IPCO 1994

The appellant, acting as the Administratrix of a deceased person's estate, appealed a decision by the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board denying access to police records concerning a fatal sailing accident.

The appellant sought the records to determine whether to pursue a wrongful death lawsuit.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant could not rely on section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act because a wrongful death lawsuit does not relate to the administration of the deceased's estate.

Furthermore, the records were compiled during a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b).

The appeal was dismissed and the police decision was upheld.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for her personal information held by the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's Treasury and Corporate Personnel departments.

After receiving partial access, the appellant appealed, arguing that additional responsive records should exist, including her medical file and training course confirmations.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the affidavits from the Municipality's Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinators detailing their search efforts.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Municipality had conducted a reasonable search by knowledgeable staff in locations where the records might reasonably be located, and upheld the Municipality's decision.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Kingston Police Services Board, which claimed that no records existed in response to a request for correspondence from the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services regarding a specific incident.

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

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the affidavit of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator detailing the search efforts and concluded that the Police had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Thunder Bay Police Services Board denying access to records related to an investigation of an incident in which the appellant was allegedly involved.

The Police claimed exemptions based on invasion of privacy, confiscated records, facilitating the commission of an unlawful act, and law enforcement.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision to withhold personal information of other individuals under the invasion of privacy exemption.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of police codes, finding that the Police failed to establish that their disclosure would facilitate an unlawful act or that the records qualified as law enforcement reports.

A teacher employed by the Carleton Board of Education appealed the Board's decision to deny access to records relating to harassment and other complaints against him.

The Board relied on exemptions for advice to government, third party information, discretion to refuse a requester's own information, and invasion of privacy under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the advice or recommendations exemption did not apply to the records.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's decision to withhold several records on the basis that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of individuals other than the appellant.

The Board was ordered to disclose the remaining records.

The appellant appealed the Guelph Police Services Board's decision to deny access to portions of police reports concerning an investigation into possible violations of law.

The Inquiry Officer found that the undisclosed portions contained the personal information of individuals other than the appellant, and that 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 public interest override in section 16 did not apply.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Ottawa Police Services Board to deny access to portions of general occurrence reports containing his personal information.

The Police relied on exemptions for invasion of privacy and facilitating the commission of an unlawful act.

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 personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Police properly withheld a police message code and had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records.

The appellant sought access to two agreements relating to the North York Performing Arts Centre and notes taken by a City solicitor.

The City denied access, citing several exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the denial of access to the agreements, finding they were exempt under the closed meeting exemption as their disclosure would reveal the substance of in camera deliberations.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the solicitor's notes, concluding they did not qualify for solicitor-client privilege because they were not created in contemplation of litigation.

The appellant, a former auxiliary officer, requested access to all records in his personnel file, specifically seeking documentation pertaining to his dismissal.

The Barrie Police Services Board provided the records located in his file but claimed no further documents existed regarding his dismissal.

The appellant appealed, arguing additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police's search was not reasonable, as it was unlikely a dismissal would occur without written documentation, and ordered the Police to conduct further searches and provide affidavits detailing the search efforts.

The appellant appealed the $25 fee charged by the City of North Bay for processing a freedom of information request for building records, as well as the City's refusal to waive the fee.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City failed to provide sufficient evidence detailing how the $25 fee was calculated, noting that photocopying costs appeared to be duplicated in the search time estimate.

The fee was disallowed and the City was ordered to refund the $25 to the appellant.

The requester, an insurance adjuster, appealed the Sudbury Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to a statement provided by an individual convicted of arson.

The Police claimed the statement was exempt under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the statement constituted personal information and that the presumption against disclosure in section 14(3)(b) applied, as the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

The public interest override in section 16 did not apply.

The appeal was dismissed and the Police's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Township of Emily regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to a road allowance dispute.

The appellant challenged the delegated authority of the Clerk Treasurer to make the access decision and argued that further responsive records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Township had rectified the delegation issue during the appeal process.

Furthermore, based on the affidavit evidence provided by the Township detailing the search efforts, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the Township had conducted a reasonable search for the requested records.

The Township's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to an engineering report prepared for the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville's insurer regarding a flooded property.

The Town denied access, claiming the report was not in its custody or control.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer applied the factors from Order 120 and found that the report was created independently by the Town's insurers, and the Town had no right to obtain, retain, or dispose of it.

The appeal was dismissed as the Town did not have custody or control of the record under section 4(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board's decision that no responsive records existed regarding his request for intelligence squad files.

The appellant, a political activist, suggested specific areas to search, such as 'Red Squad' and 'Anti-war Demonstrators'.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as detailed affidavits, to demonstrate that a reasonable search was conducted.

The Police were ordered to conduct a further search focusing on the areas identified by the appellant and to provide detailed affidavits explaining their search process and retention schedules.

The appellant appealed the City of Mississauga's decision to deny access to portions of a Corporate Report and its appendices under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The records related to a homeowners association's request for reimbursement of expenses incurred opposing a land severance application.

The City relied on the closed meeting exemption under section 6(1)(b).

The Inquiry Officer found that the records would reveal the substance of deliberations of in camera meetings of the City's Planning and Development Committee, which were properly held in the absence of the public under section 55(1) of the Municipal Act.

The exception under section 6(2)(b) did not apply as the subject-matter was not considered in an open meeting.

The City's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested police records relating to the death of her husband.

The Police denied access to portions of the records and photographs, citing personal privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant could not exercise her deceased husband's right of access because her request did not relate to the administration of his estate.

The Officer upheld the Police's decision to withhold records containing only the deceased's personal information under section 14(1), as they were compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

For records containing both the appellant's and the deceased's information, the Officer ordered disclosure of the appellant's information and required the Police to provide representations on their exercise of discretion under section 38(b) for the remaining portions.

The appellant requested records from the Public Complaints Commissioner relating to complaints against several police officers.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board granted partial access, withholding information under the invasion of privacy and published information exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that disclosure of certain portions of the appellant's statements and record of arrest would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy and ordered their disclosure.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the exemptions for the remaining records, including court transcripts, but ordered the Police to advise the appellant of the location where the transcripts could be obtained.

The appellant requested the names of individuals who lodged complaints with the City of Toronto's Animal Control Services regarding a particular property.

The City denied access to the complainant's name, address, and telephone number under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that the information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible by-law violation, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b).

A newspaper reporter appealed the Ottawa Police Services Board's decision to deny access to a police investigation report concerning an incident involving a city councillor.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information and that 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, as they were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

The presumption was not rebutted by the public interest override in section 16, given the extent of public disclosure already made by the Board.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

A newspaper reporter appealed the Ottawa Police Services Board's decision to deny access to minutes and audio tapes of a closed meeting regarding a city councillor's conduct.

The Inquiry Officer found that the meeting was properly held in camera under the Police Services Act and that most of the records were exempt from disclosure under the closed meeting exemption in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, portions of the records relating to the appellant's solicitor's submission to the Board were ordered to be disclosed, as they did not reveal the Board's deliberations and their disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.