IPCO 1996

The complainants alleged that a police officer improperly disclosed their written and videotaped witness statements to the plaintiff's lawyer in a civil lawsuit outside the discovery process.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the statements contained personal information under section 2(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer determined that section 51(1) did not apply because the disclosure occurred outside the formal litigation process.

Furthermore, the disclosure did not comply with any of the permitted exceptions under section 32 of the Act.

The Police Services Board subsequently implemented the Officer's recommendation to ensure future compliance.

A parent complained about a school board's collection of personal information (names and telephone numbers) on a survey regarding year-round education.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information collected was 'personal information' under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The collection was not expressly authorized by statute nor necessary to the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity, violating section 28(2).

Furthermore, the board failed to provide the required notice of collection under section 29(2).

The board was recommended to collect personal information only when necessary and to ensure future compliance.

A teacher complained that a Police Services Board breached the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by disclosing witness statements to a school board for a disciplinary hearing after the teacher was acquitted of criminal charges.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the witness statements contained the personal information of both the witnesses and the complainant.

While the witnesses' personal information was disclosed with their consent in compliance with section 32(b), the complainant's personal information was disclosed in contravention of section 32, as the disclosure was not required by the Education Act nor was it for a consistent purpose.

A father complained that a separate school board improperly disclosed information from his son's Ontario Student Record to the police during an investigation into an assault.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act prevails over the confidentiality provisions of the Education Act.

The Officer concluded that the information disclosed was personal information, but that the school board disclosed it in compliance with section 32(g) of the Act to aid a law enforcement investigation.

The Officer recommended that the board review its protocol with the police to clarify the definition of personal information.

The complainant alleged that a regional police services board improperly collected and used personal information from his son's Ontario Student Record during an assault investigation.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act prevailed over the confidentiality provisions of the Education Act, and whether the police's collection and use of the information complied with the Act.

The Commissioner concluded that the Act prevailed over the Education Act's confidentiality provision, and that the police collected and used the personal information in compliance with the Act for law enforcement purposes.

The Commissioner recommended that the police review their protocol with the school board to clarify the definition of personal information.

The complainant alleged that the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) breached the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by publishing his name and criminal charges in a community newsletter posted at a local store.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information was personal information and that section 37 did not apply to exclude it from the privacy provisions.

However, the disclosure was permitted under section 42(c) as it was for a consistent purpose, namely notifying the public of law enforcement activities, which the complainant could have reasonably expected.

The complainant, a former employee of an agency funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, alleged that the Ministry improperly disclosed a letter containing her concerns about the agency's operations to the agency's Board of Directors.

The letter, signed by the complainant and others, was subsequently made public, leading to alleged harassment and job loss.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner's investigation concluded that the information in the letter constituted 'personal information' under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Furthermore, the disclosure to the Board without severing the signatories' names was not necessary to address the systemic concerns raised, and therefore was not in compliance with section 42(c) of the Act.

A student complained that a college disclosed their personal information to the student association and an insurance company without consent to administer a student health insurance plan.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information was 'personal information' under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer concluded that the disclosure was not in compliance with section 42 of the Act, as the student could not have reasonably expected the disclosure for this purpose when registering.

The Officer recommended that the college provide revised notices of collection and ensure only necessary information is disclosed.

The complainant, a former city employee, alleged that the City improperly collected her medical diagnosis on return-to-work forms in violation of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the forms contained personal information.

The collection of information on the 'Fitness Assessment - Return to Work' form was necessary for administering the short-term disability program and complied with the Act.

However, the collection of a medical diagnosis and treatment details on the 'Attending Physician's Statement' was not necessary and violated section 28(2).

The City also failed to provide proper notice of collection under section 29(2).

A complainant alleged that a town disclosed her personal information contrary to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The town's Chief Administrative Officer read the complainant's solicitor's letter aloud during an open committee meeting and distributed copies to the press.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information was personal information and that its disclosure to the press and public during an open session was not in compliance with section 32 of the Act.

The Officer recommended that the town amend the meeting minutes to remove the complainant's identity and take steps to ensure future compliance.

The complainant, the mother of an autistic former student, filed a privacy complaint against a public Board of Education regarding anecdotal notes collected by school staff.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether the collection, notice, retention, and accuracy of the personal information complied with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information was personal information and was collected and retained in compliance with the Act, and that reasonable steps were taken to ensure its accuracy.

However, the Board failed to provide proper notice of collection to the complainant.

The Board was recommended to provide notice of collection for its special education programs.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated a complaint regarding the Ministry of Community and Social Services' use of a 'Residing With A Spouse' questionnaire to determine social assistance eligibility.

The Commissioner found that the information collected was 'personal information' under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner concluded that the collection of the applicant's personal information was necessary for the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity and thus complied with section 38 of the Act.

However, the Commissioner found that the indirect collection of a co-resident's personal information without consent did not comply with section 39(1) and recommended changes to the questionnaire.

A Ministry employee complained that a document outlining his grievance against management was disclosed without his consent to the Assistant to the Branch Director and subsequently to Human Resources staff.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the record contained the complainant's personal information under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer concluded that the Ministry failed to demonstrate that the disclosures were necessary and proper in the discharge of its functions under section 42(d) of the Act, and recommended the Ministry review its chain-of-command practices to ensure disclosure is only on a need-to-know basis.

The complainants alleged that the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services breached the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by disclosing unsevered witness statements and an occurrence report from an OPP arson investigation to their insurance company's adjuster.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the records contained personal information and that the disclosure to the private insurance adjuster was not for a consistent purpose under section 42(c) of the Act.

The Officer concluded that the disclosure was not in compliance with the Act and recommended that the Ministry advise the OPP of the findings to prevent future breaches.

The complainant filed a privacy complaint against a City after the Mayor required him to submit his municipal freedom of information requests directly to her office rather than the Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information in the access requests constituted personal information under section 2(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer concluded that the City breached section 3(2) of Ontario Regulation 823 because the Mayor was not the designated head under the Act and did not need the records for the performance of her duties.

The City was recommended to ensure access to such records is restricted to those who need them for their duties.

The complainant, an employee of the County, alleged that the County breached her privacy by disclosing her suspension letter to union representatives and by collecting her personal financial information.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information was personal information.

The disclosure of the suspension letter to the supervisor and CAO was permitted, but the disclosure to the union representatives and the disclosure of her home address violated the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the collection of financial information, if it occurred, would have been permitted for law enforcement purposes.

The complainant filed a privacy complaint alleging that a school board improperly disclosed his personal information, including details of his human rights complaint against the board and associated legal fees, in response to access requests and at public board meetings.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information was personal information and that the public record exclusion in section 27 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act did not apply.

The Assistant Commissioner concluded that the board's disclosures in response to the access requests and at public meetings were not in compliance with section 32 of the Act, as the board failed to notify the complainant before disclosure.

The Assistant Commissioner recommended that the board take precautions to ensure future compliance.

The complainant, a union member, was arrested by the OPP for possession of narcotics.

Before an information was laid, an arresting officer disclosed the arrest and pending charges to the complainant's employer, resulting in the termination of his employment.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether this disclosure violated the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner concluded that the information was personal information, that the public record exception in section 37 did not apply, and that the disclosure was not in accordance with section 42 of the Act.

The Ministry was directed to ensure future compliance.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to briefing notes regarding incidents at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under law enforcement, advice to government, right to a fair trial, solicitor-client privilege, and personal information.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry's internal investigation did not qualify as law enforcement, but an ongoing police investigation did.

Portions of the records were exempted under law enforcement and solicitor-client privilege, while others were ordered disclosed.

The Assistant Commissioner also found the Ministry's search for records was unreasonable and ordered a further search.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to an investigation into her allegations of workplace harassment and favouritism.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under the newly enacted section 65(6) as employment-related records.

The appellant argued her request was initiated orally before the legislative amendments took effect.

The Inquiry Officer found that the formal request was made after the amendments came into force and that the records were collected in relation to employment-related matters in which the Ministry had an interest.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.