IPCO 1995

The requester, counsel to an insurance company, appealed the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to records relating to a murder investigation.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for law enforcement, right to a fair trial, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the majority of the records contained personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation and were exempt from disclosure.

However, weather reports, photographs of weapons, media releases, and press clippings did not qualify for the claimed exemptions and were ordered to be disclosed.

A requester appealed the Municipality of the Township of Tiny's decision to deny access to parts of a memo regarding 'issues needing action'.

The Township claimed exemptions for closed meetings, advice or recommendations, and law enforcement.

The Inquiry Officer found that the closed meeting exemption applied to some items, but rejected the advice or recommendations and law enforcement exemptions.

The personal information exemption was applied to specific names in one item.

The public interest override was found not to apply.

The Township was ordered to disclose the non-exempt parts of the memo.

The requester appealed the Town of Whitby's decision to deny access to correspondence relating to the requester's termination of employment.

The Town claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including solicitor-client privilege.

As a preliminary matter, the Town requested costs, which the Inquiry Officer denied, finding no statutory authority for the Commissioner to award costs.

On the merits, the Inquiry Officer found the records were prepared by Town employees for counsel in contemplation of litigation, qualifying for exemption under Branch 2 of the solicitor-client privilege exemption.

The Town's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant, representing the insurers of a building damaged by fire, requested access to the City of Toronto's fire report.

The City disclosed the report but withheld the names of the tenants in the unit where the fire started, citing the invasion of privacy exemption under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing the names were necessary to pursue a civil action under the Insurance Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the presumptions against disclosure did not apply and that the appellant's need for the information to determine legal rights outweighed the tenants' privacy interests.

The City was ordered to disclose the names.

The requester appealed a fee estimate of $540 charged by the Fort Frances-Rainy River Board of Education for a freedom of information request regarding transportation costs.

The Board claimed the fee was for 18 hours of search and preparation time, plus administration time.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board failed to provide sufficient information to justify the search, preparation, and administration time.

The fees were not upheld, except for a $0.20 charge per photocopy, and the Board was ordered to refund the balance of the deposit and provide access to the records.

The appellant requested specific police officers' notebook entries from the Niagara Regional Police Services Board.

The Police provided records with some severances, which were not appealed.

The appellant appealed on the basis that additional entries should exist.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the Police had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records and upheld the Police's decision, concluding the search was reasonable.

The appellant appealed the Town of Collingwood's decision regarding a request for assessment records, building permits, and building inspection reports.

The Town released some records and indicated that others were held by a different municipality due to a reorganization, asserting no further records existed in its custody.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Town's search for responsive records was reasonable and upheld the Town's decision.

The appellant appealed the City of Scarborough's response to a freedom of information request for property standards records, arguing that additional responsive records should exist.

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

Based on affidavits detailing the searches undertaken, the Inquiry Officer found the City's efforts to locate responsive records were reasonable and upheld the City's decision.

The appellant sought access to an investigation report prepared by the Gloucester Police Services Board regarding a named police officer.

The Hawkesbury Police Services Board denied access under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing invasion of privacy and right to a fair trial.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b).

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to correspondence and allegations submitted by employees or former employees of the Town of Whitby about the appellant.

The Town denied access relying on exemptions for third party information, danger to safety or health, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third party and safety exemptions did not apply.

The privacy exemption applied to some portions of the records, but the remainder was ordered to be disclosed as fairness required the appellant to be aware of allegations affecting their employment.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Thunder Bay District Health Unit for particulars regarding a by-law infraction complaint made against their residence.

The Health Unit denied access to the handwritten complaint letter, citing law enforcement and privacy exemptions.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the handwritten complaint contained the personal information of the complainant and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, a typewritten copy of the complaint, which did not identify the author, was ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant appealed the fee estimates provided by the Board of Education for the City of York for two freedom of information requests seeking expense-related information of school board trustees and a copy of the Board's cheque register.

The Commissioner upheld the Board's revised fee estimates of $754.09 and $349.20, finding they were calculated in accordance with the Act.

The Commissioner also provided a postscript encouraging government organizations to make expenditure-related information routinely available to the public to improve accountability and reduce costs.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a complaint of an alleged violation of a municipal by-law regarding dog waste.

The City of Vaughan granted partial access but denied access to the name, address, and telephone number of the complainant, relying on the law enforcement exemption.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that the withheld information would disclose the identity of a confidential source in a law enforcement matter under section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that the City properly exercised its discretion under section 38(a) to refuse disclosure.

The requester appealed the Toronto Board of Education's decision to extend the time for responding to a freedom of information request by approximately three months.

The Board claimed the extension was necessary due to a large number of records and the need for external consultations.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claims under section 20(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The time extension was not upheld, and the Board was ordered to issue a decision letter within seven days.

The appellant requested access to a petition concerning the condition of his property from the Township of Portland.

During mediation, the appellant narrowed the request to only the signatures on the second page.

The Inquiry Officer refused to allow the appellant to expand the scope of the appeal back to the full petition.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Township's decision to deny access to the signatures, finding that they were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Property Standards By-law, and their 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.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a specific fire department compliance file.

The City of Peterborough informed the appellant that the file's contents had been consolidated with other records previously disclosed to him and that no additional records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that other records must exist.

The Inquiry Officer accepted the City's explanation and affidavit evidence, concluding that the search for responsive records was reasonable in the circumstances.

The City's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Township of Osnabruck seeking records about the official status of commercial hunting operations and site-specific rezoning procedures.

The Township provided copies of the zoning by-law and stated that no other responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional records, such as written legal advice, should exist.

The adjudicator found that the Township had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records and upheld the Township's decision.

The appellant appealed the Town of Valley East's decision regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to an economic development committee.

The appellant challenged the adequacy of the search and the fee charged.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Town's search for financial records was reasonable.

However, the fee was reduced because the Town improperly charged search time for hours spent photocopying the records, which is already covered by the per-page photocopying fee.

The appellant appealed the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk's decision to deny access to an Order to Comply regarding a zoning by-law violation.

The Region claimed the law enforcement exemption under section 8(1)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing disclosure would interfere with a pending rezoning application.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Region failed to provide sufficient evidence that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with the rezoning process or its by-law enforcement program.

The Region was ordered to disclose the remaining portions of the record.

The appellant requested information regarding the Township of West Lincoln's involvement in the procurement of land and financial arrangements with Maple Manufacturing.

The Township denied access to several agreements, claiming the third party information exemption under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained commercial and financial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause competitive harm to the affected party.

The Township's decision to deny access was upheld.