IPCO 1997

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Town of Whitby for records relating to an industrial construction project.

The Town issued a fee estimate of $128, which the appellant appealed, along with the reasonableness of the Town's search for records.

The Inquiry Officer reduced the fee to $38, finding the estimated search and preparation times excessive for a single property file.

The Officer also found the search unreasonable and ordered the Town to conduct a further search, including consulting the relevant Building Inspector.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto for computer spreadsheet models related to the Blue Box recycling system's cost allocation.

The Municipality denied access under section 11(e) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the records contained criteria for ongoing negotiations with the packaging industry.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Municipality's decision, finding that the four-part test for the section 11(e) exemption was met and that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply.

The appellant requested access to police reports regarding an altercation and assault investigation in which he was involved.

The Niagara Regional Police Services Board granted partial access but withheld portions containing the personal information of the other driver and a witness.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the withheld information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law (assault under the Criminal Code).

Therefore, its disclosure was presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and it was properly exempt under section 38(b).

The appellant requested records from the Township of Rideau relating to a rezoning issue.

The Township granted partial access, denied access to three records claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and charged a fee.

The appellant appealed the denial of access and the Township's refusal to waive the fee.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Township's decision, finding that the three records were subject to common law solicitor-client privilege and that the appellant failed to demonstrate that dissemination of the records would benefit public health or safety to justify a fee waiver.

A newspaper reporter requested access to police records relating to the investigation of a series of sexual assaults in 1985 and 1986.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denied access to the majority of the records, claiming various exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records fell outside the Act's jurisdiction as employment-related matters, while others were exempt under provisions protecting personal privacy, closed meeting deliberations, solicitor-client privilege, and law enforcement investigative techniques.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of certain records, including court documents and press clippings, with personal identifiers removed.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Townships of Belmont and Methuen for various accounting records.

The Townships withheld information identifying an individual with tax arrears under the invasion of privacy exemption and charged a fee of $40.50.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the privacy exemption, finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also reviewed the fee calculation, reducing the total fee to $24.00 by pro-rating computer and preparation costs.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board to deny access to records relating to the investigation of public complaints against police officers.

The Police claimed the records were excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under the employment and labour relations exclusion in section 52(3).

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected and used in relation to an employment-related matter in which the Police have an interest.

The decision of the Police was upheld and the records were found to be excluded from the Act.

The appellant requested records relating to police surveillance of him following a February 1995 incident.

The Police denied access to an occurrence report and officer's notes under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and refused to confirm or deny the existence of surveillance records under section 8(3).

The Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption under section 38(b), finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

However, the Officer found that the Police could not rely on section 8(3) to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of surveillance records, and confirmed that no such records exist.

A newspaper reporter appealed the Essex County Roman Catholic Separate School Board's decision to deny access to separation agreements and closed meeting minutes concerning two former senior employees.

The Inquiry Officer found that the meeting minutes were excluded from the Act under the labour relations exclusion.

While the separation agreements were subject to the Act, they were exempt from disclosure under the closed meeting exemption because their release would reveal the substance of deliberations from an authorized in-camera meeting.

The public interest override did not apply to this exemption.

The appellant, a solicitor representing the family of a deceased individual shot by police, appealed the police's decision to deny access to records relating to the deceased.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant did not establish he was the deceased's personal representative under section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Furthermore, the records were exempt from disclosure under section 14(1) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, given they were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Peel Regional Police Services Board to deny access to records relating to a fatal motor vehicle accident involving the appellant's father.

The Police claimed the records were exempt under the personal privacy exemption in section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the presumption in section 14(3)(b) applied to most of the records, as they were compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

However, applying the 'absurd result' principle, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of specific pages containing information already known to the appellant, while upholding the exemption for the remaining records.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to various records relating to complaints of toxic mould in a named building.

The City claimed exemptions under sections 7(1), 10(1), 11, 12, 14, and 38 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third party information exemption under section 10(1) did not apply because the prospect of harm was not established.

The solicitor-client privilege exemption under section 12 was upheld for one record.

The personal information exemptions under sections 14 and 38(b) were upheld for several records, as disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the City's search for responsive records was reasonable.

The City was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records to the appellant.

The appellant requested a copy of a report prepared by the City Solicitor regarding a proposed by-law dealing with the licensing of adult video stores.

The City denied access, claiming the record was exempt under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act due to solicitor-client privilege.

The appellant argued that the City had impliedly waived privilege by referencing the report in other documents and distributing it internally.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record was subject to common law solicitor-client privilege and that the City's conduct did not demonstrate an intention to waive that privilege.

The City's decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed the City of Oshawa's decision denying access to records relating to road and sidewalk inspections, snow removal, and maintenance for a specific intersection during a two-month period.

The City claimed no responsive records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate it made a reasonable effort to identify and locate responsive records, noting that one of the roads was under regional jurisdiction and the City's policy did not require maintaining specific records for salting or plowing assignments.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested a list of all alarm companies registered with the London Police Services Board.

The Police disclosed the names but withheld the addresses under various exemptions.

In a previous order, the Inquiry Officer ordered disclosure.

An affected alarm company requested reconsideration, arguing a lack of procedural fairness because affected parties were not notified.

The Inquiry Officer agreed to reconsider the order and invited representations from all affected parties.

After considering the representations, the Inquiry Officer found that the addresses were not exempt under sections 8(1) or 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as they are generally in the public realm.

The original order to disclose the addresses was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Etobicoke for a City Councillor's cellular telephone billing records.

The City initially refused to confirm or deny the existence of the records, but later disclosed them after the Councillor consented.

The appellant appealed, alleging that the City employees who made the decisions lacked valid delegations of authority.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City Council, as the 'head' under the Act, had lawfully delegated its powers, and the employee who signed the decision letters had the authority to do so.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Halton Regional Police Services Board denying access to records relating to a criminal complaint made against the appellant by another individual.

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 against disclosure in section 14(3)(b).

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision to deny access, concluding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b).

The appellant appealed a decision by the Niagara Regional Police Services Board denying access to records relating to a police response to a parked private investigation agency vehicle.

The records included a 911 call tape, dispatcher conversations, and an Incident History.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information of individuals other than the appellant, and that disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as the information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

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

The appeal was partially allowed to disclose non-exempt portions of the records.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to an investigation of a fire at their business premises.

The Police denied access under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

During mediation, arson charges were laid against the appellant.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision to deny access under section 38(a) in conjunction with section 8(1)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, finding that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement matter before the courts.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the County of Renfrew for records relating to an incident at his wife's place of employment.

The County denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Act under section 52(3).

The appellant appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected and used in relation to an investigation, discipline, and a grievance, which are employment-related matters in which the County has an interest.

The appeal was dismissed, and the records were held to be excluded from the Act.