IPCO 1997

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board for records relating to domestic assaults by her husband.

The Police denied access to portions of the records, citing the invasion of privacy exemptions under sections 14(1) and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while the records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, applying the presumption against disclosure to information the appellant herself provided or was present for would lead to an absurd result.

The Police were ordered to disclose those portions.

The Inquiry Officer also found the Police's search for records was reasonable.

The appellants sought access to a police occurrence report regarding a motor vehicle accident in which their son was killed.

The Waterloo Regional Police Services Board granted partial access, withholding certain information under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

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 and its 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.

The appellant appealed the Town of Niagara-On-The-Lake's response to a freedom of information request, arguing that additional records from a December 23, 1996 meeting should exist.

The Town provided evidence that it searched the relevant offices and that the employees present at the meeting did not have any notes.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Town's search for responsive records was reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, a sewage hauler, submitted a freedom of information request to the Health Unit for the names, addresses, and approved disposal sites of all licensed sewage haulers in the area.

The Health Unit denied access under the third party information exemption in section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained commercial information, not personal information.

However, the exemption under section 10(1) did not apply because the information was not supplied in confidence, as the Environmental Protection Act requires such certificates of approval to be made available to the public.

The Health Unit was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for records relating to the investigation of a complaint he filed against members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police.

The Police claimed the records were excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3), which excludes records relating to labour relations and employment-related matters.

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

The decision of the Police to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Regional Municipality of Halton's decision to deny access to the hourly and mileage rates contained in a bid from an appraisal firm under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information constituted commercial information supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the affected party's competitive position.

The decision to deny access under section 10(1)(a) was upheld.

The appellant submitted a request to the Township of Carlow under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to the selection process for the Township's Road Superintendent.

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

During mediation, it was revealed that some evaluation sheets had been destroyed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected in relation to meetings about an employment-related matter in which the Township had an interest, satisfying the requirements of section 52(3)3.

The records were therefore excluded from the scope of the Act.

The destruction of records was not referred to the Compliance Department because the Act did not apply to them.

The appellant submitted a request to the City of Toronto under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to all files in which his name appeared.

The City granted partial access but withheld portions of counselling records containing allegations made by another individual, citing the invasion of privacy exemptions in sections 14(1) and 38(b).

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that the information was highly sensitive, supplied in confidence, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's privacy.

The appellant, former owner of a trailer park, appealed a decision by the Health Unit to disclose records relating to complaints about a septic bed to an adjoining property owner.

The appellant objected to disclosure under the third party information exemption (s. 10(1)) and personal privacy exemptions (ss. 14(1), 38(b)) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records did not meet the three-part test for third party information, as they were not supplied in confidence and no harm was reasonably expected from disclosure.

Furthermore, the records related to a commercial operation and did not contain personal information.

The Health Unit's decision to disclose the records was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Sault Ste.

Marie Police Services Board denying access to records relating to a police investigation of a former teacher.

The Inquiry Officer found that several records were excluded from the scope of the Act under sections 52(3)1 and 3 as they related to employment and labour relations matters.

For the remaining records, the Inquiry Officer held that they were compiled as part of a police investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b).

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Townships for records relating to a $10,000 compensation payment made to a named individual for an alleged building permit error.

The Townships denied access to the records, citing third party information and invasion of privacy exemptions.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the records contained highly sensitive personal information supplied in confidence, and that the privacy interests outweighed the public interest in disclosure.

The public interest override was not met, as disclosure would not shed light on the operations of the Townships.

The Townships were ordered to disclose only a facsimile cover sheet that contained no personal information.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Windsor Police Services Board for records relating to his daughter, including whether she was under police protection.

The Police refused to confirm or deny the existence of records responsive to this question under section 14(5) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that disclosing the mere existence or non-existence of such records would reveal personal information and constitute an unjustified invasion of the daughter's personal privacy.

The appellant appealed the Lambton County Board of Education's decision to deny access to records relating to the appointment of supervisory officers.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected, prepared, maintained, or used in relation to meetings, consultations, discussions, or communications about employment-related matters in which the Board had an interest.

As a result, the records fell within the section 52(3)3 exclusion and the Board's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records detailing the salary range, benefits, and duration of severance payments for four former senior management employees of the City of Trenton.

The City denied access to the duration of the severance payments, claiming the invasion of privacy exemption under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information did not qualify as employment history under section 14(3)(d) or benefits under section 14(4)(a).

Balancing the factors under section 14(2), the Inquiry Officer concluded that the public interest in scrutinizing the expenditure of public funds and ensuring public confidence in the institution outweighed the privacy interests of the affected persons.

The City was ordered to disclose the duration of the severance payments.

The appellant requested access to a videotape of his statements to the police regarding unsubstantiated child abuse allegations against his daughter's mother and grandparents.

The police denied access under various exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that disclosure of the videotape would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the affected persons under section 38(b) of the Act, given the sensitive nature of the information and the risk of unfair exposure to harm and harassment.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $780 provided by the Regional Municipality of Halton for responding to a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The request sought a list of appraisal assignments and quotes from a named appraisal firm.

Halton estimated it would take 26 hours to search 71 property files, based on its actual experience of taking 2.5 hours to search seven files for a previous narrowed request.

The Inquiry Officer found the fee estimate to be reasonable and upheld Halton's decision.

The appellant, representing the families of two women killed in a motor vehicle accident, requested access to police investigation records including witness statements and photographs.

The Police denied access under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing law enforcement and privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant's clients could not exercise the deceased's access rights as the request did not relate to estate administration.

The law enforcement exemption did not apply as the records were not 'reports'.

However, the privacy exemptions applied to most of the records, except for photographs, a record with no personal information, and information supplied by the requester's client, which were ordered disclosed.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Vaughan for Fire Department inspection reports related to an identified property.

The City denied access, citing the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Provincial Fire Code.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Act and upheld the City's decision.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of approximately $10,000 provided by the Bruce-Grey County Roman Catholic Separate School Board in response to a multi-part request for records relating to architects, contractors, and consultants used by the Board over the past 15 to 30 years.

The Board provided detailed calculations of the search time required to locate the records in its vault, warehouse, microfiche, and office files.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's fee estimate was reasonable given the state of its filing system and the broad scope of the request, and upheld the Board's decision.

The appellant filed 26 appeals from decisions of the City of Mississauga regarding numerous freedom of information requests.

The City refused to process the requests, claiming they were frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant's pattern of conduct, which included filing duplicative requests, appealing when access was granted, and using the process to harass City staff, amounted to an abuse of the right of access.

The appeals were dismissed, and conditions were imposed limiting the appellant to one active request or appeal at a time, up to a maximum of five per year.