IPCO 1997

The appellant requested access to a Special Investigations Unit (SIU) report relating to a police shooting death.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access, claiming the record was exempt as a law enforcement report under section 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the public interest override in section 11(1) applied.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Commissioner does not have the power to order disclosure under section 11(1), as that duty belongs solely to the head of the institution.

The Inquiry Officer further held that the SIU Director's report met the three-part test for exemption under section 14(2)(a), as it was a formal report prepared in the course of a law enforcement investigation by an agency with the function of enforcing compliance with a law.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to certain records related to a police complaint file under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer refused to expand the scope of the appeal beyond the records identified during mediation and found that the Ministry's decision letter met statutory requirements.

The withheld records were found to be exempt under section 49(b) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

Finally, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the Ministry conducted a reasonable search for responsive records, including the requested interim and final reports.

The appellant sought access to records concerning a job competition in which he was an unsuccessful candidate.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6).

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected in relation to a job competition, which is an employment-related matter in which the Ministry has an interest.

As a result, the records fell within the section 65(6)3 exclusion and the Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Board denying access to the amount of pension benefits received by a named individual over a ten-year period.

The Board claimed the information was exempt under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the pension amounts constituted personal information and their disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 21(3)(f).

The Officer also determined that the pension amounts did not qualify as 'benefits' under the exception in section 21(4)(a) and that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The Board's decision was upheld.

The appellant, a member of the media, appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to a transcript of an examination of a named individual.

The Ministry denied access under the personal privacy and solicitor-client privilege exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained highly sensitive personal financial information and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override did not apply, as any public interest had already been served by the involvement of the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ministry of Environment and Energy regarding an access to information request for his employment records.

The appellant alleged that the Ministry failed to locate a specific employment contract he signed in 1995.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry conducted a reasonable search for the records, as experienced staff searched locations where the agreement might reasonably be located, despite the contract not being found.

The adequacy of the search was upheld, and the Ministry was ordered to issue an access decision regarding three newly located responsive records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision that no records existed responsive to his request for records relating to a personal injury lawsuit and adoption from the 1950s.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had conducted a reasonable search, noting that any such files would have been destroyed in accordance with the Ministry's record retention schedules.

The appeal was dismissed.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision that no further records existed regarding the calculation of retail sales tax assessed against it.

As a preliminary matter, the Inquiry Officer denied the requester's request for access to the Ministry's affidavit representations, finding no procedural fairness requirement for exchange in this case.

On the main issue, the Inquiry Officer found the Ministry's search reasonable, accepting its evidence that no further records existed because the audit was ongoing and no final assessment had been made.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Management Board of Cabinet to deny access to a report regarding alternative service delivery for translation services.

The institution claimed the record was exempt under the Cabinet records exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record was reviewed by the Management Board of Cabinet and formed the basis of its decision.

Disclosure would reveal the substance of the Executive Council committee's deliberations.

The institution's decision to deny access under section 12(1) of the Act was upheld.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services requested a reconsideration of Order P-1264, which had found that certain records were not excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6)3.

The Inquiry Officer determined that the previous order contained a jurisdictional error because the Ministry did have a legal interest in the records, which concerned staffing, attendance, and training.

Consequently, the records met all requirements of section 65(6)3 and were excluded from the Act.

The relevant provision of the previous order was rescinded.

The appellant, a tenant of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for records concerning her subsidized housing application.

The Ministry granted partial access, and the appellant appealed, arguing that further records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Ministry's search efforts, including an affidavit detailing the file management process, and concluded that the Ministry's search for responsive records was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The requester appealed the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board's decision to deny access to portions of records relating to an assault incident.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for invasion of privacy and facilitating the commission of a crime.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that the personal information was exempt under section 38(b) as its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy, and that the CPIC access codes were exempt under section 8(1)(l) as their disclosure could facilitate unauthorized access to the CPIC system.

The appellants, newspaper reporters, appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to computer data relating to police officers collected on the Public Complaints System.

The Police claimed the records were excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3) as employment-related records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected and maintained in relation to communications about employment-related matters in which the Police have an interest, specifically investigations under Part VI of the Police Services Act.

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

The appellant requested access to the minutes of a closed meeting of the Simcoe County Roman Catholic Separate School Board under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board responded that no such records existed, and the appellant appealed, arguing that minutes were kept.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's search for the records was reasonable, noting a misunderstanding between the appellant and the Board's Recording Secretary regarding the nature of the minutes kept for closed sessions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to six pages of documents relating to the appointment of a named individual to the Toronto Mayor's Committee on Community and Race Relations.

The City relied on the personal privacy exemption under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the personal information of the affected person, including employment history, educational history, and racial or ethnic origin.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and upheld the City's decision to deny access.

The requester appealed the City of Etobicoke Public Library Board's decision to deny access to portions of tender proposals for library shelving.

The Board claimed the records were exempt under section 10 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third party commercial information.

The Inquiry Officer applied a three-part test and found that unit prices and the Statement of Canadian Content were supplied in confidence and their disclosure could prejudice the affected parties' competitive position, thus qualifying for exemption.

However, the specification response forms and cover pages containing total quotation prices and bid deposits did not meet the test and were ordered disclosed.

The appellant sought access to the police investigation file concerning a motor vehicle accident in which his son died.

The Renfrew Police Services Board denied access, claiming exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were not excluded under the employment and labour relations provisions of section 52(3).

The Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption of the collision reports under the law enforcement exemption in section 8(2)(a), and the exemption of personal information of non-consenting individuals under the privacy exemption in section 14(1).

The Police were ordered to disclose photographs and the personal information of consenting witnesses, and to conduct a further search for additional records.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Orillia for records relating to structural and financial scenarios regarding the Orillia Police Service and alternate policing studies.

The City granted partial access and claimed exemptions.

The appellant appealed solely on the basis that more responsive records exist, particularly pre-dating 1991.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City's search for responsive records was reasonable, noting the extensive searches conducted by City staff in various record holdings and the application of the City's records retention schedule.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Borough of East York's decision to deny access to an agreement between the Borough and a financial institution regarding a realty tax installment plan.

The affected party objected to disclosure, claiming the record contained exempt third party information under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while standard clauses in the agreement were not supplied in confidence, the core concepts of the installment plan were supplied in confidence and their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the affected party's competitive position.

The Borough was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the record.

The appellant requested access to a police occurrence report regarding an incident where he and his dog were allegedly attacked by another dog.

The Halton Regional Police Services Board granted partial access but withheld the dog owner's personal information under the invasion of privacy and law enforcement exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer 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 an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b).