IPCO 1996

A requester sought access to investigation and staff reports concerning a situation at a secondary school that resulted in the firing of several teachers.

The Toronto Board of Education denied access, claiming multiple exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the records were exempt under section 6(1)(b) because their disclosure would reveal the actual substance of the Board's in camera deliberations.

The public interest override in section 16 was found inapplicable to the section 6(1)(b) exemption.

The Board's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested statistical reports from the London Police Services Board under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police charged a fee of $4.40 for photocopying and postage and refused the appellant's request for a fee waiver.

The appellant appealed the refusal.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police failed to give appropriate weight to section 8 of Regulation 517/90, which requires considering whether a fee under $5 is too small to justify requiring payment.

The Officer ordered the Police to waive the fee and disclose the records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board for a police incident report regarding a fraud investigation.

The Police disclosed some records but withheld others under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that disclosure of information originally provided by the appellant would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

Furthermore, a supplementary occurrence report did not qualify as a 'report' under the law enforcement exemption because it merely recorded observations rather than formal results.

The Police were ordered to disclose the improperly withheld portion, while the decision to withhold the remaining records was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the York Region Board of Education for the names of teachers who did not attend a specific staff meeting.

The Board denied access, claiming the information was personal information and its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the mere fact of non-attendance at a staff meeting does not constitute personal information, as it relates to professional duties and does not reveal personal details when combined with previously released general reasons for absence.

The Board was ordered to disclose the names.

The requester appealed the Township's decision to deny access to records relating to her complaint of sexual and other harassment.

The Township claimed the records were excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)3.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were prepared by the Township's solicitors for use in meetings and discussions about employment-related matters in which the Township had a legal interest.

As a result, the records fell within the section 52(3)3 exclusion, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Town of Milton for a report regarding an Ontario Municipal Board decision.

The Town denied access, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations and solicitor-client privilege.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the report primarily contained a synopsis of the decision and did not qualify as advice or recommendations.

Furthermore, the Town failed to provide evidence that the record was created for litigation or intended for legal counsel, so solicitor-client privilege did not apply.

The Town was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $900 provided by the Hamilton-Wentworth Roman Catholic Separate School Board for 30 hours of search time to locate records relating to a school construction contract.

The appellant argued that the Board should only recover actual expenses and not charge for search time performed by its own employees.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the fee estimate, finding that the Board is entitled under section 45(1)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to recover costs for manual search time at the prescribed rate of $30 per hour, and that the estimated time was reasonable given the locations and volume of records to be searched.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to her personnel file and other records held by the Essex County Board of Education.

The Board denied access to 13 records, claiming they fell outside the scope of the Act under sections 52(3)1 and 3.

The appellant appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected, prepared, maintained, or used in relation to a grievance arbitration concerning the appellant's termination, which constitutes a proceeding relating to labour relations.

As such, the records were excluded from the Act under section 52(3)1, and the Board's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Metropolitan Separate School Board's decision to deny access to certain records from their personnel file under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board claimed the records were excluded from the Act under the labour relations and employment provisions in section 52(3), and alternatively exempt under section 38(b) as an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Act applied to the records, as the criminal proceedings and related communications were not sufficiently connected to labour relations or employment.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the privacy exemption for pages 1 and 3 of the record, ordering only the disclosure of page 2, and found the Board's search for records was reasonable.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Regional Municipality of Peel for records relating to a workplace harassment investigation against the appellant.

The Municipality denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under sections 52(3)1 and 52(3)3.

The Inquiry Officer found that while section 52(3)1 did not apply because the records were not prepared in relation to the subsequent grievance proceeding, section 52(3)3 did apply.

The records were prepared in relation to meetings and communications about an employment-related matter in which the Municipality had an interest, specifically its potential liability under the Human Rights Code.

The appeal was dismissed and the Municipality's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records respecting complaints about his dogs from the City of Nepean under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The City granted partial access but withheld the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of two complainants, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information was compiled as part of an investigation into possible by-law violations.

Consequently, its disclosure was presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Act.

The City's decision to deny access under section 38(b) was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records relating to dog attacks at a specified address from the City of Scarborough.

The City granted partial access but withheld the name and telephone number of the dog's owner under the personal privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information qualified as personal information and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the dog owner's personal privacy under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as the information was highly sensitive.

The City's decision was upheld.

The appellant, a member of the media, requested access to Crime Stoppers telephone tapes, transcripts, and search warrant documents related to a child pornography investigation.

The Police denied access, stating Crime Stoppers records were not in their custody or control, and the search warrant documents were exempt under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Police's decision, finding that Crime Stoppers is an independent organization, the Police do not have custody or control of its records, and the search warrant documents contain personal information subject to a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy that is not outweighed by the public interest override.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to a witness statement and supplementary police reports related to a murder investigation in which the appellant was a suspect but later exonerated.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

Under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, disclosure of such information is presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, and this presumption could not be rebutted by the appellant's claim that the information was needed for a fair determination of his rights.

The appellant, representing a driver involved in a motor vehicle accident, appealed the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to portions of police records relating to the accident.

The Police withheld personal information of the second driver and a pedestrian under the personal privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, as there was no compelling public interest in disclosure for the purpose of a civil suit.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant made a 13-part request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Lanark County Board of Education for various financial and personnel records.

The Board issued a fee estimate of $180, which the appellant appealed, arguing that each of the 13 items should be treated as a separate request entitled to two hours of free search time.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appropriate calculation of chargeable search time is based on the actual activity of searching for records, not the wording of the request.

The Board's fee estimate was upheld as reasonable.

The appellant, the Guelph Mercury, appealed the City of Guelph's decision to deny access to a Fire Station Location Study prepared by the Office of the Fire Marshal.

On reconsideration, the City claimed the record was excluded under section 52(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act because it related to labour negotiations, and exempt under section 9(1)(b) as information received in confidence from the provincial government.

The Inquiry Officer found that the report was not sufficiently connected to labour negotiations to be excluded under section 52(3).

Furthermore, the Ministry confirmed there was no expectation of confidentiality regarding the report, meaning section 9(1)(b) did not apply.

The City was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant submitted multiple freedom of information requests to the City of Mississauga, including one for records pertaining to the City's Active and Inactive Indexing Record System (ARIS/IRIS) regarding a specific property.

The City denied access, claiming it was only required under section 25 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to maintain and provide a Classes of Records Directory.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the Directory was not responsive to the request.

The Commissioner identified a specific one-page listing of ARIS/IRIS file holdings as the responsive record and ordered the City to issue a proper access decision regarding that document under section 19 of the Act.

The appellant made requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to the Township's General Accounts.

The Township disclosed the accounts with some information severed, later claiming the invasion of privacy exemption.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found the appeal was timely because the initial disclosure did not include a proper decision letter.

The Inquiry Officer declined to consider new discretionary exemptions raised late by the Township.

Ultimately, the Inquiry Officer upheld the severance of names of individuals but ordered the disclosure of the remaining information, including pension fund contributions and legal services details.

The appellant appealed the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's decision that it could not locate a letter sent to its Social Services Division by the appellant's landlord.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner reviewed the affidavit provided by the Municipality detailing the searches undertaken.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Municipality had taken all reasonable steps to locate the requested record and dismissed the appeal.