IPCO 1995

An individual complained that a Township disclosed a copy of an Appointment of Voting Proxy containing her personal information to the public.

The Township argued the proxy was a public record under section 27 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated and found that the proxy contained personal information, was not a public record, and that the disclosure violated section 32 of the Act.

The Commissioner recommended the Township cease disclosing copies of the proxy.

The complainant alleged that the Municipality improperly disclosed their personal information to a municipal Councillor.

The complainant had been cited for a zoning by-law infraction and allegedly requested a deferral of the work order due to their upcoming candidacy in the municipal election.

The Municipality disclosed details of this request to the incumbent Councillor, who used it in campaign literature.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the property address and infractions were not personal information, the complainant's name and the details of their request were.

The disclosure to the Councillor was not for a consistent purpose under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and therefore contravened section 32.

The complainant alleged that the Ministry of the Attorney General improperly disclosed her personal information when a faxed letter was inadvertently given to the employee who was the subject of the letter.

The employee subsequently distributed copies of the letter at a regional centre.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information was personal information and that the initial disclosure by the Ministry violated section 42 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer also found that the Ministry failed to take reasonable measures to prevent unauthorized access to faxed records, and recommended the implementation of privacy guidelines and fax security procedures.

A parent complained that a grade nine school project requiring students to disclose personal information about their ancestry, race, and country of origin violated the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board of Education argued that the project was part of the common curriculum designed to promote multiculturalism and that alternative assignments were offered.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the requested information was 'personal information' under the Act, its collection was necessary to the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity, specifically providing instruction in a prescribed course of study under the Education Act.

The collection of personal information was therefore in compliance with the Act.

The complainant, representing the Adult Protective Association of Ontario, filed a privacy complaint regarding the Ministry of Community and Social Services' collection of personal information from the files of developmentally challenged clients without their consent.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether the collection complied with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that while the collection of personal information was necessary for the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity under the Development Services Act, the Ministry failed to provide the required notice of collection under section 39(2) of the Act.

The Ministry was ordered to ensure proper notice is given for future collections.

The complainant, a surplus employee involved in a redeployment process, alleged that the Ministry of the Attorney General improperly disclosed his personal information when his employment profile was faxed to a courthouse and subsequently read by unauthorized staff.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated and found that the faxed information constituted personal information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The investigation concluded that the Ministry's disclosure was not in compliance with section 42 of the Act and that the Ministry failed to take reasonable measures to prevent unauthorized access to the faxed records.

The Ministry was directed to implement planned security and training measures.

The complainant alleged that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs improperly disclosed his personal information to the Interim Chair of the Ontario Municipal Board and to a Town employee via facsimile.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information constituted personal information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The disclosure to the Interim Chair was found to be for a consistent purpose and thus compliant with section 42 of the Act, as it allowed the Chair to respond to the complaint against him.

However, the disclosure to the Town was not for a consistent purpose and violated section 42.

The Ministry was recommended to ensure future compliance.

The complainant, a police constable, alleged that the Police Services Board improperly disclosed his personal information to his wife and to the Police Complaints Commissioner (PCC) in the course of handling a public complaint.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information was personal information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The disclosure to the complainant's wife was not in compliance with section 32 of the Act, as it was not required by the Police Services Act.

However, the disclosure to the PCC was in compliance with section 32(f) of the Act, as it was a disclosure by a law enforcement institution to a law enforcement agency.

The complainant, an employee of the Ministry of Health, alleged that her personal medical information regarding a severe shellfish allergy and workplace accommodation requirements was disclosed to the Hospital's Director of Medical Services without her consent.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information was 'personal information' under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, the disclosure was permitted under section 42(d) of the Act because the Director needed the information to ensure the complainant's accommodation needs were met while minimizing health and safety risks to patients.

The Ministry was recommended to clarify its procedures regarding the disclosure of personal information for employment accommodations.

The complainants alleged that a separate school board collected their child's personal medical information without consent, contrary to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The school board's psychologist had contacted the child's clinician to ask if a status report was available for an upcoming Special Education Appeal Board hearing.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information collected—that no report was available—constituted personal information.

However, the collection was in compliance with section 28(2) of the Act because it was necessary for the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity, namely preparing for the appeal hearing.

The appellant requested access to the 1985 and 1995 contracts between the City of Toronto and the Toronto Humane Society for animal sheltering services.

The City denied access under sections 10(1)(a) and (c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the contracts were negotiated agreements and did not contain information 'supplied' by the Society in confidence.

As the second part of the three-part test for the third party information exemption was not met, the City was ordered to disclose the contracts in their entirety.

The appellant requested access to a discovery transcript from a civil action against the City of London under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The City charged a fee of $50.47 for the transcript.

The appellant appealed the fee.

The Inquiry Officer found that the transcript contained the appellant's personal information, and therefore, under section 45(2) of the Act, the City was precluded from charging any fee for access to the record.

The City was ordered to provide the transcript without charge.

The appellant requested access to the monthly water usage rates for high volume consumers for 1994 from the City of Toronto.

The City denied access, claiming the records were exempt as third party information under sections 10(1)(a) and (c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the records contained financial information, the information was created by the City itself rather than supplied by the customers in confidence.

As the three-part test for the exemption was not met, the City was ordered to disclose the records.

The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to the successful tender for the supply of medical equipment.

The Region decided to grant access to the record, which contained unit pricing information.

The successful bidder appealed, claiming the record was exempt as third party information under section 10(1) of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's expectation of confidentiality was unreasonable given the Region's long-standing practice of granting access to unit pricing information in its tendering process, and therefore the information was not supplied in confidence.

The appellant requested access to a police incident report involving himself and another individual (the victim) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denied access to the victim's name and address, citing the invasion of privacy exemption under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing he needed the information to commence a civil action against the victim.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that the record was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and therefore disclosure of the victim's personal information constituted a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Act, which could not be rebutted by the appellant's need for the information for a civil suit.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to portions of a lease agreement under the third party information exemption in section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the information was commercial, it was the product of negotiations between the City and the third party company, rather than being 'supplied' in confidence.

As the second part of the exemption test was not met, the City was ordered to disclose the severed portions of the lease to the appellant.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Town of Amherstburg Police Services Board for a copy of a police services inspection report.

The Police transferred the request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, claiming the Ministry had a greater interest in the record.

The appellant appealed the transfer.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the Ministry had a greater interest, the Police did not properly exercise their discretion in transferring the request, as they failed to meet the 15-day statutory deadline and misunderstood the Ministry's policy.

However, because the appellant had already received a decision from the Ministry, no remedial order was made.

The appellant, a former employee of the Toronto Board of Education, sought access to records relating to her sexual harassment complaint and the subsequent investigation.

The Board denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, third party information, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that records held by independent consultants were not in the Board's custody or control.

The Officer ordered the disclosure of the complaint summary and portions of the Fact-Finder's report that did not identify witnesses, finding that the appellant's interest in adequate disclosure outweighed privacy concerns.

The Board's search for records was deemed reasonable.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a tender call for a project manager for a library expansion.

The Town of Penetanguishene denied access to several proposals and an internal memorandum, citing third party information and solicitor-client privilege exemptions.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered the disclosure of the proposals, finding that the information was too general to prejudice the competitive position of the bidders.

However, the Commissioner upheld the Town's decision to withhold the internal memorandum, as it qualified for common law solicitor-client privilege.

The requester appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board to deny access to statements given by two suspects in connection with a break and enter incident.

The Police claimed the records were exempt under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption under section 14(3)(b).

The decision to deny access was upheld.