IPCO 1996

The requester appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to portions of a Record of Arrest and claiming that additional records should exist.

The Police withheld information under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and its disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b).

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

The appellant requested access to a police occurrence report relating to an incident involving himself and his daughter.

The Halton Regional Police Services Board denied access to portions of the report, citing exemptions for invasion of privacy and law enforcement.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the record contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to an alleged abuse investigation involving his daughter.

The Peel Regional Police Services Board denied access to the records, citing the invasion of privacy exemption under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The City of Orillia raised a preliminary objection that an appeal under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was filed outside the mandatory 30-day time limit.

The appellant had mailed the appeal within 30 days of receiving the City's decision, but it was received by the Commissioner's office after the deadline.

The Inquiry Officer held that the effective date for making an appeal is the date of mailing, not the date of receipt.

The preliminary objection was dismissed, and the City was ordered to produce the responsive records for the inquiry.

The appellant, a former employee of the Township, appealed a decision denying access to statements in his personnel file relating to the election of the Reeve and Township Council.

The Township claimed the records were exempt as evaluative or opinion material under section 38(c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On reconsideration of a previous order, the Inquiry Officer found no conflict of interest by the Township Council in making the access decision.

The Inquiry Officer determined that the records contained the personal information of the appellant and others.

The section 38(c) exemption was found not to apply, but a portion of one record was exempt under section 38(b) to protect the privacy of another municipal employee.

The Township was ordered to disclose the records with specific severances.

The appellant requested records from the Metropolitan Licencing Commission relating to charges laid under a by-law provision dealing with lap dancing.

The Commission denied access, citing law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions, and claimed some information was publicly available.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the publicly available exemption did not apply, as the information was not readily accessible.

The Commissioner upheld the law enforcement exemption for ongoing prosecutions but not for completed ones.

The personal privacy exemption was upheld for the identifying information of the women charged.

The Commissioner also found that the public interest override did not apply, and ordered partial disclosure of the records.

The appellant, a hoist supplier, requested copies of shop drawings, stress calculations, and correspondence related to equipment supplied under a Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) contract.

The TTC denied access under the third party information exemption in section 10(1)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing a compelling public interest in disclosure due to safety and compliance concerns.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the TTC's decision, finding that the records met the three-part test for exemption and that the appellant failed to demonstrate a compelling public interest that outweighed the purpose of the exemption.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Township of McNab for records relating to complaints about his property.

The Township disclosed some records but the appellant believed more existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Township's search for additional records was reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant requested an updated copy of her criminal record from 1981 from the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board.

The Police provided a record, but the appellant appealed, arguing that the record should contain more information, specifically relating to arrests in 1983 and 1984.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search of their MANIX and CPIC systems, which showed the appellant's first entry was in 1987.

The appeal was dismissed.

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

The Police claimed no such records existed but located two other occurrence reports, granting partial access and withholding the rest under the personal privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision to withhold the information, finding its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

However, the Officer found the Police's evidence regarding the reasonableness of their search for the gang-related records insufficient and ordered them to conduct a further search.

The appellant requested access to the General Accounts of the Townships of Belmont and Methuen.

The Townships disclosed the accounts but severed information relating to payments made to three individuals and a pension fund contribution, claiming the invasion of privacy exemption under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the pension fund contribution related to an employee benefit and its disclosure was not an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(4)(a).

However, the Inquiry Officer determined that the three individuals were employees, not independent contractors, and the disclosure of their payment amounts was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(f).

The Townships were ordered to disclose the pension fund contribution information but not the payments to the three individuals.

The appellant appealed a decision by the London Police Services Board denying access to a questionnaire used to screen applicants for a Firearms Acquisition Certificate.

The Police claimed the record was exempt under several sections of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including section 8(1)(e) (endanger life or safety).

The Inquiry Officer found that disclosing the questionnaire could allow potential applicants to be coached on the correct answers, defeating the purpose of screening out individuals who might pose a danger.

The decision to deny access was upheld under section 8(1)(e).

The appellant appealed a decision by the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto regarding a freedom of information request for his personal information.

During mediation, the Municipality disclosed all remaining records, leaving only the issue of whether the Municipality's search for additional records, specifically a police report, was reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Municipality provided sufficient evidence of a reasonable search, including affidavits and confirmation from relevant individuals that no such police report existed in the files.

The appeal was dismissed.

The requester appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Licensing Commission to deny access to a portion of a business licence application containing another individual's responses to questions about their criminal history.

The Commission claimed the information was exempt 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 information constituted personal information and that none of the factors favouring disclosure applied.

The Commission's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to formula work sheets used to determine the value of school bus contracts.

The Board denied access to portions of the records, claiming exemptions for third party information, valuable government information, and economic interests.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board failed to establish the exemptions under sections 11(a) and 11(c), and failed to meet the third part of the test for third party information under section 10(1).

The Officer also found that while the records contained some personal information, its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy as it disclosed financial details of a contract for personal services under section 14(4)(b).

The Board was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Township of Norfolk for test results on winter sand provided by a supplier.

The Township denied access, claiming the third party information exemption under section 10(1)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the exemption did not apply because the information was generated by a consultant, not supplied in confidence by the third party, and there was no evidence of competitive harm.

The Township was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board denying access to an incident report involving the appellant.

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, triggering the presumption of an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b).

As no exceptions applied, the information was exempt from disclosure under section 38(b), and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought access to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board's 'Call Taker Operations Manual' under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police denied access, claiming exemptions for law enforcement matters, investigative techniques, and facilitating the commission of an unlawful act.

The Inquiry Officer found insufficient evidence for the law enforcement exemptions but agreed that disclosing specific operational details, such as response unit types and priorities, could facilitate unlawful acts.

However, the majority of the manual, including general guidelines and organizational structure, did not fall under any exemption and was ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Halton Regional Police Services Board for records relating to an allegation that he stalked a named individual.

The Police granted partial access to the investigating officer's notebook but denied access to parts of it under the invasion of privacy and law enforcement exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the undisclosed information was exempt under section 38(b) as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

However, the Inquiry Officer found that certain passages containing exclusively the appellant's personal information were not exempt under section 38(b) or section 38(a) in conjunction with section 8(2)(c), and ordered their disclosure.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to three proposals submitted in response to a request for proposals for consulting services.

The City relied on 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 records contained financial, technical, and commercial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive positions of the affected parties.

The decision to withhold the records was upheld, except for portions of one proposal that the affected party consented to disclose.