IPCO 1995

A City Councillor appealed the City of Toronto's decision to withhold records relating to overtime pay for City Commissioners.

In an interim order, the Assistant Commissioner found that the City Clerk had a conflict of interest and ordered the City's Executive Committee to review the exercise of discretion to withhold 14 records.

The Executive Committee decided to release several records but maintained exemptions for five records under sections 6(1)(b), 7(1), and 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Executive Committee's exercise of discretion and ordered the disclosure of the remaining records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to Thunder Bay Hydro for records relating to a workplace harassment investigation conducted by an external lawyer.

Hydro denied access, claiming it did not have custody or control of the lawyer's investigation notes.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner applied the 10-factor test for custody and control, finding that the lawyer was retained as an independent investigator, not in a solicitor-client relationship, and created the notes for his own benefit.

The Commissioner upheld Hydro's decision that the records were not in its custody or control under section 4(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester appealed a decision by the Sudbury Regional Police Services Board to deny access to certain records containing their personal information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police claimed exemptions under section 12 (solicitor-client privilege) and section 38(a) (discretion to refuse requester's own personal information).

The Inquiry Officer found that two records did not qualify for the solicitor-client privilege exemption and ordered their disclosure.

The decision to deny access to the remaining records was upheld as they were either confidential communications between a solicitor and client or prepared by counsel for use in litigation.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to records relating to his deceased brother, including records of a 1973 hit-and-run accident and property records.

The Police stated that the requested financial information was not contained in their files and that relevant occurrence reports had been purged in accordance with their Records Retention Schedule.

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

The appellant requested copies of all complaints about a septic system on a specified property from the Simcoe County District Health Unit.

The Health Unit initially denied access but later disclosed all 13 responsive records during mediation.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional responsive records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Health Unit had made a reasonable effort to identify and locate records responsive to the request, and upheld the Health Unit's decision.

The appellant requested access to a report prepared by the City's Public Works Department following a sewer backup that damaged the appellant's home.

The City denied access, claiming the report 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 while the report did not meet the first part of the solicitor-client privilege test, it was created for the dominant purpose of anticipated litigation after the appellant put the City on notice of a damage claim.

Therefore, the report was exempt under the litigation privilege branch of section 12, and the City's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Toronto Board of Education's decision regarding a request for access to information relating to an incident at her son's school.

The appellant maintained that additional records responsive to her request should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board made extensive and appropriate efforts to locate responsive records and upheld the Board's decision, concluding that the search was reasonable.

The appellant appealed the Toronto Board of Education's response to a freedom of information request for records held by the Board's solicitors.

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

However, the Board failed to adequately identify the responsive records in its decision letter, effectively denying access without providing sufficient information for the appellant to make an informed decision on whether to seek a review.

The Board was ordered to issue a new decision letter complying with the Act.

The appellant appealed the Town of Oakville's decision to deny access to records relating to property negotiations with a development company.

The Town claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including the closed meeting exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records, which included a staff report and an agreement, would reveal the actual substance of deliberations of in-camera meetings authorized by statute.

The decision of the Town to deny access under section 6(1)(b) was upheld.

A newspaper reporter appealed the Town of Markham's decision to deny access to invoices and cheques relating to payments made to a Councillor's Assistant.

The Town claimed the records contained personal information and that the Assistant was an employee.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Assistant was an independent contractor, meaning the records revealed details of a contract for personal services under section 14(4)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Town was ordered to disclose the records, with the exception of the Assistant's home address, which remained exempt under section 14(1).

The appellant, a police officer, requested access to records related to an alleged sexual assault complaint made against them.

The Police denied access, citing law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that the records were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

Consequently, 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, which was not rebutted.

The appellant, a taxi owner, requested access to a 1975 record containing names corresponding to missing numbers on a taxicab fleet owners waiting list.

The Metropolitan Licensing Commission responded that the record did not exist.

The appellant appealed, arguing a reasonable search was not conducted.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Commission had taken all reasonable steps to locate the records, noting that the list had been reformatted and superseded over the years, and upheld the Commission's decision.

A member of the media requested details of the Township of Collingwood's liability insurance coverage.

The Township denied access, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, right to a fair trial, and economic interests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Township failed to establish that the records contained advice or recommendations, or that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice a fair trial or the Township's economic interests.

The Township was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant, a private investigation firm, appealed the decision of the Peel Regional Police Services Board to deny access to an occurrence report related to a sudden death at a water park.

The Police claimed the report was exempt under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer applied the three-part test for the law enforcement exemption under section 8(2)(a) and found that the record was a report prepared by a law enforcement agency in the course of a law enforcement investigation.

The decision of the Police to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Board of Education for the City of Hamilton for a list of probationary secondary school teachers hired over the last seven years.

The Board initially directed the appellant to publicly available minutes, but during mediation, located and disclosed lists for 1992, 1993, and 1994 with names redacted.

The appellant appealed, arguing the Board ought to have more responsive records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the request was proper under the Act and that the Board's search for responsive records was reasonable in the circumstances.

The Board's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Board of Education's response to a freedom of information request for records relating to her union activities.

The Board claimed it had already provided all documents in her personnel file.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's search for records relating to requests for time off was reasonable, but its search for other records relating to union activities was not, as such records would not necessarily be in a personnel file.

The Board was ordered to conduct a further search.

The appellant requested her complete personnel, employee relations, and legal services files from the Board of Education for the City of Hamilton relating to her grievance proceedings.

The Board granted partial access, claiming exemptions for solicitor-client privilege and evaluative material.

The Inquiry Officer allowed the late appeal and refused to consider new discretionary exemptions raised late by the Board.

The Officer upheld the exemption for solicitor-client privilege for one record but ordered the disclosure of other records, finding they did not qualify as third-party information or evaluative material.

The Officer also found the Board's search for legal records inadequate and ordered a further search.

The requester appealed a decision by the Peterborough County Board of Education denying access to records concerning the conditions and costs of assisting an expelled student.

The Board claimed exemptions under section 6(1)(b) (closed meetings) and section 14 (invasion of privacy) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records, which included minutes of an in camera committee meeting and a letter to the student's parents, were properly exempt under section 6(1)(b) because they would reveal the substance of deliberations from a meeting authorized to be closed under the Education Act.

The Board's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton's response to a freedom of information request concerning a severance agreement with a senior employee.

The appellant argued that additional responsive records should exist.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Region's search for records was reasonable.

However, the Region was ordered to issue a supplementary decision letter regarding certain located records that it claimed were not responsive to the request, detailing the exemptions it would apply if the records were deemed responsive.

The appellant appealed the Townships' decision regarding a freedom of information request for road subsidy reports, arguing that additional records should exist for a specific four-month period.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Townships failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as an affidavit detailing the search efforts, to demonstrate that a reasonable search had been conducted.

The Townships were ordered to conduct a further search for the requested records and issue a new decision.