IPCO 1995

The requester sought access to employment records and group insurance policies from the Leeds, Grenville and Lanark District Health Unit.

The Health Unit failed to respond within the 30-day statutory timeframe, resulting in a deemed refusal under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Despite intervention by an Appeals Officer, the Health Unit only provided partial records and failed to issue a formal decision letter.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Health Unit to issue a comprehensive decision letter within 15 days without recourse to a time extension.

The appellant requested access to information relating to the award of a contract for the operation of a coffee facility in the Richmond Hill Public Library.

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

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Library's decision, finding that the proposal contained commercial and financial information supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the competitive position of the affected party.

The appellant, who had been denied social assistance, requested access to a letter from his former employer to the Town of Dryden's Welfare Administrator regarding his dismissal.

The Town denied access, citing invasion of privacy and evaluative or opinion material exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the record contained only the appellant's personal information, not the former employer's, and that the former employer could not reasonably have assumed their identity would be held in confidence.

The Town was ordered to disclose the record to the appellant.

The appellant requested access to a copy of a letter addressed to a City Councillor regarding lease negotiations.

The City of Toronto denied access under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the unsigned letter contained personal information of an identifiable individual, was highly sensitive, and was supplied in confidence.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, and upheld the City's decision to deny access.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to records regarding a business's operation, claiming law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained professional, not personal, information, rendering the privacy exemption inapplicable.

Furthermore, the Police failed to provide sufficient evidence of expected harm to justify the law enforcement exemptions under sections 8(1)(a) and (f), and the records did not qualify as "reports" under section 8(2)(a).

The Police were ordered to disclose the records in their entirety.

The appellant appealed a decision of the York Regional Police Services Board denying access to portions of an incident report relating to criminal charges laid against the appellant.

During mediation, the appellant narrowed the request to the name of a switchboard operator and the address of a named individual.

The Police claimed the information was exempt under 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 under the Criminal Code.

Consequently, the presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) applied, and the decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Niagara Regional Police Services Board to deny access to a General Incident Report under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information of both the appellant and an affected person, compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

The Officer upheld the exemption for portions identifying the affected person but ordered the disclosure of the remainder of the record relating to the appellant.

The appellant made two requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to a woodlot managed by the Credit Valley Conservation Authority.

The Authority granted access to some records but stated no other records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing more records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Authority had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records, including staff meetings, computer searches, and reviewing the central file index.

The Authority's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested information regarding the cost of a Workers' Compensation Board hearing transcript and a copy of a police report.

The Amherstburg Police Services Board denied access to the transcript cost record, claiming the invasion of privacy exemption under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and stated no other records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record did not contain personal information and ordered its disclosure.

The Officer also found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search for the requested report.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Metropolitan Toronto Police regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to an incident involving the appellant and the transfer of a former Superintendent.

The appellant argued that additional responsive records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police conducted a reasonable search for records relating to the appellant's involvement with the Police, but failed to provide evidence of a search for records regarding the Superintendent's transfer.

The Police were ordered to conduct a further search for the transfer records.

The appellant requested access to her daughter's special services file from the Carleton Roman Catholic School Board.

The Board disclosed the general student file and claimed the confidential psychological file had been disclosed previously in 1993.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional records existed and had not been disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer found the search for the general student file was reasonable, but ordered the Board to issue a formal decision letter regarding the contents of the confidential psychological file to clarify what had been disclosed.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $186.80 for a freedom of information request to the Credit Valley Conservation Authority.

The Inquiry Officer disallowed the $60 search fee and $120 preparation fee, finding that time spent reviewing records for exemptions does not constitute search or preparation time.

The photocopying fee of $6.80 was upheld.

The appellant's request for a fee waiver based on financial hardship and public health and safety was denied.

The appellant requested statistical reports from the Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police charged a fee of $3.68 for photocopying and postage.

The appellant requested a fee waiver, which the Police denied.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer ordered the fee waived, finding that the amount was too small to justify requiring payment and the administrative expense of refusing the waiver outweighed the value of collecting the fee.

The requester appealed the Municipality's decision to deny access to 66 pages of records relating to the requester's operation of a salvage yard.

The Municipality claimed exemptions under solicitor-client privilege, law enforcement, and danger to life or safety.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the records were exempt under solicitor-client privilege, including correspondence and draft pleadings.

Portions of legal accounts were ordered disclosed where they did not reveal the subject matter of legal advice.

Other records were found exempt under the law enforcement and danger to life or safety exemptions.

The appellant, acting on behalf of her daughter, appealed the Carleton Board of Education's decision to deny access to certain school records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board claimed solicitor-client privilege over several documents prepared in response to a human rights complaint filed by the daughter.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's decision to deny access to these records, finding they were prepared for or by counsel in contemplation of litigation or for legal advice.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Board's search for responsive records was reasonable, though ordered the disclosure of certain records the Board had agreed to release.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board denying access to the actual dollar figure paid to the former police chief upon his resignation.

The Board claimed the information was exempt under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the payment, which included accumulated sick leave credits and the cash-in-lieu value of extended medical and life insurance, qualified as a 'benefit' under section 14(4)(a).

Therefore, its disclosure did not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, and the Board was ordered to disclose the figure.

The requester appealed the Board of Education's interim access decisions and fee estimates regarding requests for trustee expense records and an alpha cheque register.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board should have issued final access decisions rather than interim ones, as the records were not unduly expensive to produce for a decision.

The fee estimate for photocopying was upheld, but the Board was ordered to revise its fee estimate for preparation time to reflect only the pages expected to require severances.

The appellant appealed the Toronto Board of Education's interim access decision and fee estimate for a request seeking trustee expense records and an alpha cheque register.

The Inquiry Officer affirmed the use of an interim access decision where records are unduly expensive to produce for review, but found that a time extension could not be claimed at the interim stage.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Board's revised fee estimate of $10,896.80 and upheld a reduced fee estimate of $8,183.40, plus an optional $915 for cross-referencing, disallowing charges for time spent transporting records and returning documents to files.

The appellant requested access to the summary page of telephone bills for all cellular phones used by the Barrie Police Services Board.

The Police disclosed the records but severed the cellular telephone numbers and names of users, claiming exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to hamper the control of crime by tying up emergency communication lines.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Durham Regional Police Services Board denying access to portions of two police officers' notebooks relating to an incident involving the appellant.

The Police withheld the information under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that the withheld information contained the personal information of other individuals compiled during a law enforcement investigation, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.