IPCO 1996

The appellant requested access to records relating to severance arrangements for six former employees of the Town of Ancaster.

The Town denied access to certain records, claiming solicitor-client privilege and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer refused to allow the Town to raise new discretionary exemptions late in the process.

The Officer found that only one record was subject to solicitor-client privilege, but that all records contained personal information and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Officer also found that the Town's search for records was reasonable and upheld the decision to deny access.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Durham Regional Police Services Board for records relating to assault charges previously laid against him, of which he was acquitted, and his subsequent complaints against the police.

The Police denied access to portions of the records, citing exemptions for law enforcement, invasion of privacy, and facilitating the commission of an unlawful act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the majority of the Police's decision, finding that most of the personal information was compiled during a law enforcement investigation and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Commissioner also upheld the exemption for police codes and patrol zones.

However, the Commissioner ordered the disclosure of certain records that did not qualify as law enforcement reports and information that the appellant had originally provided to the Police.

The Commissioner found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search for the records.

The appellants appealed the City of Barrie's decision to deny access to records relating to zoning by-law complaints made against them.

The City 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 portions of the records contained information that would reveal a confidential source in a law enforcement matter and were exempt.

Other portions were ordered disclosed as they contained only the appellants' personal information or did not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The appellant appealed the City of Ottawa's decision to deny access to a statistical report regarding the staffing levels of the fire department's aerial trucks.

The City claimed the record was exempt under section 11(e) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing it contained positions or procedures intended for use in upcoming labour negotiations.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record consisted of raw statistical data and did not contain any pre-determined course of action or plan.

The exemption under section 11(e) was not established, and the City was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant requested access to resumes submitted for the positions of Regional Review Chairperson and Committee members.

The Regional Municipality denied access under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that the resumes contained employment and educational history, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(d), which could not be rebutted by public scrutiny factors.

The appellant requested access to records relating to the purchase and operation of the Glanmore Hastings County Museum under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Museum provided a fee estimate of $1,610 for search time and photocopying.

The appellant requested a fee waiver on the basis of financial hardship, which the Museum denied.

The appellant appealed the denial.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Museum's decision, finding that while payment would cause financial hardship, waiving the fee would shift an unreasonable burden of the cost to the Museum.

The Museum had already provided 950 pages free of charge and attempted to work with the appellant to narrow the request.

The appellant requested copies of complaints filed against her property and the names of the complainants from the City of York.

The City disclosed the complaint but severed the complainant's name, address, and telephone number, claiming the law enforcement exemption under section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that by-law enforcement investigations qualify as law enforcement and that the complainant had a reasonable expectation of confidentiality.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Sudbury Regional Police Services Board to deny access to portions of police officers' notes related to an investigation involving the appellant.

The Police claimed exemptions under law enforcement and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that some information related to individuals acting in their employment capacities and was not personal information, ordering its disclosure.

Other information was found to be personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation and was exempt from disclosure.

The law enforcement exemption claim for one page was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Peterborough for fire department records relating to a specific address.

The City advised that the responsive records had been previously disclosed and declined to disclose them a second time.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant did not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that additional undisclosed records existed and that the City's search efforts were reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The requesters appealed the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to records relating to investigations into allegations of fraud and elder abuse at a residential care facility.

The Police claimed the law enforcement exemption, arguing that although the original investigations were closed, a coroner's investigation into deaths at the facility resulted in the reopening of the police investigations.

The Inquiry Officer found that while a coroner's investigation itself does not qualify as a law enforcement matter, the police's authority to reinvestigate Criminal Code allegations does.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement matter and upheld the decision to deny access.

An insurance adjuster appealed the City of Toronto's decision to partially deny access to a fire department report under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the names of the building superintendent and Fire Marshall investigator, finding that information provided in a professional capacity does not qualify as personal information.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision to withhold the remaining information, concluding that it was highly sensitive personal information and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The requester appealed the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's decision to deny access to portions of her supervisory file under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Municipality claimed exemptions for invasion of privacy and danger to the mental or physical health of the requester.

The Inquiry Officer refused to consider additional discretionary exemptions raised late in the appeals process.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Municipality's decision to deny access to records containing the personal information of other individuals and medical information that could prejudice the requester's mental health, but ordered the disclosure of the remaining records.

The appellant, an exotic dancer who sustained an injury at a private event held at a facility owned by the Town of Milton, requested the name and address of the individual who rented the facility in order to pursue a civil claim.

The Town denied access under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that disclosure of the applicant's name was necessary for a fair determination of the appellant's rights under section 14(2)(d), outweighing privacy interests, but upheld the decision to withhold the address.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $76.50 provided by the Township for the preparation and photocopying of 45 pages of records responsive to a freedom of information request.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Township provided sufficient evidence to establish that the estimated fee of $67.50 for preparation time and $0.20 per page for photocopies was calculated in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and its regulations.

The Township's decision to charge the fee was upheld.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for her General Welfare Assistance file.

The City of Kingston disclosed some records but refused to confirm or deny the existence of additional records relating to a potential welfare fraud investigation, relying on section 8(3) of the Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that confirming or denying the existence of such records would communicate information that could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter under section 8(1)(a).

The appellant appealed the Niagara Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to a CPIC printout containing his personal information.

The Police claimed exemptions under sections 8(1)(a), (c), and (g) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that portions of the record relating to an ongoing investigation and computer access codes were exempt under sections 8(1)(a) and (g).

However, the remaining portions, including information about a past resolved matter and the appellant's personal information, did not qualify for exemption and were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant, a former employee of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, appealed the Municipality's decision to deny access to portions of an interdepartmental memorandum under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the undisclosed portions contained advice or recommendations setting out a suggested course of action.

Therefore, the information qualified for exemption under section 7(1) and section 38(a) of the Act.

The Municipality's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to a sexual assault investigation against him, which resulted in charges that were later withdrawn.

The appellant sought the records for a malicious prosecution lawsuit against his niece and her parents.

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

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the denial for most of the records under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the third parties' personal privacy.

However, the Commissioner ordered the disclosure of one passage from a police officer's notebook, finding it was not exempt under the law enforcement exemptions in section 8(2).

A teacher employed by the Metropolitan Separate School Board requested access to letters written to the Board regarding an article that referred to her.

The Board granted partial access but severed the names, addresses, and personal identifiers of the authors under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The requester appealed the denial of access to the identifying information.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's decision, finding that disclosure of the personal identifiers would constitute an unjustified invasion of the authors' personal privacy under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as the information was highly sensitive, provided in confidence, and associated with religious beliefs.

The requester appealed the City of Mississauga's decision to deny access to records concerning a proposed lap dancing by-law, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that most of the records qualified for exemption under either Branch 1 (common law privilege) or Branch 2 (prepared by counsel for legal advice) of section 12.

However, one record was ordered disclosed because it had been copied to a third-party police officer, which constituted a waiver of the privilege since no joint interest was established.