IPCO 1997

The appellant appealed the Town of Dryden's decision to deny access to minutes of an in-camera meeting and a letter from a third party regarding airport rate increases.

The Town claimed exemptions under sections 6(1)(b) (closed meeting) and 10(1) (third party information) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Town was not authorized by statute to hold a closed meeting for 'negotiation issues', so section 6(1)(b) did not apply.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the third party's expectation of confidentiality was not reasonable because the letter had been discussed at an open meeting, so section 10(1) did not apply.

The Town was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant appealed the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's decision to deny access to their General Welfare Assistance file and investigation file under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Municipality claimed exemptions under sections 12 (solicitor-client privilege) and 38(a) (discretion to refuse requester's own information).

The Inquiry Officer found that the records either constituted confidential communications between the Municipality and its legal counsel or were compiled for the lawyer's brief in ongoing litigation.

The Municipality's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the East York Board of Education denying access to computer network user names and newsgroup subscription lists under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board claimed the security exemption under section 8(1)(i).

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's decision, finding that disclosure of the requested information could reasonably be expected to endanger the security of the Board's computer systems and expose students to unwanted information.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the London Police Services Board for a list of registered alarm companies.

The Police disclosed the names but withheld the business addresses, claiming exemptions for third party information and law enforcement.

The Inquiry Officer found that the addresses did not qualify as commercial or financial information under section 10(1) and that their disclosure could not reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or endanger security under section 8(1).

The Police were ordered to disclose the addresses.

The appellant, an unsuccessful job candidate involved in human rights litigation with the school board, made a voluminous request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to legal fees, hiring processes, and administrative expenses.

The board identified numerous records, claimed various exemptions, and issued an interim fee estimate of $46,205.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found the board's search for records was reasonable.

The fee estimate was slightly reduced to $45,680 after disallowing unsubstantiated associated costs.

The Inquiry Officer also reviewed the application of exemptions including solicitor-client privilege, closed meetings, and personal privacy, upholding the board's decision to withhold certain records while ordering the disclosure of others.

A former employee of the Town of Oakville appealed the Town's decision to deny access to a 1990 operational review report of the Department of Public Works.

The Town claimed the record was excluded from the Act under section 52(3)3 (labour relations) and exempt under sections 6(1)(b) (closed meeting), 11(f) (economic interests), and 7(1) (advice or recommendations).

The Inquiry Officer found that the record was subject to the Act and that none of the exemptions applied.

Specifically, the report fell within the mandatory exception in section 7(2)(e) as a report on the performance or efficiency of an institution.

The Town was ordered to disclose the record in its entirety.

The appellant, who had been convicted of sexual assaults, submitted a freedom of information request to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board for records relating to contacts the police had with other agencies concerning him.

The police denied access to 41 pages of records under various exemptions, including invasion of privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the police's decision, finding that the records contained personal information of the appellant and other individuals, and that disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant filed an appeal of a freedom of information decision seven months after the decision was issued.

The City argued the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction due to the 30-day time limit in section 39(2) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Although the City's decision letter failed to advise the appellant of the 30-day time limit, the Inquiry Officer found the seven-month delay was substantial and the appellant would not be prejudiced by strict adherence to the time limit, as he could file a new request.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant sought access to his fingerprint records from the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police agreed to release the records but required the appellant to attend in person to verify his identity through fingerprint analysis.

The Inquiry Officer found that since the Police had already verified the appellant's identity to their satisfaction before releasing other personal information, the additional requirement of personal attendance for fingerprint analysis was unnecessary and unreasonable.

The Police were ordered to send a copy of the fingerprints to the appellant.

Two journalists requested access to dockets listing the names of police officers charged under the Police Services Act.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denied access, claiming the records fell under the labour relations and employment exclusion in section 52(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the dockets were prepared as part of the Police's tribunal function to facilitate open hearings, not in their capacity as an employer.

Therefore, the records did not fall within the section 52(3) exclusion and the Police were ordered to issue a new access decision.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Woodstock Police Services Board regarding a freedom of information request for records related to an investigation into allegations of perjury.

The appellant argued that the police's search for records was not sufficiently thorough, particularly regarding contact with another police agency.

The Inquiry Officer found that the police failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate a reasonable effort to identify and locate responsive records, relying solely on the former Chief's statements without detailing actual searches of record holdings.

The police were ordered to conduct a further search.

The appellants, acting as Estate Trustees Without a Will for their deceased father, requested police records relating to the boating accident that resulted in his death.

The Halton Regional Police Services Board denied access, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions, and disputed the father's death.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellants qualified as personal representatives under section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and required the records to administer the estate.

The law enforcement exemption was rejected because the records were mere observations, not formal reports.

The privacy exemptions were upheld only for information relating to other identifiable individuals, while information relating to the deceased, the appellants, and a consenting affected person was ordered disclosed.

The appellant submitted multiple freedom of information requests to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for records relating to a co-operative housing development.

The Ministry and several affected third parties objected to disclosure, claiming exemptions under sections 17(1) and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that certain records contained personal information exempt under section 21(1).

Additionally, some records contained third party commercial and financial information supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive positions of the third parties, qualifying for exemption under section 17(1).

The appellant's argument for a public interest override under section 23 was dismissed.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records and portions of records.

The appellant faxed a letter to the Ministry of Environment requesting a copy of Electromagnetic Leachate Mapping.

The Ministry advised the appellant to submit a formal request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Co-ordinator.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's response instead.

The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's letter did not constitute a proper request under the Act because it did not include the prescribed fee or specify that it was made under the Act.

The appellant, a victim of a serious assault, requested access to the prosecution file relating to the criminal proceedings against the individuals charged with the assault.

The Ministry of the Attorney General initially denied access claiming solicitor-client privilege, and later claimed additional exemptions including law enforcement and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose certain records to which no mandatory exemptions applied, but its decision to deny access to the remaining records was upheld.

The appellant requested statistics on the number of abortions performed by specific hospitals and clinics in 1994.

The Ministry of Health denied access to the record under sections 14(1)(e) and (i) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing that disclosure could endanger the life, safety, or security of the facilities and their staff due to the threat of anti-abortion violence.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding sufficient evidence that disclosing the specific numbers of abortions per facility could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of individuals associated with those facilities.

The appellant requested records relating to a police investigation from the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services.

The Ministry initially denied access under section 65(6) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, but later withdrew this claim and transferred the request to the Police under section 25(2), well beyond the 15-day statutory time limit.

The appellant appealed the transfer.

The Assistant Commissioner held that the Commissioner has jurisdiction to review transfer decisions and to uphold late transfers in appropriate circumstances.

However, applying administrative law principles, the Assistant Commissioner found that the delay prejudiced the appellant and the Ministry's late transfer decision was void.

The Ministry was ordered to issue a new access decision.

A pharmaceutical company requested access to records relating to the Ministry of Health's purchase of the drug AZT.

The Ministry denied access to the majority of the records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, third party information, economic interests, and solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the records and found that many were exempt under solicitor-client privilege and third party commercial information exemptions, as their disclosure could harm the competitive position of the affected party.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of certain records and portions of records that did not meet the criteria for exemption.

The public interest override was found not to apply.

A lawyer appealed the Ministry of the Environment's decision to deny access to certain records relating to a grant issued to a company under the Environmental Technologies Program.

The Ministry and the affected company argued the records were exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third party commercial and financial information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained financial and commercial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in undue loss or prejudice significantly the competitive position of the affected party.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Labour regarding potential conflicts of interest involving Ontario Labour Relations Board employees providing private arbitration services.

The Ministry denied access to several records, claiming they were excluded under the labour relations and employment-related matters exclusion in section 65(6)3 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that one record was exempt as a Cabinet record under section 12(1)(b).

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records related to employment matters in which the Ministry had a legal interest, and that disclosure of the remaining record would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.