IPCO 1994

The appellant requested records from the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board relating to his arrest, specifically the information supplied to a justice of the peace to support an arrest warrant.

The Police withheld portions of two supplementary reports under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that the withheld information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Police conducted a reasonable search for responsive records.

The appellant requested access to the general accounts of the Townships of Belmont and Methuen for a specified month.

The Townships denied access to certain cheque entries, claiming the invasion of privacy exemption under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that entries revealing specific employee salaries were protected from disclosure under section 14(3)(f).

However, entries reflecting pension fund contributions made on behalf of an employee were found to relate to an employment benefit under section 14(4)(a), and their disclosure did not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Townships were ordered to disclose the pension contribution entries.

The appellant, an unsuccessful candidate in three internal job competitions, appealed the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's decision to deny access to technical interview questions, anticipated answers, and diagrams under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Municipality claimed the records were exempt under section 11(c) (economic and other interests), arguing disclosure would prejudice its ability to hire competent supervisory staff and maintain its competitive position.

The Inquiry Officer found the Municipality failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence linking disclosure to specific economic harm or prejudice to its competitive standing.

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

The appellant requested copies of receipts for beverages and food purchased by Halton Police members.

The Regional Municipality of Halton provided a fee estimate of $630 but did not issue a decision on whether access would be granted.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Municipality failed to issue a proper access decision before providing a fee estimate.

The Officer ordered the Municipality to issue a final access decision, upheld $120 for search time, allowed photocopying costs, but disallowed charges for preparation time and unsupported search time.

The appellant requested the complete police file regarding a fire in which her father died.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denied access to parts of a Homicide and Sudden Death Report and a Supplementary Report, citing exemptions for facilitating the commission of an unlawful act and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police failed to justify the section 8 exemption but upheld the section 14(1) exemption for personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The Police were ordered to disclose portions of the records that did not contain personal information.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to three documents under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The City subsequently disclosed one document.

For the remaining two letters, the named individual whose personal information was contained therein consented to their disclosure.

The Inquiry Officer found that no mandatory exemptions applied and ordered the City to disclose the two letters to the appellant.

A requester sought access to a contract between the York Regional Police Services Board and its former Chief of Police.

The Board disclosed the contract but withheld the former Chief's salary under the personal privacy exemption in section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner determined that the former Chief was engaged as an independent contractor rather than an employee.

Consequently, the agreement constituted a contract for personal services under section 14(4)(b) of the Act, meaning disclosure of the salary would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Board was ordered to disclose the salary information.

The appellant filed freedom of information requests for the expense accounts of seven school board employees.

After the Commissioner's office ordered the records disclosed (with credit card numbers severed), the Board issued fee estimates totalling $3,213.01.

The appellant appealed the fees.

The Assistant Commissioner held that the Board was entitled to charge a fee even after an order for disclosure had been issued, as the Act's fee provisions are mandatory and contemplate a user-pay principle.

However, the Assistant Commissioner found the fee estimate unreasonable, reducing the allowable search and preparation times, and ordered the total fee reduced to $710.80.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Village of Wellington for records held by the Village's solicitor.

The Village claimed it did not have custody or control of the records under section 4(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that records in a solicitor's custody that belong to the client are under the client's control.

The Village was ordered to review the records in the solicitor's custody using established legal criteria to determine ownership and control, and to issue an access decision for those records.

The appellant appealed the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's decision regarding access to records.

In a previous interim order, the Inquiry Officer ordered the Municipality to determine whether it would exercise its discretion to deny access under section 38(b) of the Act and to provide representations on the factors considered.

The Municipality decided to deny access and provided its representations.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the exercise of discretion, found nothing improper, and upheld the Municipality's decision.

The appellant requested a computer disk copy of a report on race relations practices from the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

The Municipality denied access under section 15(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing the information was publicly available in printed form.

The Inquiry Officer found that the electronic files constituted a 'record' under the Act.

The Officer upheld the exemption for the electronic information that was identical to the printed report, but ordered the disclosure of footnotes and table references that were only present in the electronic version.

The appellant appealed the Guelph Police Services Board's decision to deny access to records generated during a police investigation of a fire.

The Police relied on the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law (arson), triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The public interest override in section 16 did not apply.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to a separation agreement between the Haldimand-Norfolk Police Services Board and the former Chief of Police under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police denied access, relying on the closed meeting exemption under section 6(1)(b).

The Inquiry Officer found that the agreement was discussed at an in camera meeting authorized by the Police Services Act, and its disclosure would reveal the substance of those deliberations.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision of the Police to withhold the agreement.

The appellants requested access to reports from the Brockville Police Services Board regarding an investigation into allegations of misconduct against a named officer.

The Police denied access, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records met the three-part test for exemption under section 8(2)(a) as reports prepared in the course of a law enforcement investigation.

Furthermore, the institution properly exercised its discretion under section 38(a) to deny the appellants access to their own personal information contained within the exempt reports.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to records relating to her complaint to the Police Complaints Commissioner.

The Police initially denied access claiming they did not have custody, but later granted partial access after the records were returned.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police should have transferred the request under section 18 of the Act when they did not have custody.

On the exemptions, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of records containing only the appellant's personal information, but upheld the denial of access to records containing the personal information of other individuals, finding they were exempt under the presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy for law enforcement investigations.

The appellant appealed the City of York's decision to deny access to records relating to occupancy approval for a parking facility.

The City raised additional discretionary exemptions late in the appeals process, which the Inquiry Officer declined to consider due to a lack of extenuating circumstances.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third party information exemption under section 10(1)(a) did not apply because there was no evidence the information was supplied in confidence or that disclosure would cause harm.

Furthermore, the law enforcement exemption under section 8(2)(a) did not apply because the records were mere observations and recordings of fact, not formal reports.

The City was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board to deny access to parts of her personal information contained in police records.

The Police withheld information relating to other individuals under the invasion of privacy exemption, and information from the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) under the relations with other governments exemption.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that the disclosure of the other individuals' personal information would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy as it was compiled during a law enforcement investigation, and that the CPIC information was received in confidence from the RCMP.

The appellant requested access to the complete police file concerning their arrest.

The Haldimand-Norfolk Police Services Board denied access, claiming exemptions for law enforcement and the right to a fair trial under sections 8(1)(b) and (f) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police argued that disclosure would interfere with an ongoing Police Services Act investigation into the arresting officer and prejudice the officer's right to a fair trial.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police failed to establish a clear and direct linkage between the disclosure of the records and the alleged harms.

The Police were ordered to disclose the responsive portions of the records to the appellant.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $5,790 issued by the Halton Board of Education for processing a freedom of information request for records relating to a publication.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Board's calculation of search, preparation, and photocopying charges.

The Officer disallowed charges for search time and certain preparation tasks, and corrected the photocopying rate.

The final allowable fee was reduced to $3,480.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Northwestern Health Unit under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing that the Health Unit failed to conduct a reasonable search for records concerning a named individual's knowledge of the appellant's sewage system prior to August 1991.

The Health Unit provided an affidavit detailing its search of active and remote files, and noted its three-year document retention policy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Health Unit had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records and upheld the decision.