IPCO 1995

The appellant requested a severance permit from the Townships.

The Townships initially withheld the record under the personal privacy exemption, but later claimed during mediation that the record did not exist.

The appellant appealed, arguing the permit must exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Townships failed to provide sufficient evidence of a reasonable search and failed to make reasonable inquiries to determine if another institution had custody of the record.

The Townships were ordered to conduct a further search and issue a new decision or transfer the request.

The appellant requested access to correspondence and briefs containing complaints about the principal or teaching staff at a named school.

The Metropolitan Separate School Board denied access under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records did not contain personal information or contained only the appellant's personal information and ordered them disclosed.

The remaining records were found to contain personal information of other individuals, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Board's decision to deny access to those records was upheld.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to records relating to grants made to a coalition and tenders for legal and environmental consulting work.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the application of several exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including third party information, solicitor-client privilege, advice to government, economic interests, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision to withhold certain records under the third party information, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy exemptions, but ordered the disclosure of other records where the exemptions did not apply.

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

The appellant, a non-custodial father involved in divorce proceedings, appealed a decision by the East York Health Unit denying him access to his five-year-old child's medical records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant argued that section 16(5) of the Divorce Act expressly authorized disclosure.

The Inquiry Officer found that section 16(5) lacked the specificity required to constitute express statutory authorization under section 14(1)(d) of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer also concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the child's personal privacy and that the appellant could not exercise the child's rights under section 54(c) because he did not have lawful custody.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested information relating to the costs of investigating two cases and the Green Ribbon Task Force.

The Police responded that no records exist, as expenses are paid directly by the province.

The appellant appealed, arguing additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found the Police's search unreasonable, noting that the Police possess payroll records and general orders that would contain responsive information regarding wages and overtime.

The Police were ordered to inform the appellant of their record holdings and issue a new decision.

The requester appealed the Peterborough County Board of Education's decision to deny access to three pages of minutes from a closed committee meeting regarding a personnel issue.

The Board relied on the closed meetings exemption under section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the meeting was properly closed under the Education Act and that disclosure would reveal the substance of the deliberations.

The Board's decision to withhold the minutes was upheld.

The requester appealed a decision of the Windsor Police Services Board granting partial access to three police occurrence reports and a statement.

The Police withheld portions of the reports under the invasion of privacy exemptions in sections 38(b) and 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information constituted personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The Inquiry Officer held that the presumption in section 14(3)(b) applied even though no charges were laid in two of the incidents, and upheld the Police's decision to deny access.

The requester appealed a decision of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to a Crown Brief on the basis that the record did not exist.

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

The Inquiry Officer accepted the affidavit evidence of the Police detailing their search efforts across multiple divisions and offices, concluding that the search was reasonable despite the record not being located.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Town of Pickering for records relating to a property ownership dispute and ongoing litigation.

The Town denied access to numerous records, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the request was within the scope of the Act despite the ongoing litigation.

The Commissioner upheld the application of solicitor-client privilege and litigation privilege to the majority of the records, including settlement negotiations and lawyer's briefs.

However, several records consisting of council meeting agendas and by-laws were ordered to be disclosed, as they did not qualify for the privilege exemptions and did not contain exempt third-party or personal information.

The appellant appealed the City of Cambridge's decision to deny access to the name of a person who filed a zoning by-law complaint against her.

The City relied on the law enforcement exemption under section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing that disclosure would reveal a confidential source.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that the by-law complaints process relies on confidentiality and that the City properly exercised its discretion under section 38(a) to refuse disclosure of the appellant's personal information where section 8 applies.

The appellant requested access to a by-law occurrence report and the identity of the complainant from the City of Nepean.

The City granted partial access but withheld the complainant's name, address, and telephone number under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that the by-law enforcement process qualifies as a law enforcement matter and that the complainant's identity is protected as a confidential source under section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellants requested the name and address of a complainant who reported them for by-law violations.

The City of North York denied access, citing the confidential source exemption under section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that disclosing the complainant's position and address would not identify them, ordering those details released.

However, the Officer upheld the City's decision to withhold the complainant's name, confirming it qualified as a confidential source.

The requesters sought access to information regarding a film crew that accompanied police officers, including an unedited copy of the film footage.

The Police claimed they did not have a copy of the film and that no other responsive records existed.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the Police conducted a reasonable search for the records and that the film footage was not in the custody or control of the Police.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Board of Education for the City of Hamilton under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the Board failed to locate records relating to an investigation into alleged human rights violations.

The Board indicated that no new responsive records existed beyond those already provided in response to previous requests.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's internal consultations to determine if new records had been created were sufficient, and that a new full-scale search was not required.

The Board's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Peel Regional Police Services Board for records pertaining to investigations into computer bulletin board services.

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

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while the records, if they existed, would qualify for the law enforcement exemption, the Police failed to establish that merely confirming their existence or non-existence would communicate exempt information.

The Inquiry Officer did not uphold the Police's decision and confirmed that no responsive records exist.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Niagara Regional Police Services Board denying access to records relating to the investigation of the disappearance and death of an individual.

The Police relied on 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 the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b).

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, as there was no compelling public interest that clearly outweighed the purpose of the exemption.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

Two individuals appealed the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth's decision to deny access to records regarding an incident at a sewage treatment plant.

The Region claimed exemptions under solicitor-client privilege, information to be published, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that two records were exempt under solicitor-client privilege.

The remaining records were not exempt under the information to be published exemption.

Portions of three records were found to contain highly sensitive personal information and were severed to prevent an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Region was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records and severed portions.

The requester appealed the Nipissing Board of Education's decision to deny access to four records from his grievance file under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board claimed exemptions for solicitor-client privilege, closed meetings, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that one record was exempt under the solicitor-client privilege exemption and another under the closed meeting exemption.

The remaining two records did not qualify for the solicitor-client privilege exemption and were ordered to be disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer also confirmed his delegated authority to issue the order.

The appellant requested a list of the names and ranks of all sworn and civilian personnel of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board.

The Police denied access, citing exemptions for invasion of privacy and danger to safety or health.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that disclosing the identities of all police officers could reasonably be expected to seriously threaten their safety or health under section 13 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, particularly for officers required to conceal their identities.

The appellant appealed the City of Mississauga's response to a freedom of information request, arguing that further records should exist regarding the Cawthra Bush and related matters.

The sole issue was whether the City's search for records was reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed affidavits from City staff detailing extensive searches and concluded that the City's efforts to locate responsive records were reasonable.

The City's decision was upheld.