IPCO 1994

The appellant appealed a decision by the Halton Regional Police Services Board regarding a request for access to police reports.

The Police indicated that no responsive records existed for certain occurrences, as they were classified as 'unfounded' or 'no report', which do not require the submission of a report.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police provided a reasonable explanation and conducted a reasonable search in the circumstances, upholding the Police's decision.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Peterborough Community Police Services Board to deny access to portions of incident reports relating to occurrences involving the appellant and a neighbour.

The Police relied on the invasion of privacy exemption under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption of an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The appeal was dismissed and the decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant requested a fee waiver for records from the Metropolitan Licensing Commission regarding a construction company.

The Commission reduced the initial $152 fee to $76.

The appellant appealed, arguing financial hardship and public safety benefits under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found insufficient evidence of financial hardship or public safety benefits to justify a full fee waiver.

The Commission's decision not to waive the remaining $76 fee was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision denying access to a letter written by the Deputy Chief of Police to the Marathon Police Services Board regarding the appellant's potential hiring.

The Town of Marathon claimed the record was exempt under the closed meeting exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board had the authority to hold an in camera meeting, the meeting took place in camera, and disclosure of the letter would reveal the substance of the deliberations.

The exception for matters considered in a public meeting did not apply.

The Town's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Halton Board of Education regarding an access request for her personal information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The sole issue was whether further responsive records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that a submission to the Standing Committee contained only statistical data and was not responsive.

Based on affidavits detailing the search efforts, the Inquiry Officer concluded the Board conducted a reasonable search and upheld the Board's decision.

The appellants requested copies of records from the City of Toronto relating to their property.

The City denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for closed meetings, law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, and personal privacy under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision to deny access to certain records under the closed meeting and solicitor-client privilege exemptions, but ordered the disclosure of other records, including some containing personal information, subject to the severance of names and addresses of third parties.

The appellant requested access to his social services file from the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

The Municipality denied access to portions of the records, claiming the mandatory privacy exemption under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant also raised Charter arguments regarding access to materials and notification requirements, which the Inquiry Officer dismissed.

The Inquiry Officer found that one record contained only the personal information of others and was exempt under section 14(1).

For the remaining records containing the personal information of both the appellant and others, the Inquiry Officer found that the discretionary exemption in section 38(b) applied, and ordered the Municipality to exercise its discretion regarding disclosure.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Halton Regional Police Services Board denying access to portions of an occurrence report under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police claimed the disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of privacy under sections 14(1) and 38(b).

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that the information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and its disclosure would constitute a presumed invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The appellant requested copies of a mailing list and comment sheets compiled from a public meeting held by the City of Toronto's Planning and Development Department.

The City withheld the names, addresses, and phone numbers under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the withheld information constituted personal information and that no factors favoured its disclosure.

The City was ordered to disclose the comments with identifying information severed, along with the appellant's own personal information.

The appellant requested a copy of a named employee's resume from the Town of Ancaster.

The Town disclosed a resume, but the appellant appealed, alleging it was an altered copy and not the true original.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed affidavits from the employee, the Executive Secretary, and the Freedom of Information Co-ordinator, all confirming that the disclosed resume was the only one in the Town's possession.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Town had conducted a reasonable search and upheld the Town's decision.

A reporter appealed the Sault Ste.

Marie Police Service's decision to deny access to an internal discipline report concerning a named police officer.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumed unjustified invasion of privacy exemption under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer also determined that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, as the internal discipline matter did not relate to the use of public funds or police relations with the community.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellants, former part-time firefighters, appealed the City of Stoney Creek's decision to deny access to portions of their 'secret files' held by the fire department.

The City relied on the invasion of privacy exemption under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to withhold names and signatures of affected persons.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City and affected persons failed to establish that disclosure would result in pecuniary harm, was supplied in confidence, or would unfairly damage reputations under section 14(2).

The Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and ordered the City to disclose the records in their entirety.

A requester sought access to the schedule of prices submitted by successful bidders for a medical supplies tender.

The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton decided to grant full access.

One of the successful bidders appealed, arguing the unit pricing information was exempt under the third party information exemption in section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the appeal, finding that while the unit pricing was financial/commercial information supplied to the institution, it was not supplied in confidence.

The tender documents explicitly stated submissions may become public information, and the Region had a long-standing practice of disclosing such information.

The Region was ordered to disclose the records.

The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton received requests for access to the schedule of prices submitted by successful bidders for a medical supplies tender.

The Region decided to grant full access.

One of the successful bidders appealed, arguing the unit pricing information was exempt under the third party information exemption in section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the information was financial/commercial and supplied to the Region, it was not supplied in confidence, as the Region's tender notice indicated submissions could become public and the Region had a long-standing practice of disclosing unit prices.

The appeal was dismissed and the Region was ordered to disclose the record.

The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton received requests for access to the schedule of prices submitted by successful bidders for a medical supplies tender.

The Region decided to grant access.

One of the successful bidders appealed, arguing the information was exempt under the third party information exemption in section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the appeal, finding that while the unit pricing was financial/commercial information supplied to the Region, it was not supplied in confidence, as the Region's tender notice indicated submissions could become public and the Region had a long-standing practice of disclosing such information.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Renfrew Industrial Commission seeking a list of local businesses assisted by the Commission.

The Commission claimed it was not subject to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Commission's corporate history and letters patent to determine if its members or officers were appointed by the municipal council under section 2(3) of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Commission's members and officers were appointed by its own Board of Directors, not the municipal council.

Consequently, the Commission is not an institution under the Act and the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant requested records from the City of Guelph relating to a storm sewer construction project.

The City denied access to 48 documents, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations and third party information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that 12 records contained advice or recommendations and were exempt from disclosure.

However, the City failed to establish that the remaining records were supplied in confidence or that their disclosure would cause harm, so the third party information exemption did not apply.

The City was ordered to disclose the remaining 36 records.

The appellant, acting through an agent, appealed the decision of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board to deny access to certain police records concerning an investigation into his activities.

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

The Inquiry Officer upheld the privacy exemptions for most records but ordered the disclosure of an internal police memorandum, finding the law enforcement exemption did not apply.

The Inquiry Officer also found the Police's search for records was unreasonable and ordered a further search.

Finally, the Inquiry Officer ordered the Police to correct a factually incorrect entry on the appellant's criminal record printout.

The appellant requested copies of 147 ballots returned to the City of Toronto by residents and property owners regarding a boulevard cafe license application.

The City denied access under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that 136 ballots returned by individuals contained personal information and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

However, 10 ballots returned by business entities did not contain personal information and were ordered to be disclosed, along with the appellant's own ballot.

The requester appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to portions of a fire inspection report relating to the requester's former premises.

The City relied on the personal privacy exemption under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the withheld information constituted personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Fire Code, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b).

The City's decision was upheld in part, but certain non-personal information was ordered to be disclosed.