IPCO 1995

The appellant requested access to the cellular telephone bills of the London Police Services Board.

The Police disclosed the records with severances and provided a fee estimate.

The appellant appealed the severances and the fee estimate.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision to withhold the cellular telephone numbers, users, and call details under section 8(1)(l) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, finding their disclosure could hamper the control of crime.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of account and invoice numbers, finding they were administrative and did not qualify for law enforcement or safety exemptions.

The fee estimate was upheld.

The appellant requested access to a police officer's notebook for a specific date.

The Police granted partial access, withholding some information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, claiming additional records existed.

During mediation, the appellant withdrew her objection to the denial of access, leaving the reasonableness of the search as the sole issue.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police had taken all reasonable steps to locate the responsive records and upheld the decision.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $9,960 provided by the North York Board of Education in response to a request for trustee expense records and an alphabetical cheque register.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board failed to provide sufficient information to justify its fee calculations for manual search time, preparation time, and photocopying time.

The fee estimate was substantially reduced, allowing the Board to charge only $2,520 for photocopying the cheque register pages.

The City of Niagara Falls received a request for a fire department incident report.

The City decided to disclose the record, but the property owner appealed, arguing the record contained personal information exempt under section 14 of the Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the record did not contain information relating to identifiable individuals and therefore did not meet the definition of personal information.

The City's decision to disclose the record was upheld.

The appellant requested access to the personal services contract of the City Manager.

The City of Thunder Bay informed the appellant that no such record existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that a responsive record must exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City had conducted a reasonable search of its files, including City Council Minutes, the City Clerk's files, and the City Manager's personnel file, and upheld the City's decision.

The requester appealed a fee estimate of $398 provided by the Metropolitan Toronto School Board for processing a request for its accounts payable cheque register.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner reviewed the Board's calculations for search and preparation time under section 45(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's estimate for locating the records and for 'interruption time' was excessive and not permitted under the Act.

The fee estimate was reduced to $285, comprising $120 for search time and $165 for preparation time.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a tender call for the restoration of a municipal museum.

The Town of Penetanguishene denied access to portions of the Forms of Tender under the third party information exemption.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the withheld pages contained commercial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the competitive position of the bidding companies.

The Town's decision to withhold the detailed pricing information was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Town of Amherstburg Police Services Board that no records existed responsive to a request for two reports.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police provided sufficient evidence, including affidavits from the Chief of Police and others, demonstrating that one report was delivered orally and the other was never made.

The search for records was deemed reasonable and the Police's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to documents regarding a building permit for a barn renovation involving a liquid manure system.

The Township denied access to the building permit application, drawings, and a legal opinion, citing law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found the legal opinion exempt under section 12 (solicitor-client privilege).

However, the drawings and building permit application were ordered disclosed, as they did not meet the tests for third party information or personal information exemptions.

The appellant's lawyer requested an adjournment of the dates set for receipt of written and oral representations.

The London Police Services Board did not object.

The Commissioner granted the adjournment and set a new schedule for written representations and the oral hearing, noting that the dates will not be further rescheduled.

The appellant requested access to legal invoices from the Ottawa Public Library under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Library denied access, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12 of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the descriptions of the legal services provided in the invoices revealed the subject matter of the legal advice sought and were therefore exempt.

However, the fee amounts and other non-privileged portions of the invoices did not qualify for the exemption and were ordered to be disclosed.

A Board of Education appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to records from a police investigation into allegations against a teacher.

The teacher was fired and the matter was referred to a Board of Reference.

The Police denied access citing personal privacy and solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer found the records contained sensitive personal information of the teacher, children, and parents, and were exempt under section 14(1) as they were compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

The Officer also held that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, as the Board of Reference has independent statutory powers to subpoena the records if necessary, and the privacy interests of the children outweighed the public interest in disclosure under the Act.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $1,552 provided by the Board of Education for the Borough of East York for processing a freedom of information request for an Accounts Payable Cheque Register.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Board's calculation of photocopying and preparation costs under section 45(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found the Board's revised fee estimate of $1,512 to be reasonable and upheld it, noting the Board had worked constructively with the appellant to minimize costs.

The appellant, an employee of the Wentworth County Board of Education, appealed the Board's decision regarding his request for access to records concerning his employment.

The sole issue was whether the Board conducted a reasonable search for the requested records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant provided sufficient evidence to suggest additional records might exist, and the Board failed to provide sufficient evidence detailing its search efforts.

The Board was ordered to conduct a further search for the responsive records.

The appellant requested access to an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between the Township of Howick and third-party purchasers.

The Township denied access to the Agreement, claiming the third-party information exemption.

On appeal, the request was narrowed to a single clause containing planning and zoning information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the clause contained personal financial information of the purchasers, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The public interest override in section 16 did not apply.

The Township's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Town of Richmond Hill's decision to deny access to a legal opinion regarding a property acquisition, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record was a confidential written communication directly related to formulating and giving legal advice, and thus fell squarely within the section 12 exemption.

The Officer also determined that no information could be reasonably severed under section 4(2), and that the public interest override in section 16 does not apply to section 12.

The Town's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Carleton Board of Education's decision to deny access to records concerning the selection of a site for a new elementary school.

The Board claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including the closed meeting exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records, which included minutes of in camera meetings, staff reports, a legal opinion, and site analysis reports, were properly exempt from disclosure under section 6(1)(b) of the Act because they would reveal the substance of deliberations of meetings authorized by statute to be held in the absence of the public.

The Board's decision was upheld.

The appellant, a sod supply company, appealed the City of Oshawa's decision to partially deny access to records relating to two sod supply contracts.

The City withheld purchase order numbers, budget information, terms of delivery, and pricing information under the third-party information exemption in section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer applied the three-part test for the exemption and found that only the unit prices of the other bidders met all three parts of the test.

The City was ordered to disclose the remaining information, including total bid prices and the appellant's own bid information.

The appellant requested records from the Regional Municipality of Peel regarding the construction method of a water main.

The Region claimed it had no responsive records, as the project belonged to the Ontario Clean Water Agency, and transferred the request.

The appellant appealed, arguing records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Region's affidavit detailing its search across multiple departments and concluded that the Region had made a reasonable effort to locate the records.

The Region's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board for photographs of the K-9 and Motorcycle Patrol Units.

The Police denied access, citing the personal privacy and law enforcement exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the photographs contained the personal information of the officers, including their race and sex.

As no factors favouring disclosure were established, the photographs were held to be exempt from disclosure under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The decision of the Police was upheld.