IPCO 1994

The appellant appealed a decision by the Sault Ste.

Marie Police Services Board denying access to the names of a duty officer and dispatchers contained in a record related to a Highway Traffic Act charge.

The Police claimed the names were exempt from disclosure as personal information under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the names of the employees alone did not constitute personal information or employment history within the meaning of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police were ordered to disclose the names.

The appellant requested access to complaints and investigation records regarding by-law infractions at a building complex.

The City of York denied access to several records, claiming law enforcement and third-party information exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer refused to allow the City to raise new discretionary exemptions late in the process.

The Officer found that the City failed to establish that the records qualified for exemption under sections 8(1) or 10(1)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and ordered the disclosure of the responsive records.

The appellant requested records relating to the employment and release agreements between the Village of Winchester and its former Chief Administrative Officer.

The Village disclosed the records but severed information relating to financial entitlements, claiming the invasion of privacy exemption under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the severed information constituted personal information, the public interest in scrutinizing the expenditure of public funds and ensuring public confidence in the institution outweighed the former CAO's privacy interests.

The Village was ordered to disclose the severed information.

The appellant appealed the Thunder Bay Police Services Board's decision to deny access to witness statements, occurrence reports, and correspondence related to an investigation of a specific incident involving the appellant.

The Police relied on exemptions for danger to safety or health and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The decision of the Police to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to expense account records and salary payments made by the Board to two trustees.

The Board provided a fee estimate of $2,440 and denied a fee waiver.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate and the denial of the fee waiver.

The Inquiry Officer found the Board's search method inefficient and reduced the allowable search time from 78 hours to 25 hours, lowering the search fee to $690.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's decision to deny a fee waiver, finding that a waiver would shift an unreasonable burden of the cost to the institution.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Corporation of the City of York for records pertaining to his company.

The City granted access to records located in the City Clerk's office.

The appellant appealed, arguing that more records existed.

During mediation, the City provided an Affidavit of Search detailing the searches conducted.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City's search for responsive records was reasonable and upheld the City's decision.

The appellant requested access to minutes and by-laws of the Temagami Non-Profit Housing Corporation from the Township of Temagami.

The Township transferred the request to the Housing Corporation, which claimed it was not an institution subject to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that because the municipality had the authority to approve the election or appointment of the Housing Corporation's directors, the directors were appointed or chosen under the authority of the municipal council.

Therefore, under section 2(3) of the Act, the Housing Corporation was deemed to be part of the municipal corporation and subject to the Act.

The Township was ordered to make an access decision.

The appellant requested access to the 1993 percentage salary increases for each employee group or position in the Village of Tweed, as well as the total cost of increasing the employer-paid portion of employee benefits.

The Village denied access, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the total increased cost of benefits and the percentage salary increases allocated to positions did not qualify as personal information about identifiable individuals under section 2(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Village was ordered to disclose the information.

The requester appealed the Region's decision to deny access to the names of individuals listed on the back of a municipal employee's credit card receipts.

The Region claimed exemptions based on invasion of privacy, confidential sources, third party information, and economic interests.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the names related to individuals in a business capacity, not personal, and thus did not constitute personal information.

The Commissioner also found insufficient evidence to support the other claimed exemptions, as the information was not supplied by the third parties and there was no clear linkage to probable harm.

The Region was ordered to disclose the names.

The appellant, representing a taxpayer's group, requested access to records provided to three municipal councillors.

The Township provided a fee estimate of $240 for 10 hours of search and preparation time and denied a fee waiver.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found the 10-hour search estimate unreasonable and reduced it to six hours, resulting in a revised fee of $120.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Township's decision to deny the fee waiver, finding it fair and equitable as the appellant provided no evidence to support a waiver.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $236.50 provided by the London Police Services Board for processing a request for receipts of beverage and food purchases.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the fee estimate under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Finding no evidence to justify the eight hours of search time claimed, the search charges were disallowed.

The preparation time was reduced to 30 minutes, while photocopying and shipping costs were allowed.

The appellant requested access to a police investigation report concerning an incident involving the Chair of the Police Services Board.

The Police disclosed portions of the report but withheld others under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

During the appeal, the Police and the affected person attempted to raise additional discretionary exemptions late in the process, which the Inquiry Officer refused to consider due to lack of extenuating circumstances.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information did not contain the personal information of the affected person, as it related to her official duties.

However, three passages containing the personal information of the report's author and another individual were found to be exempt under section 38(b) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Police were ordered to disclose the remainder of the report.

The appellant, a host township for a proposed landfill site, requested access to records relating to the County's waste management master plan and landfill site search.

The County issued a fee estimate of $8,250 and denied the appellant's request for a fee waiver.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the County failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the search and preparation time claimed in the fee estimate.

Furthermore, the Inquiry Officer ordered a full fee waiver, finding that dissemination of the records would benefit public health and safety regarding the proposed landfill, and that a waiver was fair and equitable in the circumstances.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board regarding a freedom of information request.

In a previous interim order, the Police were ordered to conduct a further search for responsive records relating to specific groups and provide a detailed affidavit.

The Police provided an affidavit from a detective in the Intelligence Services Unit detailing the search steps, retention practices, and explaining that the specified groups did not qualify for inclusion in the intelligence data bank.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records and upheld the decision, concluding the search was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board denying access to records relating to his placement in a witness protection program.

The Police claimed no responsive records existed in their custody and transferred the request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police took all reasonable steps to locate the records, including contacting the OPP who confirmed custody of the documents, and upheld the Police's decision.

The appellant requested records from the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto regarding union staff granted leave without pay.

The Municipality provided a fee estimate and the appellant requested a fee waiver, arguing that dissemination of the records would benefit public health or safety under section 45(4)(c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer applied the four-factor test from Order P-474 and found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that dissemination would benefit public health or safety.

The Municipality's decision not to waive the fees was upheld.

The appellant requested a fee waiver for records relating to involuntary terminations of union and management staff.

The Municipality denied the fee waiver.

The appellant appealed, arguing that dissemination of the records would benefit public health or safety.

The Inquiry Officer found insufficient evidence to demonstrate a benefit to public health or safety and upheld the Municipality's decision not to waive the fees.

The appellant requested records from the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto regarding WCB claims related to video display terminals (VDTs).

The Municipality provided a fee estimate and the appellant requested a fee waiver under section 45(4)(c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing dissemination would benefit public health or safety.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Municipality's decision not to waive the fees, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate that disseminating the records would yield a public benefit or contribute meaningfully to the understanding of the issue.

The appellant requested access to all information pertaining to any investigations conducted by the Halton Regional Police Services Board into the operation of computer bulletin board services.

The Police refused to confirm or deny the existence of the records under section 8(3) of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the records, if they existed, would qualify for exemption under section 8(1), the Police failed to establish that disclosing the mere existence or non-existence of the records would communicate exempt information.

The Inquiry Officer ordered that section 8(3) did not apply and disclosed that no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed the City of Peterborough's response to a freedom of information request, arguing that additional responsive records should exist and that the records should be disclosed in the public interest due to a health and safety hazard.

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

Furthermore, the Inquiry Officer determined that section 5(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act did not apply to the records sought, and that the Information and Privacy Commissioner lacks the power to make an order under that section.

The City's decision was upheld.