IPCO 1994

The requester appealed the City of Ottawa's decision to deny access to a Memorandum of Agreement detailing the severance benefits of a former senior official.

The City claimed the personal privacy exemption under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the record contained personal information, the public interest in scrutinizing the City's activities and ensuring public confidence outweighed the affected person's privacy interests for most of the agreement.

The City was ordered to disclose the agreement, with the affected person's name and certain employment history details severed.

The requester appealed the East Parry Sound Board of Education's decision to deny access to a consulting contract for the 1992-1993 school year.

The Board claimed exemptions under sections 10(1)(a) and 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the contract contained the personal information of the consultant, but its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy because it was a contract for personal services under section 14(4)(b).

Furthermore, the section 10(1)(a) exemption did not apply because the contract terms were negotiated, not 'supplied' in confidence.

The Board was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant made several requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for police records, logs, and notes concerning himself.

The Police disclosed portions of an officer's notes but stated no other responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that more records should exist and that the disclosed handwritten notes were illegible.

The Inquiry Officer found that the disclosed records contained the appellant's personal information, but held that the Police were not obligated under section 37(3) to provide a typewritten copy because the handwriting was comprehensible to an average person.

The Inquiry Officer also concluded that the Police conducted a reasonable search for additional records.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellants submitted requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records containing their personal information.

The City responded that it had no such files, relying on a previous search conducted for a different request relating to a specific property address.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City's reliance on the previous search was unreasonable because it failed to specifically search for 'personal information' as defined in the Act.

The City was ordered to conduct a further search and issue a new decision letter.

The appellant requested access to records indicating the total cost of legal fees incurred by the Town of Oakville in defending an action brought by the appellant.

The Town denied access, claiming the information was exempt under the solicitor-client privilege exemption in section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the total dollar amount of legal fees does not relate in a tangible and direct way to the seeking, formulating, or provision of legal advice.

The Town was ordered to disclose the record.

A reporter requested access to an addendum to an employment contract between the York Region Board of Education and a former Director of Education, which the reporter had already obtained via a leak and published.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the exemptions for third party information and economic/financial interests did not apply.

While the record contained personal information, exceptions applied to certain clauses.

The Board established that the record revealed the substance of in camera deliberations under section 6(1)(b), but failed to consider the fact that the record had already been published when exercising its discretion.

The Board was ordered to provide further representations on its exercise of discretion.

The requester appealed the City of Scarborough's decision to charge a fee and deny a fee waiver for a freedom of information request.

The requester argued the records contained his personal information and that the specific record he sought was not disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records did not contain the requester's personal information, the fee was properly calculated based on search time, and the requester failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify a fee waiver.

The City's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed the Simcoe County District Health Unit's decision that it did not have custody or control of two letters authored by its Medical Officer of Health (MOH) and sent to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The MOH claimed the letters were private correspondence related to a professional complaint and were kept in his personal files.

The Assistant Commissioner applied the 10-factor test from Order 120 and found that the letters related directly to the Health Unit's mandate to investigate environmental hazards under the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

The Assistant Commissioner concluded that the records were under the control of the Health Unit and ordered the institution to obtain copies from the MOH and issue an access decision.

The requester appealed the Corporation of the Improvement District of Gauthier's failure to issue a decision within the 30-day time limit under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act regarding a request for property tax records.

During mediation, the District conducted searches and disclosed some records, stating no further records existed.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the District's two searches of its alphabetical tax files and assessment rolls were reasonable and upheld the District's decision.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to an incident that resulted in his arrest.

The Police disclosed some records but withheld others under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and stated that other records had been destroyed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the Police had not conducted a reasonable search for the records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search and upheld their decision.

The appellant requested access to records concerning a septic system complaint and an Environmental Appeal Board hearing from the Simcoe County District Health Unit.

The Health Unit denied access to several records under the law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the law enforcement exemption applied to records related to an ongoing investigation, but not to purely administrative records or those already filed as public exhibits.

The personal privacy exemption was upheld for a record containing third-party personal information.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board for information regarding an investigation of a named entity and a police radio frequency.

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

The Inquiry Officer upheld the refusal to confirm or deny the existence of the investigation records, finding they would qualify for exemption under sections 8(1)(a) and (b).

However, the Inquiry Officer found that the radio frequency records, if they existed, would not qualify for exemption under section 8(1)(l), and ordered the Police to issue a decision letter regarding that part of the request.

The appellant requested access to Grade 12 advanced mathematics and physics examinations from 1991 and 1992.

The Metropolitan Separate School Board disclosed parts of the examinations but withheld certain questions under the discretionary exemption in section 11(h) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing they were from a test bank and would be used in future examinations.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Board failed to provide sufficient evidence that the specific questions would actually be incorporated into future tests.

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

The requester appealed the Kingston Police Services Board's decision to deny access to portions of two records relating to a strategic planning process under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that a six-page 'Patrol Audit Report' fell within the exception to the advice or recommendations exemption under section 7(2)(i) and ordered its disclosure.

However, an 18-page record of internal employee suggestions was found to be exempt under section 7(1), and the public interest override in section 16 did not apply.

The Police's decision regarding the 18-page record was upheld.

The appellant requested access to police records regarding an assault investigation against them.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board granted partial access, denying parts under sections 8, 14, and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that pages 4, 5, and 11 could be severed to remove personal identifiers, ordering their disclosure.

However, the Officer upheld the Police's decision to withhold page 3 under section 38(b), as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy.

The requester sought access to records concerning the recommendation and approval process for a telephone system for the Town of Markham's Civic Centre.

The Town denied access under the law enforcement exemptions in sections 8(1)(a) and (b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police confirmed an ongoing criminal investigation related to the records.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Town's decision, finding that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with the law enforcement investigation under section 8(1)(b).

The appellant requested copies of expense account sheets and credit card statements for seven named employees of the Metropolitan Separate School Board.

The Board denied access, claiming the records contained personal information and were exempt under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records related to expenses incurred by the employees in their professional capacity, not personal expenses.

Therefore, the records did not qualify as personal information under section 2(1) of the Act.

The Board was ordered to disclose the records to the appellant, with the actual credit card numbers severed.

The appellant appealed the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's decision to extend the time limit for responding to a freedom of information request by 30 days.

The request sought work orders for ambulance steering repairs.

The Inquiry Officer found that the request necessitated a complex, time-consuming search through 300 files by an experienced individual, and that meeting the original 30-day limit would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the ambulance service.

The 30-day extension was held to be reasonable and the Municipality's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to information related to her reclassification from the Belleville Police Services Board.

The Police denied access to a three-page letter from a lawyer, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the letter was subject to common law solicitor-client privilege, the Police had implicitly waived this privilege by placing the letter in the appellant's personnel file and allowing her to view it during the course of her duties.

The Police were ordered to disclose the record to the appellant.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Metropolitan Separate School Board for a specific 'Ministry confirmation' referenced in a previous letter.

The Board provided an internal memorandum summarizing a conversation with Ministry counsel and a subsequent letter from that counsel confirming the memorandum's accuracy.

The appellant appealed, arguing the records were not responsive and the Board should have stated no records exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records provided were fully responsive to the request as they represented the confirmation the Board had referred to, and upheld the Board's decision.