IPCO 1996

The requester appealed the City of Kingston's decision to deny access to a portion of their general welfare assistance file under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The withheld information consisted of notes identifying a confidential informant who provided information leading to an investigation of the requester's eligibility for social assistance.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City was not required to notify the informant under section 21, as it did not intend to disclose the information.

Furthermore, the Inquiry Officer held that the information was exempt from disclosure under sections 8(1)(d) and 38(a) because it related to a law enforcement matter and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal the identity of a confidential source.

The City's decision was upheld.

The requester sought the names and addresses of all charitable institutions licensed by the City of London to sell break-open tickets.

The City compiled a computerized list and charged a fee of $484.00 for the preparation of the record.

The requester appealed the fee amount.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the fee, finding that the charges for preparing the record for disclosure were reasonable and in accordance with section 45 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and section 6 of Regulation 823.

The appellant, a former employee of the Township of Ratter and Dunnet, appealed the Township's decision to deny access to statements in his personnel file relating to a municipal election.

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

The Inquiry Officer found no reasonable apprehension of bias regarding the Reeve's participation in the access decision.

However, the Officer concluded that the records did not qualify as evaluative or opinion material compiled solely for determining employment suitability.

The Township was ordered to disclose the records, with third-party personal information severed.

The appellant, whose appointment to the Etobicoke Public Art Advisory Committee was rescinded, requested access to a report from the Chair of the Etobicoke Municipal Arts Commission.

The City of Etobicoke denied access, claiming exemptions for closed meetings and advice or recommendations.

The Inquiry Officer found that the report contained the appellant's personal information and that the City failed to establish that the exemptions under sections 6(1)(b) and 7(1) applied.

Furthermore, the City did not establish that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b).

The City was ordered to disclose the report.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to a 1975-1976 investigation into allegations of abuse at a group home.

The Cornwall Police Services Board denied access to most records under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the search warrant application did not qualify as a 'report' under the law enforcement exemption.

However, the records were exempt as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, having been compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

Although there was a compelling public interest in examining the child welfare system, it did not clearly outweigh the privacy interests of the named individuals.

The appeal was partially allowed to disclose a few records containing only the appellant's personal information.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board for the names of individuals who filed complaints against the appellant.

The Police denied access, citing various exemptions including invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the complainants' names constituted personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

Therefore, under section 14(3)(b), disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The decision of the Police to withhold the names under section 38(b) was upheld.

The Township received requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a special auditor's report and an employee's complaint letter regarding the Parks and Recreation Department.

The Township denied access citing invasion of privacy and advice/recommendations exemptions.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the letter and parts of the report contained personal information and were exempt from disclosure.

However, factual portions of the report regarding internal procedures were ordered disclosed as they fell under the mandatory exception for reports on the performance or efficiency of an institution.

The public interest override was found not to apply.

The appellant requested records relating to an investigation and subsequent discipline of an OC Transpo operator following an incident with a member of the public.

OC Transpo denied access under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that one record related to labour relations of an interprovincial undertaking and was outside the Act's jurisdiction.

The remaining records contained personal information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The public interest override in section 16 did not apply.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester sought access to all their personal information held by the City of Hamilton across various departments.

The City issued a fee estimate of $1,059.30 for search time and denied the requester's application for a fee waiver, arguing the request was exceptional and non-routine.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that section 45(2) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act strictly prohibits an institution from charging a fee for access to an individual's own personal information.

The City was ordered to complete its search and issue an access decision without charging fees.

The requester made 36 separate access requests to the Town of Penetanguishene under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Town claimed a 213-day time extension for each request, arguing that the volume of requests would unreasonably interfere with its operations, and further alleged that the requester's actions constituted an abuse of process.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the requester's conduct did not amount to an abuse of process.

The Commissioner also held that section 20(1)(a) of the Act requires each request to be considered separately, and that the Town could not rely on the cumulative effect of multiple requests to justify a time extension.

The Town was ordered to issue access decisions within 30 days.

The appellant appealed the County of Wellington's decision to deny access to portions of his General Welfare Assistance file under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant also claimed that additional records should exist and that the copies provided were incomplete.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption for a two-page letter and portions of a narrative sheet, finding their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The search for records was deemed reasonable, but the County was ordered to allow the appellant to review the original file to identify any missing pages from the copies provided.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Orillia for municipal water testing results.

The City provided a fee estimate of $196.40 and denied a fee waiver, stating it was not their policy to waive fees.

The appellant appealed the denial of the fee waiver.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the records related to a public health issue, it would not be fair and equitable to waive the fee because the requested information was available free of charge from the Ministry of Environment and Energy.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant requested access to their test results and test paper from an unsuccessful application for a transit operator position with the City of Mississauga.

The City denied access to the test questions under section 11(h) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming they were questions to be used in an examination or test for an educational purpose.

The Inquiry Officer found that the test was used for an employment-related purpose, not an educational purpose, and ordered the City to disclose the test paper in its entirety.

A journalist appealed the London Police Services Board's decision to deny access to a videotape shown at a Coroner's Inquest regarding an individual who died in police custody.

The Inquiry Officer found that the videotape contained highly sensitive personal information of the deceased and another individual.

The Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply because the police's actions had already been scrutinized through the inquest and a Special Investigations Unit investigation.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board for information regarding another individual's criminal history.

The Police refused to confirm or deny the existence of any responsive records pursuant to section 14(5) of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that the requested information is highly sensitive and that disclosing even the existence or non-existence of such records would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Leeds, Grenville and Lanark District Health Unit for records relating to employee group insurance policies and her own employment.

The Health Unit provided some records, but the appellant appealed, arguing more records should exist.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Health Unit failed to provide sufficient evidence to show it had made a reasonable effort to identify and locate all responsive records, and ordered the Health Unit to conduct a further search.

The appellant appealed the City of Orillia's decision to deny access to a severance agreement between the City and its former Fire Chief.

The City claimed the record was exempt 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 agreement was considered and approved during in camera meetings of the Committee of the Whole Council, which were properly closed to the public under the Municipal Act.

Consequently, disclosure would reveal the substance of the Committee's deliberations.

The public interest override in section 16 does not apply to section 6.

The City's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to the name of a person who filed a by-law enforcement complaint about their property.

The Township of Shuniah denied the request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing third-party information and invasion of privacy.

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the record contained the personal information of both the appellant and the complainant.

Applying section 38(b) of the Act, the Inquiry Officer determined that disclosing the complainant's name would constitute an unjustified invasion of their personal privacy.

The Township's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant, a former employee of the City of Toronto, appealed the City's decision to deny access to portions of counselling notes and a hospital letter under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The City claimed the records were exempt under section 38(d) as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the appellant's mental or physical health.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City failed to provide evidence demonstrating such prejudice and ordered the disclosure of the withheld records.

The appellant requested access to representations made by the Police in a previous appeal before the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The Police denied access under section 41(13) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing section 41(13) is not an exemption.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that section 41(13) precludes access to representations made to the Commissioner by another person, and the circumstances did not constitute an extremely unusual case warranting an exception.