IPCO 1996

The appellant requested access to records relating to a proposed 'No Loitering' by-law from the City of Oshawa.

The City denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for draft by-laws, solicitor-client privilege, and publicly available information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the draft by-law exemption did not apply to certain records because they were considered in public meetings.

However, the solicitor-client privilege exemption was upheld for legal opinions, confidential communications, and handwritten notes by legal counsel.

The City was ordered to disclose specific draft by-laws and provide information on the location of publicly available records.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $240 provided by the Township of Huron for three requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Township estimated eight hours of search time.

The Inquiry Officer found the eight-hour estimate reasonable due to the complexity and number of requests, but reduced the chargeable time by two hours to account for the free search time mandated by section 45(1)(a) of the Act.

The fee was adjusted to $180 for six hours of chargeable search time, plus photocopy fees.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to the death of her husband.

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

The appellant argued she was entitled to the records as the administratrix of her husband's estate under section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant failed to demonstrate the request related to the administration of the estate.

The Officer further held that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(1).

The police decision was upheld.

The requester appealed the City of Oshawa's fee estimate for processing a freedom of information request containing multiple items.

The requester argued each item should be treated as a separate request, entitling them to two free hours of search time per item.

The Assistant Commissioner found that chargeable search time should be calculated based on the distinct departmental searches required, not the number of items listed.

The total chargeable search time was reduced.

The Assistant Commissioner also ordered the immediate disclosure of the requester's personnel records, finding the City had no basis to withhold them pending payment of fees for general records.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Penetanguishene Police Services Board, which had refused to process a request for personal information on the grounds that it constituted an abuse of process.

The Inquiry Officer found that the request, which sought access to the appellant's own personal information, did not meet the criteria for an abuse of process established in previous orders.

The Police were ordered to issue a decision regarding access to the requested items.

The appellant appealed the Sudbury Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to records relating to allegations of sexual abuse made against him.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer declined to consider additional discretionary exemptions raised late by the Police.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision to deny access under section 38(b), finding that disclosure of the records would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other identifiable individuals, as the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

The appellant, a tenant, requested access to building inspection records and work orders relating to his residence, and requested corrections to include his name and note other tenants.

The City of Toronto granted partial access, withholding some information under the invasion of privacy exemption (s. 14(1)), and declined to alter past enforcement records.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding the withheld information was exempt under sections 14(1) and 38(b) as it related to medical history and a law enforcement investigation.

The Commissioner also found it unreasonable to require the City to correct past enforcement records, though the appellant could request a statement of disagreement be attached.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to draft versions of a report prepared by the City Auditor regarding a property development project.

The City claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the undisclosed portions of the record contained personal evaluations of identifiable individuals, the disclosure of which would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(1).

The Inquiry Officer also held that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, as the public interest in disclosure did not clearly outweigh the privacy protection provisions.

The City was ordered to disclose the record with the exempt personal information severed.

The appellant requested records from the Town of Fort Erie relating to the drowning death of her son and the subsequent rescue attempt by the Fire Department.

The Town denied access to four witness statements completed by firefighters, citing the law enforcement exemption under section 8(2)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the statements did not meet the three-part test for the law enforcement exemption.

However, the Officer determined that the records contained personal information.

The firefighters' ranks, addresses, telephone numbers, and birthdates were found to be exempt under section 14(1) as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The remaining portions of the statements were ordered to be disclosed.

A company appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board to deny access to portions of a police investigation file concerning an employee suspected of fraud.

The company argued that a supervisor involved in the matter had implicitly consented to disclosure by initiating civil litigation against the company.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner rejected this argument, finding that civil discovery and freedom of information operate under different schemes.

The Commissioner upheld the Police's decision to withhold most of the records, as they contained personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation, the disclosure of which is presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

Minor portions not containing personal information were ordered disclosed.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to her central employee file.

The Board granted free access to new records but charged a fee for records previously disclosed to the appellant in a prior request.

The appellant appealed the fee.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board was not required to provide access to the previously disclosed records for a second time, as it had already fulfilled its obligations under the Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted multiple requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Mississauga for records relating to the Cawthra Woodlot.

The City provided full access to the responsive records.

The appellant appealed on the basis that the City failed to include references to where the records were located on its indexing systems.

The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal, finding that the City had properly discharged its responsibilities under section 19 of the Act and was not required to create new records linking the records management codes to the accessed records.

The appellant submitted requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for his and his wife's employment and General Welfare Assistance files.

The County failed to provide a written access decision for the first request and completely ignored the second request, resulting in a deemed refusal.

The appellant also complained that the copies provided were illegible.

The Inquiry Officer issued an interim order requiring the County to provide a proper decision letter in accordance with the Act and urged the County to provide legible copies or allow the appellant to examine the original records.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board that no records existed responsive to his request for information concerning two investigations in 1982 and 1983.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search of their computerized information bank and Intelligence Services records, and the appellant provided no cogent reasons to substantiate his claim that the requested records existed.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to portions of police records and a 911 tape related to two incidents.

The Police claimed the personal privacy exemption under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption for information provided by third parties, but ordered the disclosure of information originally provided by the appellant, finding that applying the exemption to her own information would lead to an absurd result.

The Police were also ordered to conduct a further search for a statement allegedly made by the appellant's son.

The appellant requested access to records establishing the amount of compensation payable to the Metropolitan Separate School Board by a developer.

The Board denied access to four records, claiming exemptions for closed meetings, solicitor-client privilege, and economic interests.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the exemptions for the closed meeting report and the solicitor-client correspondence regarding settlement negotiations.

However, the Commissioner ordered the disclosure of the dollar amount of the agreement, finding that its disclosure would not prejudice the Board's economic interests, while upholding the exemption for the remaining terms and conditions of the agreement.

The public interest override was found not to apply to the exempted portions.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Durham Regional Police Services Board regarding a request for access to police officers' notebooks.

The Police denied access to portions of the notebooks under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing exemptions for invasion of privacy and facilitating the commission of an unlawful act, and stated that one officer's notebook did not exist.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the exemptions for personal information and police codes, and found the Police's search for the missing notebook was reasonable.

However, the Police were ordered to disclose the times recorded in one of the notebooks.

The requester appealed the Township's decision to deny access to records relating to Ontario Home Renewal Program loan applications made by two elected officials.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information subject to the presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, the Inquiry Officer applied the public interest override in section 16, finding a compelling public interest in disclosing two loan application forms to inform the public about the propriety of the elected officials' activities.

The Township was ordered to disclose the two forms.

A public body appealed the decision of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board to deny access to portions of a sudden death report concerning an individual who died on the public body's property.

The Police claimed the withheld 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 withheld information, including a police code, was responsive to the request and qualified as personal information.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, concluding that the information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and its disclosure was presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The requester appealed the City of Sault Ste.

Marie's decision to deny access to records regarding lottery reports, ticket sales, revenues, and expenses of a named group issued Break Open Ticket Lottery Licences.

The City claimed the mandatory third party information exemption under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records did not meet the confidentiality or harms tests required for the exemption.

However, the addresses and telephone numbers of the affected party's officers were severed to protect personal privacy under sections 2 and 14 of the Act.

The City was ordered to disclose the remaining records.