IPCO 1996

The appellant submitted a multi-part freedom of information request to Le Conseil des ecoles francais de la communaute urbaine de Toronto under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The institution identified numerous records but subsequently argued that some were not responsive to the request.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the disputed records individually to determine if they were reasonably related to the request.

The Inquiry Officer found that only four of the disputed records were responsive, while the remainder fell outside the scope of the request and would not be considered in the final order.

The appellant appealed the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's decision to deny access to portions of his personnel and Workers' Compensation Board files under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Municipality's decision, finding that portions of the records were properly withheld under section 38(b) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy regarding employment history.

The Inquiry Officer also found that other portions were properly withheld under section 38(a) in conjunction with section 12, as they contained quoted legal advice subject to common law solicitor-client privilege.

The appellant submitted a broad request to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board for all records containing his name.

The Police closed the file after the appellant refused to clarify his request.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while the request was not specific enough to locate all potentially responsive records in non-computerized systems, it was sufficiently specific to require the Police to search their current computerized records.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Police had reasonably fulfilled their duty to assist the appellant in reformulating his request.

The Police were ordered to conduct a computerized search and issue an access decision.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to a real estate appraisal report regarding land purchased by the City.

The City claimed discretionary exemptions under sections 11(a), (c), (d), (e), and (g) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as well as mandatory exemptions under section 10(1).

The Inquiry Officer found that none of the exemptions applied, as the City failed to establish that the information belonged to it, had monetary value, or that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the City's economic or financial interests.

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

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board to refuse an access request on the grounds that it was frivolous or vexatious.

The Police argued the request was part of a pattern of conduct amounting to an abuse of the right of access and was made for a purpose other than to obtain access.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police failed to establish that the request met the criteria for being frivolous or vexatious under the Regulation.

The Police were ordered to issue an access decision based on the substantive provisions of the Act.

The appellant appealed the City of North York's decision to deny access to 36 records relating to the fire department's response to a specific call.

The City claimed the records were exempt under section 12 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (solicitor-client privilege).

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were prepared by or for counsel employed or retained by the City, and that the dominant purpose for their preparation was the contemplation of litigation.

The City's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $1,371.20 issued by the Municipality of the Townships of Sherwood, Jones and Burns for processing a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The request sought various financial and payroll records of the Townships' Recreation Committee.

The Inquiry Officer found the estimated time for searching and preparing the records to be unreasonable given the small volume of responsive records.

The fee estimate was reduced to $486.20.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Halton Regional Police Services Board for records of previous dog attacks at a specific address, following an incident where he was attacked by a dog.

The Police initially claimed exemptions but later advised that no responsive records existed other than the report of the appellant's own incident.

The appellant appealed, challenging the reasonableness of the search.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police's search of their telecommunications system using the provided address was reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant sought access to the names of witnesses in a police report regarding an industrial accident in which he was injured.

The Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board denied access to one witness's name, citing law enforcement and privacy exemptions.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the information was compiled during a law enforcement investigation and its disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellants requested access to police records relating to a fire at their residential property.

The Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board denied access to several records, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that one record qualified as a law enforcement report and was exempt.

For the remaining records, portions containing third-party personal information were exempt as an unjustified invasion of privacy, while portions relating solely to the appellants or their consenting daughter were ordered disclosed.

The requester appealed the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board's decision to refuse disclosure of part of a 911 tape and several records under section 38(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Following an interim order directing the Police to provide representations on their exercise of discretion, the Inquiry Officer found that the Police had exercised their discretion in accordance with established legal principles and upheld the decision.

The appellant, the Superintendent of Insurance, appealed a decision by the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board denying access to portions of a police file relating to a 1991 hit-and-run accident.

The appellant sought the information to determine liability for insurance benefits.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, making their disclosure a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer also held that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, as the appellant already had access to sufficient information for the litigation.

The police decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to videotapes of their own polygraph test conducted by the Durham Regional Police Services Board during a sexual assault investigation.

The Police denied access, claiming exemptions for unjustified invasion of personal privacy and discretion to refuse a requester's own information.

The Inquiry Officer found that denying access to information the appellant provided themselves would lead to an absurd result, and thus the invasion of privacy exemption did not apply.

The Police also failed to specify which exemption they relied upon for their discretionary refusal.

The Police were ordered to disclose the videotapes to the appellant.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the names of all Town Council members, their staff, and employees related to past or present Council members.

The Town refused the request, claiming it was frivolous and vexatious.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Town's decision, finding that the appellant had engaged in a pattern of conduct amounting to an abuse of the right of access, and that the request was made in bad faith and for a purpose other than to obtain access.

The appellant, a newspaper reporter, appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to computerized versions of 'major news reports-occurrences' (Occurrence Sheets) and 'major news reports-arrest and story' sheets (Arrest Sheets).

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

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Occurrence Sheets did not contain personal information and ordered their disclosure.

However, the Arrest Sheets contained personal information of charged individuals.

The Assistant Commissioner held that while paper versions were routinely disclosed, providing them in bulk computerized format would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The public interest override in section 16 did not apply.

The Police were ordered to disclose the Occurrence Sheets and a severed version of the Arrest Sheets.

A requester sought access to invoices submitted by a company for sewer work performed for the Regional Municipality of Sudbury.

The Municipality decided to grant access to severed versions of the invoices.

The company appealed, arguing the remaining information was exempt under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third party information.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the information was technical and supplied in confidence, only the hourly rates could reasonably be expected to cause competitive harm if disclosed.

The Municipality was ordered to disclose the remaining severed information.

The appellant appealed the Toronto Board of Education's decision to deny access to records relating to her sexual harassment complaint.

The Inquiry Officer found that recent amendments to the Act did not apply retrospectively to the request.

The Officer declined to consider a late-raised discretionary exemption.

The Officer upheld the Board's decision to deny access to most records under section 38(b), finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other individuals.

However, the Officer ordered the disclosure of certain records and portions of records that did not qualify for the advice and recommendations exemption under section 38(a).

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the City of North York for records relating to the development of certain lands.

The City denied access to various records, claiming they were either not in its custody or control (councillor's records) or were exempt under solicitor-client privilege.

The City also destroyed certain handwritten notes in accordance with its records retention policy after the appellant appeared to have abandoned an earlier request.

The Inquiry Officer found that the councillor's records were not in the City's custody or control, as the councillor was acting on behalf of constituents and not as an officer of the City.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of solicitor-client privilege to most of the legal records, but ordered the disclosure of certain statements of account and cheques.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the City's search for records was reasonable and that the destruction of the handwritten notes did not contravene the Act.

Two health care services companies submitted freedom of information requests to the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton for portions of successful proposals submitted by two competing companies in response to a Request for Proposals (RFP).

The municipality decided to disclose the records.

The competing companies appealed, arguing the records contained proprietary commercial information supplied in confidence and were exempt under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the appeals, finding that given the municipality's clear and public policy regarding the disclosure of awarded contracts, the appellants could not have held a reasonable expectation of confidentiality.

The Guelph Mercury appealed the City of Guelph's decision to deny access to portions of a report prepared by the Ontario Fire Marshal regarding fire department operations.

The City claimed the information was exempt under section 9(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as information received in confidence from the provincial government.

The Inquiry Officer found that the exemption is designed to protect the supplier's requirement of confidentiality, not the recipient's.

Since the Fire Marshal is statutorily required to provide such information to municipalities, it was not received in confidence.

The City was ordered to disclose the record.