IPCO 1996

The appellant, an unsuccessful candidate for Chief of Police, requested access to records related to the selection process from the Cornwall Police Services Board.

The Board denied access to meeting notes and consultant materials, claiming exemptions for closed meetings, advice and recommendations, and third-party information.

The Inquiry Officer found that none of the claimed exemptions applied and ordered the disclosure of the records, subject to severing the personal information of other individuals.

The Officer also found that the Board's search for responsive records was unreasonable and ordered a further search.

The appellant requested records from the City of Windsor relating to the construction of an addition to a building and any related by-law variance applications.

The City denied access to numerous records, claiming exemptions for solicitor-client privilege, advice or recommendations, closed meetings, and law enforcement.

The Inquiry Officer found that most records were exempt under solicitor-client privilege as they were prepared in contemplation of litigation following the revocation of a building permit.

Some records were exempt as advice or recommendations, while others were ordered disclosed because they did not meet the criteria for the claimed exemptions.

The appellant sought access to records from the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board regarding a widely reported sexual harassment complaint.

The Police denied access, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information of identifiable individuals.

Because the appellant did not submit representations or establish that disclosure would not be an unjustified invasion of privacy, the mandatory exemption under section 14 applied.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Board's decision to deny access to an early retirement package provided to its former Superintendent of Finance.

The Assistant Commissioner first determined that the records fell within the scope of the Act under section 52(4) as an agreement resulting from employment negotiations.

However, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the Board's decision to deny access, finding that the records contained personal information and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(1) of the Act.

The appellant appealed the Toronto Board of Education's access decisions regarding a request for his personal information.

The Board claimed various exemptions, including solicitor-client privilege, and argued the request was an abuse of process.

The Inquiry Officer found no abuse of process and determined that while some records held by the Board's lawyers were not under the Board's control, others were.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of certain records and upheld the exemption of others under solicitor-client privilege and personal privacy exemptions.

The appellant appealed a decision by the York Regional Police Services Board denying access to portions of records relating to the drowning death of his brother.

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

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that the records were compiled during a law enforcement investigation, which triggered the presumption of an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Act.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to records related to his arrest and conviction for assault with intent to resist arrest.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including relations with other governments and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of certain documents from the Crown Brief but upheld the denial of access to the remaining records, finding that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy or reveal information received in confidence from the RCMP.

The appellant requested copies of 911 calls she made to the police regarding an unwanted guest at her workplace.

The police denied access, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the records contained the appellant's own personal information and that denying access to information she provided herself would be an absurd result.

The Commissioner also found that the 911 tapes did not constitute a 'report' under the law enforcement exemption and that there was insufficient evidence to show disclosure would expose anyone to civil liability.

The police were ordered to disclose the records.

The requester appealed a decision by the Thunder Bay Police Services Board denying access to portions of a general occurrence report involving the requester and an affected person.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained the personal information of both the requester and the affected person.

After considering the factors in section 14(2) of the Act, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's privacy due to the sensitive and confidential nature of the information.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records relating to their complaints about a named individual's alleged building code and by-law violations.

The City of Timmins denied access to four records under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that the records contained the affected person's personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption in section 14(3)(b).

The Commissioner also found that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, as the appellant had already been provided with sufficient information regarding the City's response to the complaints.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board regarding a request for records of investigations into the appellant's involvement in street gangs or organized crime between 1980 and 1982.

Following an interim order, the Police conducted a further search and provided representations, including applicable retention schedules showing the records would have been destroyed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the steps taken by the Police to search for the records were reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant requested copies of proposals submitted in response to a Request for Proposals for Collision Reporting Centre Facilities.

The Police disclosed some records but denied access to others under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing third-party interests.

The successful bidder objected to disclosure, claiming the records contained trade secrets and commercial information supplied in confidence.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the records contained commercial information supplied in confidence, the successful bidder failed to demonstrate that disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in the harms outlined in section 10(1).

The Police were ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Goderich Police Services Board to deny access to a transcript of a telephone conversation between the appellant and the former Chief of Police.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the transcript contained only the personal information of the former Chief, which was highly sensitive, and that its disclosure could unfairly damage his reputation.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant, an access parent, appealed the East York Health Unit's decision to deny access to his child's medical records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On reconsideration of a previous order, the Inquiry Officer found that section 16(5) of the Divorce Act, which grants an access parent the right to be given information as to the health, education, and welfare of the child, expressly authorizes disclosure for the purposes of section 14(1)(d) of the Act.

The Health Unit was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant appealed the Lincoln County Board of Education's decision regarding a freedom of information request for records pertaining to the development of school curriculum.

The sole issue was whether the Board conducted a reasonable search for records identifying contributors, consultants, and printed references used in a specific curriculum section.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's search was reasonable, noting that the Act does not require the Board to create a list of sources if one does not exist.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Town of Gravenhurst's decision to deny access to portions of records relating to a comprehensive zoning by-law under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The records included waterfront property usage surveys, correspondence, and circulation lists.

The Inquiry Officer found that information regarding future business plans in the surveys qualified as exempt third-party commercial information under section 10(1)(c).

The Officer also upheld the Town's decision to withhold personal information, including names, addresses, and telephone numbers of private individuals and inactive businesses, under the personal privacy exemption in section 14(1).

The appellant requested access to the Township's general accounts and budget status reports.

The Township denied access to the budget status reports under the closed meeting exemption in section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Township failed to establish that the records related to the security of municipal property or that the closed meetings were properly authorized under the Municipal Act.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the records, except for portions containing personal information which the appellant had excluded from the scope of the request.

The appellant requested access to an Administrative Report on Curbside Refuse Tenders from the Town of Petrolia.

The Town denied access, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, third party information, and personal privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the third party information and personal privacy exemptions did not apply, as the harms were not established and the information related to business rather than personal matters.

However, three sentences in the report qualified as advice or recommendations and were exempt from disclosure.

The Town was ordered to disclose the remainder of the report.

The appellant, a school board trustee, appealed the Board's fee estimate of $665 for processing a freedom of information request for employee expense claims.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner reviewed the fee estimate under section 45(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner disallowed the fee for search time because the appellant had already been granted in-person access to the records, and reduced the record preparation fee to $1.00 per page.

The Board was ordered to provide an amended fee estimate.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to a specific occurrence.

The London Police Services Board denied access to portions of the records, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained the personal information of both the appellant and other individuals.

Disclosure of the third parties' personal information was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b) and was exempt under section 38(b).

The records did not qualify as a 'report' under section 8(2)(a).

However, police patrol zones and car identification numbers were exempt under section 8(1)(l) as their disclosure could facilitate an unlawful act or hamper crime control.

The Police were ordered to disclose the appellant's own personal information that was not intertwined with third-party information.