IPCO 1995

The appellant appealed the decision of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board to deny access to an Occurrence Report and Supplementary Reports concerning break and enter charges at premises owned by the appellant's clients.

The Police denied access under the law enforcement exemption in section 8(1)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing that disclosure could interfere with ongoing fraud charges against the clients arising from the same occurrence.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained the personal information of the clients and qualified for exemption under section 38(a) read with section 8(1)(a), as disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement matter.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board to deny access to portions of records relating to an incident where the appellant was stopped and searched.

The Police relied on exemptions for invasion of privacy and law enforcement.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the name and telephone numbers of a security official who provided information to the Police were exempt under section 38(a) as a confidential source.

However, the name of another individual provided by the appellant to the Police was not exempt under section 38(b) and was ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant appealed the Township of West Carleton's decision to deny access to engineering reports related to a subdivision application under the third party information exemption of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The records were commissioned by an affected party who had entered into an agreement to purchase the land but later backed out.

The Inquiry Officer found that records supplied by the appellant were not exempt, while records supplied by the affected party and another party met the three-part test for exemption under section 10(1)(c), as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in an undue gain to the appellant.

The Township was ordered to disclose the records supplied by the appellant and withhold the rest.

The appellant requested information regarding a complaint made by a named individual.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board refused to confirm or deny the existence of the records under section 14(5) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that since the incident and tribunal proceedings were widely reported in the media, confirming the existence of records would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Police were ordered to conduct a search for responsive records.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision to withhold a specific record of a closed meeting under section 6(1)(b), as its disclosure would reveal the substance of the Board's deliberations.

The Township of Roxborough received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a detailed statement of severance payments made to two former employees.

One former employee objected to the disclosure, arguing it would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Township decided to grant access, and the former employee appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that while some specific salary information constituted a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy and was exempt, the remaining information in the severance agreement was subject to disclosure due to the public interest in scrutinizing the expenditure of public funds and ensuring public confidence in the institution.

The appellant appealed the Town of Midland's decision to deny access to the names and start dates of temporary and part-time employees.

The Town argued the requests constituted an abuse of process and claimed exemptions under sections 13 (danger to health and safety) and 14(1) (invasion of privacy) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found no abuse of process and no evidence to support the section 13 exemption.

The Officer ordered the disclosure of the employees' names, finding they fell under the section 14(4)(a) exception, but upheld the exemption for start dates as employment history under section 14(3)(d).

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Belleville for records relating to Nevada lottery tickets sold by two charities.

The City denied access under sections 10(1) (third party information) and 14 (invasion of privacy).

The Inquiry Officer found that the section 10(1) exemption did not apply because there was no evidence the information was supplied in confidence.

However, the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the charities' volunteer officers were found to be personal information exempt under section 14 and were ordered severed before disclosure.

A trade union requested access to a custodial services contract between a school board and a contractor.

The school board decided to grant partial access, withholding only the contractor's home address and payment timing.

The contractor appealed, arguing the contract prices and other details were exempt as third-party information under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the appeal, finding that while the contract prices were financial information supplied to the board, they were not supplied in confidence given the board's established practice of disclosing winning tender amounts.

The records were ordered disclosed.

The appellants requested records from the school board regarding the decision to withdraw their child's Educational Assistant and a suggestion to transfer the child to another school.

The Board provided some records, but the appellants appealed, arguing more should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found the Board's search regarding the transfer suggestion was reasonable, as it was merely a verbal suggestion.

However, regarding the Educational Assistant, the Officer ordered the Board to conduct a further search for records used to place the student in a lower needs category and to issue an access decision for those records and five newly discovered records.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Town of Midland refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records relating to building inspections and bylaw enforcement on certain properties.

The Town argued the appellant's requests constituted an abuse of process and relied on section 14(5) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to refuse to confirm or deny the records' existence.

The Inquiry Officer found no abuse of process and held that section 14(5) did not apply, as confirming the existence of records would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Officer disclosed that no responsive records existed.

The appellant requested access to notes and memoranda prepared by Metropolitan Licencing Commission inspectors after visiting adult entertainment parlours to observe lap dancing.

The Commission denied access under the section 8(1)(b) law enforcement exemption of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the records disclosed, finding that the investigation was undertaken to gather facts for policy development regarding lap dancing, not with a view to a law enforcement proceeding.

The appellant, a journalist, requested access to records concerning a police investigation into the disappearance of handguns.

The Thunder Bay Police Services Board disclosed some records but withheld others under various exemptions, including personal information and law enforcement, and denied a fee waiver.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of certain pages and portions of pages, finding they did not qualify for exemption, but upheld the decision to withhold the remaining portions and to deny the fee waiver.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board to deny access to certain police officers' notes and reports under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police claimed exemptions based on law enforcement and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information and were properly exempt under sections 38(a) and 38(b) of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records, despite failing to provide an index of records to the appellant.

The appellant, a school board trustee, requested access to a memorandum from the Director of Education regarding tax levy reconciliations.

The Metropolitan Separate School Board denied access, claiming exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for closed meetings, valuable government information, and economic interests.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Education Act did not authorize a closed meeting for this subject matter, as it did not involve the 'security of the property' of the Board.

The Officer also found insufficient evidence that the information had intrinsic monetary value or that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the Board's economic or financial interests.

The Board was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant requested access to complaints made about her property.

The City disclosed the records but severed the names and personal identifiers of the complainants under the law enforcement exemption in section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The City also stated that no records existed for certain months.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that the by-law enforcement process qualified as law enforcement and that the complainants had a reasonable expectation of confidentiality.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the City's search for additional records was reasonable.

The appellant requested records from the City of Niagara Falls relating to a street lighting contract tender.

The City granted partial access but denied access to four documents, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the denial and argued that additional responsive records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City provided insufficient evidence to establish that the records were exempt under section 12 and ordered their disclosure.

Furthermore, the Inquiry Officer found that the City failed to conduct a reasonable search for records, particularly those created prior to the issuance of the tender, and ordered the City to conduct a further search.

The appellant, the grandfather of a deceased infant, appealed the decision of the Ottawa Regional Police Services Board to deny access to forensic and scientific reports relating to the infant's death.

The Police claimed the law enforcement exemption under section 8(2)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records met the definition of 'law enforcement' and satisfied the three-part test for exemption under section 8(2)(a), as they were reports prepared in the course of an ongoing police investigation.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The requester sought access to the name of the individual who issued a specific press release on behalf of the police services board.

The police claimed no responsive records existed, as the press release was not standard and no log was kept.

The Inquiry Officer found that the police had conducted a reasonable search and upheld their decision.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Haliburton, Kawartha, Pine Ridge District Health Unit denying access to the name of an individual who lodged a complaint against her business.

The Health Unit claimed the information was exempt under the invasion of privacy provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the complainant's name was identifiable as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Food Premises Regulation, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b).

The appeal was dismissed and the Health Unit's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to an investigation of an alleged assault upon the appellant.

The Police denied access to all 88 pages of responsive records, claiming exemptions for law enforcement, right to a fair trial, and discretion to refuse a requester's own information.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the decision to withhold most of the records, finding that their disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement matter.

However, the Police were ordered to disclose the appellant's own victim statement, as its disclosure would not interfere with the investigation or constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's privacy.