IPCO 1995

The appellant, an insurance carrier, appealed the decision of the Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board to deny access to a police investigation report regarding a motor vehicle accident.

The Police relied on the law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that disclosure of parts of the records could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement matter, and that disclosure of the personal information contained in the records would result in an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant requested access to the employment contract between the Lanark County Board of Education and its Director of Education.

The Board denied access, claiming the discretionary exemption for unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer declined to consider an additional discretionary exemption raised late in the appeals process.

The Inquiry Officer found that the contract contained the Director's personal information, but that disclosure of the classification, salary range, benefits, and employment responsibilities did not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(4)(a).

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Board to disclose the record to the appellant.

The requester sought information from the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board regarding complaints about harassing phone calls allegedly made by a named individual.

The Police refused to confirm or deny the existence of the records under section 14(5) of the Act.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that confirming or denying the existence of the records would reveal whether the named individual was the subject of a police investigation, which would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Act.

A reporter requested a transcript of police communication tapes from the Goderich Police Services Board.

The Chief of Police, acting as the head under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, denied access to the record.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Chief of Police had a personal interest in the record, which contained his own conversations, creating a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Chief's decision was declared void, and the matter was remitted to the Police Services Board to issue a new decision on access by an alternate decision-maker.

The appellant, an employee of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, appealed the Municipality's decision to deny access to various employment-related records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Municipality claimed exemptions based on advice or recommendations, solicitor-client privilege, invasion of privacy, and the discretion to refuse a requester's own information.

The Inquiry Officer found that certain records containing investigation recommendations and documents prepared for a human rights complaint were exempt.

However, the Officer ordered the disclosure of other records that did not contain advice, recommendations, or privileged information.

A newspaper reporter appealed the County of Grey's decision to deny access to Notices of Intent submitted under its Tree By-law.

The County claimed exemptions for invasion of privacy and third party information, and attempted to raise additional discretionary exemptions late in the process.

The Commissioner refused to consider the late exemptions.

The Commissioner found that the information related to individuals in their business capacities, not personal capacities, so the privacy exemption did not apply.

Furthermore, the third party information exemption did not apply because the information was not supplied in confidence.

The County was ordered to disclose the Notices.

A former employee of the City of Oshawa appealed the City's decision to deny access to records relating to the position of City Manager and a forensic accounting investigation that led to the employee's termination.

The Inquiry Officer found that the internal investigation did not qualify as a 'law enforcement' matter under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, several records were found to be exempt under solicitor-client privilege, either as confidential communications or as records prepared in contemplation of litigation.

The draft by-law exemption was applied strictly to actual drafts, not to staff comments, and the advice exemption was applied only to specific suggested courses of action.

The City was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records.

The requester appealed the Township of Bentinck's decision to deny access to various records related to a property development, including correspondence and building plans.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the solicitor-client privilege exemption to the correspondence.

The Inquiry Officer also found that most of the building plans were exempt from disclosure under the third party information and security exemptions, with the exception of one plan which was ordered disclosed.

The Township's search for records was found to be reasonable.

The appellant appealed the Sarnia Police Services Board's decision to deny access to certain information in cellular telephone bills, including phone numbers, account numbers, and the name of the authorized recipient.

The Police claimed exemptions under the law enforcement provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information was administrative in nature and did not qualify for exemption under sections 8(1)(b), (c), (d), or (g).

The Police were ordered to disclose the information.

The requester appealed the Town of Gravenhurst's decision to deny access to records relating to a land development proposal.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Town's decision, finding that one record was exempt under the solicitor-client privilege exemption as it was prepared by counsel for legal advice or litigation.

The Commissioner also found that the remaining record was exempt under the closed meeting exemption, as its disclosure would reveal the actual substance of deliberations of a closed committee meeting.

The requester appealed the decision of the Guelph Police Services Board to deny access to portions of records relating to a complaint filed by the requester against the police.

The police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including section 38(b) for unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law under the Police Services Act, triggering the presumption in section 14(3)(b).

The decision of the police to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed the Town of Meaford's decision to deny access to records regarding a property subject to an Order to Remedy.

The Town claimed exemptions under section 10(1) (third party information) and section 12 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Town failed to establish the requirements for the section 10(1) exemption for tender documents.

Regarding section 12, the Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption for three records that were confidential communications between solicitor and client, but ordered the disclosure of the remaining records, which involved communications with third parties.

The appellant appealed the Borough of East York's decision to deny access to records concerning a 1984 fence viewer's award under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Borough relied on the invasion of privacy exemption in section 14.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained only the personal information of an affected person and that no factors weighed in favour of disclosure.

The Borough's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $787.90 issued by the Durham Regional Police Services Board in response to a request for police records relating to the appellant.

The Inquiry Officer found that under section 45(2) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, fees cannot be charged for access to records containing the requester's own personal information.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Police to recalculate the fees based on a record-by-record analysis, rather than a page-by-page analysis, and upheld a fee estimate of $161 for records that did not contain the appellant's personal information.

The requester appealed the City of Etobicoke's decision to deny access to the name of a person who filed a by-law complaint against them.

The City relied on the law enforcement exemption under section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing that disclosing the name would reveal a confidential source.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that the confidentiality of complainants is integral to the by-law complaints process and that the City properly exercised its discretion to refuse disclosure of the requester's own personal information under section 38(a).

The appellant appealed the Board of Education's response to a freedom of information request for computer-based files concerning her employment as an occasional teacher and union representative.

The appellant alleged that additional records should exist on computer disk.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the affidavits provided by the Board detailing its search efforts, including the review of computer diskettes and inquiries with relevant staff.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the Board's search for responsive records was reasonable in the circumstances and upheld the Board's decision.

The appellant appealed the Toronto Transit Commission's decision to withhold unit prices contained in two successful tender bids for quality assessment testing services.

The TTC claimed 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 unit prices constituted commercial and financial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the competitive position of the affected parties.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, as the public interest was satisfied by the disclosure of the total tender prices.

The TTC's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed a decision by the Sault Ste.

Marie Police Services Board to deny access to a record identifying the duty officer and dispatchers on duty at a specific time, claiming the personal privacy exemption under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that disclosing the names would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, noting the public interest in knowing who they are in contact with in the public service and the requester's need for the information to defend against a Highway Traffic Act charge.

The Police were ordered to disclose the names.

The appellant appealed the City of Mississauga's fee estimate of $92.20 and its denial of a fee waiver for a freedom of information request regarding a woodlot.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the fee calculation, finding it complied with the Act and regulations for search time and photocopying.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the denial of the fee waiver, concluding that waiving the fee would shift an unreasonable burden of the cost from the appellant to the City.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to certain records relating to an assault complaint against the appellant.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision to withhold the records under the personal privacy exemption, found the search for records was reasonable, and denied the request to correct personal information, though ordering that a statement of disagreement be attached to the record.