IPCO 1995

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board that no records existed pertaining to a tape-recorded interview from 1986.

The appellant claimed to have observed the police officers taping his interview.

The Police conducted a search and contacted the officers involved, who indicated that a reel-to-reel recorder was never in use during the investigation.

The Inquiry Officer found that the efforts made by the Police to locate the requested records were reasonable and upheld the decision.

The appellant appealed the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board's decision to deny access to portions of a police report regarding an alleged assault on the appellant.

The Police claimed exemptions under sections 14(1) and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that section 14(1) did not apply because the records contained the appellant's personal information.

Applying section 38(b), the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of information that did not constitute the personal information of identifiable individuals, as well as information supplied by the appellant to the Police.

The decision to withhold certain personal information of witnesses and occupants under the presumption in section 14(3)(b) was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Nepean Police Services Board denying her access to police records concerning the investigation into her brother's suicide.

The appellant argued she was entitled to the records as her brother's personal representative under section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant had not yet been appointed as the personal representative and that her request, which was made to investigate possible malfeasance, did not relate to the administration of the estate.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, concluding that disclosure of the records would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy because they were compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

The appellant requested access to police officers' notes relating to an investigation involving the appellant and his children.

The Police denied access to 126 pages of records, claiming they were wiretap records subject to the doctrine of federal legislative paramountcy under the Criminal Code.

The Inquiry Officer found that the notes, which related to the installation, maintenance, and dismantling of interception equipment, were not 'wiretap records' within the meaning of the Criminal Code.

Therefore, the doctrine of federal legislative paramountcy did not apply, and the Police were ordered to render a decision regarding access to the records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester appealed the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth's decision to deny access to portions of case management summary reports relating to his social assistance claims.

The Municipality claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for law enforcement and unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information contained the personal information of other individuals and confidential sources contacted during an eligibility review investigation.

The decision to withhold the balance of the records was upheld.

A newspaper reporter appealed the Metropolitan Separate School Board's decision to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records relating to allegations of child abuse against a teacher, pursuant to section 14(5) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board improperly relied on section 14(5) and confirmed the existence of the records.

While the records contained highly sensitive personal information, the public interest in subjecting the Board's handling of the allegations to public scrutiny outweighed the privacy interests of the teacher and Board officials.

However, several records were found to be exempt under the closed meeting exemption in section 6(1)(b) of the Act.

The Board was ordered to disclose severed portions of the remaining records.

The appellant, a frequent user of freedom of information legislation, appealed decisions of the London Police Services Board denying his requests for records.

The Board argued the requests were frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The Commissioner found that while the Act does not explicitly grant authority to deny requests on these grounds, the Commissioner has implied authority to control abuses of process.

Given the excessive volume, broad scope, and coordinated nature of the appellant's requests, the Commissioner concluded they constituted an abuse of process and imposed strict numerical limits and conditions on the processing of the appellant's future requests and appeals.

The appellant requested access to any intelligence file in their name that came into existence seven or more years ago.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board 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.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that merely confirming or denying the existence of the records would communicate information that qualifies for exemption under the law enforcement provisions of the Act.

The appellant appealed the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board's decision to partially deny access to police occurrence reports regarding harassing telephone calls.

The Police relied on exemptions for endangering life or safety, security, law enforcement, and invasion of privacy under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were exempt as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, reveal a confiscated record, or disclose a law enforcement report.

However, the endangerment to life or safety exemption was not established.

The Police were ordered to disclose parts of the records and withhold others.

The appellant requested access to training report forms for Town firefighters who completed courses on handling hazardous and radioactive waste, specifically seeking their names.

The Town denied access to the names under the personal information exemption and issued a fee estimate of $110, refusing a fee waiver.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information relating to educational history, but ordered the records disclosed with names and signatures severed.

The Inquiry Officer also reduced the fee estimate and ordered a complete fee waiver, finding that disclosure of the severed records would benefit public health and safety by informing the public about emergency preparedness.

A reporter requested access to a transcript of a police communication tape considered by the Goderich Police Services Board.

The Board denied access, claiming solicitor-client privilege and invasion of privacy.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the transcript contained the Chief of Police's personal information and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy, as it could unfairly damage his reputation.

The Inquiry Officer also found no compelling public interest in disclosure that would override the exemption.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant, a former member of Council, appealed the Township of Osprey's decision to deny access to its 1994 monthly telephone bills.

The Township claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for invasion of privacy and third party information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the telephone numbers did not constitute personal information and that the billing information was not supplied in confidence by third parties.

The Township was ordered to disclose the records in their entirety.

The appellant appealed the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's decision to deny access to two draft letters under the advice or recommendations exemption in section 7(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that Record 1, a covering letter, did not contain advice or recommendations and ordered its disclosure.

Record 2, a draft letter reflecting a suggested course of action, was found to qualify for the exemption and was withheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Board of Education for the City of Hamilton for a copy of her file from the Board's legal services department.

The Board denied access to three records, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Board's decision, finding that the records were confidential written communications between a solicitor and client directly related to seeking or giving legal advice, and thus exempt under sections 12 and 38(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant, an occasional teacher, appealed the Board of Education's response to her request for records relating to her union activities under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant alleged that additional responsive records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's search efforts were reasonable, noting that the appellant failed to provide specific information about the records to the Board as required by section 36(1)(b) of the Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

An insurance company appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to records relating to a fire investigation.

The police claimed the records were exempt under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The insurance company argued the records were necessary to defend a civil action brought by the affected person.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the police decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption against disclosure, and that the public interest override did not apply to a private litigation interest.

The appellant, a contracting company, appealed the Toronto Transit Commission's decision to deny access to unit prices and subcontractor lists contained in tender packages submitted by a competing contracting company.

The TTC claimed the information was exempt under the third party information exemption in section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the TTC's decision to deny access to the unit prices, finding that their disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the affected party's competitive position.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the subcontractors' names, finding that the third part of the exemption test was not met for that information.

The appellant requested access to records removed from a Planning Committee agenda regarding a specific property.

The Township denied access to several pages under various exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of some pages, finding that the draft by-law and law enforcement exemptions did not apply.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Township's decision to deny access to other pages based on solicitor-client privilege and the protection of personal privacy, and found that the public interest override did not apply.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $3,528 and a refusal to grant a fee waiver for a request for records showing deductions from payments to occasional teachers.

The Board argued a new computer program was needed to extract the data.

The appellant later clarified she only needed existing monthly reports.

The Inquiry Officer reduced the fee to $483 for photocopies, search, and preparation time, but upheld the Board's refusal to waive the fee, finding the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of financial hardship.

The appellant, a former occasional teacher, requested statistical information regarding sexual harassment and gender bias complaints from the Board of Education for the City of Hamilton.

The Board advised that no such records were compiled or existed.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's search for the requested records was reasonable and upheld the Board's decision that no responsive records exist.