IPCO 1994

The requester appealed the decision of the Port Hope Police Services Board to deny access to portions of records relating to investigations and prosecutions pertaining to the requester.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that the withheld information qualified for exemption under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as it contained personal information of other individuals, law enforcement intelligence information, and information subject to solicitor-client privilege.

Following Interim Order M-286, the City of Kitchener reconsidered its exercise of discretion under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and provided representations to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the City's representations and found nothing improper in its exercise of discretion.

The City's decision was upheld.

The Inquiry Officer issued a Final Order following Interim Order M-285, which required the City of Kitchener to reconsider its exercise of discretion under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

After reviewing the City's representations regarding the factors considered, the Inquiry Officer found nothing improper and upheld the City's decision.

In a final order following an interim order, the Inquiry Officer reviewed the York Region Board of Education's further representations regarding its exercise of discretion under section 6 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's exercise of discretion was proper and upheld the Board's decision.

The appellant, an employee of the Metropolitan Licensing Commission, appealed a decision denying access to records concerning workplace incidents involving the appellant and a former employee.

The Commission claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including unjustified invasion of personal privacy and advice or recommendations.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information but their disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption for a portion of one record containing advice, but ordered the disclosure of the remaining records.

The requester appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Licensing Commission to deny access to certain records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that all records contained personal information.

The Officer upheld the Commission's decision to deny access to Record 19 (publicly available), Record 65 (highly sensitive personal information), and portions of Records 16 and 41 (advice or recommendations).

The Officer ordered the disclosure of the remaining records, finding that their disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and that they were not exempt under solicitor-client privilege.

The requester appealed a decision of the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, which claimed that no records responsive to a request for written notes and memos from a specific date existed.

The sole issue was whether the Police conducted a reasonable search.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police's search, which included checking the named officer's notebook, was reasonable in the circumstances and upheld the Police's decision.

The appellant appealed a decision by the York Regional Police Services Board denying access to various police records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b).

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

The decision of the Police was upheld.

A union requested the work assignments of occasional teachers from a school board, including the names of supply teachers.

The school board denied access to the names, citing the personal privacy exemption under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the names constituted personal information and that their disclosure would reveal employment history, triggering a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The union's arguments that disclosure was expressly authorized by the Labour Relations Act or necessary for research purposes were rejected.

The school board's decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed the Town of Gravenhurst's decision to withhold a 14-page record under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (solicitor-client privilege).

The record consisted of a summary of evidence from an Ontario Municipal Board hearing and two transmittal letters.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the summary of evidence initially qualified for privilege, the transmittal letters did not.

Furthermore, the Assistant Commissioner determined that the Town's solicitor had waived the privilege by disclosing the summary to the developer's solicitor.

As the Town had retroactively ratified its solicitor's actions, the waiver was binding on the Town.

The Town was ordered to disclose the record, with personal information severed.

The County of Hastings received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a copy of a proposal submitted by a consulting firm, including references.

The County granted partial access, withholding the references under section 14(1).

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the names, titles, addresses, and telephone numbers of the references constituted their personal information under section 2(1).

The Officer further concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, and upheld the County's decision to deny access under section 14(1).

The appellant requested access to documents generated by a police investigation into a fire.

The Guelph Police Services Board denied access to portions of the records, citing exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the severed information constituted personal information and its disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy because it was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Township for records relating to a garbage collection tender, including the successful bidder's performance bond, tender package, and contract.

The Township disclosed the contract but denied access to the remaining records under the third-party information exemption in section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the exemption applied to the letter of credit, unit pricing information, and certain financial arrangements, as they contained commercial/financial information supplied in confidence whose disclosure could prejudice the successful bidder's competitive position.

However, the exemption did not apply to information identifying the insurance company and liability coverage amount.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, and ordered partial disclosure.

The appellant requested access to an investigator's report relating to a harassment complaint involving the appellant.

The City of Scarborough denied access to two responsive records, claiming exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that while the records contained personal information, disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

However, the 'Recommendations' section of one record qualified for exemption as advice or recommendations.

The City was ordered to disclose the remainder of the records.

The appellant appealed the City of Kitchener's decision to deny access to certain records related to a proposed correctional facility and its claim that no additional responsive records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the mandatory exemption for third-party information under section 10 did not apply to the asking prices of properties.

While certain records qualified for the discretionary solicitor-client privilege exemption under section 12, the City was ordered to reconsider its exercise of discretion because it mistakenly believed the privilege belonged to the City Solicitor rather than the City.

The Inquiry Officer also concluded that the City had conducted a reasonable search for records.

A requester sought access to budget files for a day care centre from the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Region denied access to certain records under section 10(1)(a), claiming disclosure could interfere with contractual negotiations or prejudice the affected party's competitive position.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while the records contained financial information, neither the Region nor the affected party provided detailed and convincing evidence that disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged harms.

The records were ordered to be disclosed, subject to the severing of some personal information.

The appellant requested information from the City of London regarding a claim for compensation for damage to his compact disk player and an in camera municipal council meeting where the claim was discussed.

The City denied access to certain records under the advice or recommendations exemption in section 7(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that portions of two records qualified for exemption under section 7(1) and were properly withheld under section 38(a).

However, the Inquiry Officer found that the City's search for records relating to the Board of Control and Municipal Council meetings was unreasonable and ordered a further search.

The appellant requested access to personal information held by the Simcoe County Board of Education relating to himself and his family.

The Board disclosed most records but withheld portions of one report under the solicitor-client privilege exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld record was prepared for a lawyer's brief in contemplation of litigation and thus qualified for exemption under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer also concluded that the Board's search for additional responsive records was reasonable.

The Board's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to a report prepared by the Toronto Board of Education's Equity Advisor - Women regarding a job competition.

The Board denied access to portions of the report under various exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that certain portions contained advice or recommendations exempt under section 7(1), but rejected the Board's claim of solicitor-client privilege under section 12, finding the report was not prepared for the dominant purpose of litigation.

The Commissioner also upheld the exemption of another candidate's interview ranking under section 38(b) as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Board was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the record.

The appellant requested access to the name of an individual who complained about an activity on the appellant's property.

The City of Barrie denied access under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that the information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of a zoning by-law, and its disclosure is presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Act.