IPCO 1996

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Peel Regional Police Services Board for the entire contents of a police file relating to an assault incident in which the appellant was the victim.

The Police denied access to portions of the file under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the undisclosed portion of the occurrence report was responsive to the request.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision to deny access to the records, finding that they contained the personal information of other individuals and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under sections 14 and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville's decision to deny access to 98 records relating to the enactment of certain by-laws and an Official Plan Amendment.

The Town claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for solicitor-client privilege, draft by-laws, closed meetings, and advice or recommendations.

The Inquiry Officer found that several records were exempt under solicitor-client privilege, closed meeting, and advice or recommendations exemptions.

However, the draft by-law exemption did not apply because the drafts had been considered in public meetings.

The Town was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records to the appellant.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Niagara Regional Police Services Board to deny access to records relating to the criminal record of a named individual.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The decision of the Police to deny access was upheld.

The appellant, a lawyer representing clients involved in incidents with a police officer, submitted a freedom of information request to the Sudbury Regional Police Services Board for the officer's disciplinary records.

The Police denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records relating to anticipated disciplinary proceedings and legal indemnification fell within the employment and labour relations exclusions of section 52(3)1 and 52(3)3.

As none of the exceptions in section 52(4) applied, the records were outside the scope of the Act, and the Police's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested copies of police notes taken during a visit to a company following a complaint of threats.

The Police granted partial access, denying portions under sections 9(1)(d) and 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information retrieved from the C.P.I.C. database related to the appellant's own probation order, and thus section 9(1)(d) did not apply.

The Officer also found that disclosing names provided by the appellant or contained in the probation order would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 38(b).

The Police were ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to an incident where he was mistakenly identified as a suspect and allegedly injured during apprehension.

The Police denied access under the law enforcement exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records contained personal information of other individuals and were exempt from disclosure.

For other records, the Inquiry Officer found the Police failed to properly exercise their discretion under the law enforcement exemptions, particularly for information already known to the appellant, and ordered the Police to reconsider their exercise of discretion.

The appellant appealed the Regional Municipality of Peel's decision to deny access to a report prepared by a company, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer first determined that the Commissioner had independent jurisdiction to review the access request despite a related civil action.

The Officer found that solicitor-client privilege was lost when the cross-claim between the Municipality and the company was settled.

However, the Officer upheld the decision to deny access, finding the record was exempt as third party information because its disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the company's competitive position.

The appellant requested records relating to a joint proposal submitted by a third party in response to a request for proposals for the disposal of residual solid waste.

The Municipality granted access to most records but withheld certain financial and commercial information under section 10(1)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained commercial and financial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the third party's competitive position or interfere with its negotiations, particularly regarding a pending landfill application.

The Municipality's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant, a former police officer, requested access to records concerning his disciplinary matter under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police denied access, claiming the records were excluded under section 52(3) of the Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the records were collected and used in relation to proceedings before a tribunal relating to the employment of a person by the institution.

The records were therefore excluded from the scope of the Act, and the decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to the investigation into the sudden death of his son.

The Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police denied access, citing law enforcement and privacy exemptions.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the records were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Criminal Code, and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant requested copies of contracts between the Toronto Board of Education and various companies regarding the acquisition of a Human Resources and Financial Information Management System.

The Board and the third-party companies objected to disclosure under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing the records contained confidential commercial information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the contracts were the product of negotiations and therefore the information was not 'supplied' to the Board within the meaning of section 10(1).

The Board was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Peterborough Community Police Services Board denying access to portions of records relating to his arrest for criminal harassment.

The Police withheld information under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that the police codes were properly exempt under section 38(a) and 8(1)(l), and that the disclosure of the remaining withheld information would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b).

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search for additional records.

The appellant, an employee of the City of Hamilton Fire Department, appealed the City's decision to deny access to records relating to a promotional job competition under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were collected and used in relation to employment-related matters in which the City has an interest, specifically to ensure compliance with the Ontario Human Rights Code and the collective agreement.

As a result, the records fell within the exclusionary provision of section 52(3)3 of the Act, removing them from the Commissioner's jurisdiction.

The City's decision to deny access was upheld.

A local media outlet requested access to audit reports regarding the financial affairs of the Peterborough Memorial Centre.

The request was transferred to the Peterborough Community Police Services Board, which denied access under the law enforcement exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that the records qualified for exemption under section 8(1)(b) because their disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement investigation.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board received a freedom of information request for a contract and tender documents related to Collision Reporting Centres.

The Police decided to disclose portions of the tender documents, and the affected third party company appealed, claiming various exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer held that the third party could not raise discretionary exemptions not claimed by the Police.

Applying the mandatory exemptions, the Inquiry Officer found that certain pages containing technical and commercial information supplied in confidence were exempt under section 10(1), and the date of birth of the company's president was exempt as personal information under section 14(1).

The Police were ordered to disclose the remaining portions of the records.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the City of Ottawa for records relating to a by-law complaint against the appellant's company.

The City provided partial access but withheld the complainant's name and telephone number under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that the by-law enforcement process qualifies as a law enforcement matter and that disclosing the information would reveal the identity of a confidential source under section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellants submitted a freedom of information request to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board for records relating to an investigation that resulted in the criminal conviction of a police officer.

The Police denied access to several records, citing law enforcement, invasion of privacy, and relations with other governments exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that most records were exempt under the presumed unjustified invasion of privacy for law enforcement investigations.

However, applying the absurd result principle, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of records containing information originally supplied by the appellants themselves.

The CPIC printout was found exempt as information received in confidence from the RCMP.

The appellant requested a copy of a letter of complaint from a fire department employee that may have led to the fire chief's departure.

The City of Orillia refused to confirm or deny the existence of the record under section 14(5) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that confirming or denying the existence of the record would reveal personal information about the former fire chief and constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to a complaint.

The appellant narrowed the appeal to records in the possession of the Township's solicitor.

The Township claimed these records were not in its custody or under its control.

Applying the test from Order 120 and principles from the Solicitors' Act, the Inquiry Officer found that the records belonged to the solicitor and were not under the Township's control.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Township's search for responsive records was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Thunder Bay Police Services Board to deny access to portions of a general occurrence report under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police claimed the withheld information, which consisted of names compiled during an investigation into a possible violation of law, was exempt under section 38(b) as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that the information fell under the presumption in section 14(3)(b) and was therefore exempt from disclosure.