full.

The appellant, a former employee, appealed the City of York's decision denying access to job competition records, including examination questions, and claiming other records did not exist.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the examination questions as the City failed to provide evidence supporting the section 11(h) exemption.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's search for additional records as reasonable, but ordered the disclosure of two newly located records.

A postscript noted concerns regarding the City's compliance with record retention regulations.

The appellant requested access to the expense account receipts and credit card statements of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board's Director of Education.

The Board refused disclosure, claiming exemptions for invasion of privacy, danger to life or safety, law enforcement, third party information, valuable government information, and economic interests.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records related to the Director's employment duties and did not constitute personal information.

The Officer also found that the Board failed to establish a clear and direct linkage between disclosure and any of the alleged harms.

The Board was ordered to disclose the records, with certain agreed-upon severances.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board seeking records to confirm whether he was under police surveillance.

The Police refused to confirm or deny the existence of such records under section 8(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that if such records existed, they would qualify for exemption under section 8(1)(a) as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter, and that confirming their existence or non-existence would communicate exempt information.

The appellant requested access to records concerning renovations made to a specific residential property.

The City of York denied access, citing the personal information exemption under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the names, addresses, and telephone numbers on the building permits and applications constituted personal information and were exempt from disclosure as their release would be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

However, the remaining technical information and drawings did not qualify as personal information and were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant requested copies of two termination agreements between the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk and two former employees under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Municipality denied access, relying on the closed meeting exemption under section 6(1)(b) and the invasion of privacy exemption under section 14.

The Inquiry Officer applied the three-part test for section 6(1)(b) and found that the meetings were held in camera, authorized by the Municipal Act, and that disclosure of the agreements would reveal the substance of the deliberations.

The Municipality's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board for information relating to police computer systems, radio frequencies, and equipment inventories.

The Police refused to confirm or deny the existence of records relating to an alleged computer system transmission failure under section 8(3), and denied access to the remaining items under section 8(1).

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that confirming the existence of the transmission failure records would communicate exempt information, and that disclosure of the radio frequency and computer service information could reasonably be expected to facilitate the commission of an unlawful act or hamper the control of crime.

The requester appealed the Nipissing Board of Education's decision to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of additional records responsive to a request for his personnel file and related documentation.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board improperly relied on section 14(5) to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of the records, as confirming their existence would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer confirmed the existence of 33 additional records and reviewed the Board's alternative exemption claims.

Several records were found to be exempt under solicitor-client privilege (section 12) and the personal privacy exemption (section 38(b)), while others were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant requested access to his personnel file and documentation related to a specific issue from the Nipissing Board of Education under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board granted partial access but denied access to 12 records, claiming exemptions for solicitor-client privilege and protection of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were exempt under solicitor-client privilege, while others were exempt because their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other individuals.

The Board was ordered to disclose two records that did not fall under these exemptions and to make a decision regarding an additional grievance file.

The appellant requested a list of businesses that received bulk waste removal services from the City of Etobicoke.

The City denied access under sections 11(a) and (c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing the list had potential monetary value and its disclosure could prejudice the City's economic interests.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City failed to establish that the information had monetary value or that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged harm.

The City was ordered to disclose the record.

The requester appealed the fee charged by the Frontenac County Board of Education for processing a freedom of information request and the Board's claim that no additional records existed.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's fee calculation of $63.60 for search time and photocopies, finding it reasonable and in accordance with the Act.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Board's search for responsive records was reasonable, given the evidence of multiple searches conducted across various files and locations.

The appellant appealed the fee charged and the adequacy of the search conducted by the Frontenac County Board of Education in response to a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records related to the V.I.P. program.

The Inquiry Officer found that the fee of $44.50 was calculated in accordance with the Act and was reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Board's search for responsive records was reasonable in the circumstances.

The Board's decisions were upheld.