IPCO 1997

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Scarborough for a memorandum from a Development Control Engineer to the City Solicitor.

The City denied access, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the record met the criteria for common law solicitor-client privilege, the City had implicitly waived this privilege by placing the record in a publicly accessible file that had previously been viewed by another member of the public.

The City was ordered to disclose the record to the appellant.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board denying access to records related to a complaint of police misconduct.

The Inquiry Officer found that one record was exempt from disclosure as it would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy.

The remaining record, an internal investigation report, was found to be excluded from the scope of the Act under section 52(3)3 because it was collected and prepared in relation to an employment-related matter in which the Police have an interest.

The appellants requested copies of the certificates of competency of three operators employed at the Township of Collingwood's Pollution Control Plant.

The Township denied access, claiming disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy 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 or educational history, and noted that O. Reg. 435/93 requires the certificates to be conspicuously displayed at the workplace.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and ordered the Township to disclose the records.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to a contract between the City and a third-party company under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant raised preliminary issues regarding access to a detailed description of the record, access to the City's representations, and a Charter challenge to the inquiry process, all of which were dismissed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the contract contained commercial and financial information supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the company's competitive position.

The record was held to be exempt under section 10(1) of the Act, and the City's decision was upheld.

The appellant, acting as the litigation administrator for her deceased husband's estate, requested access to police records concerning his death and an alleged fraud.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denied access, citing an unjustified invasion of the deceased's personal privacy.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the appellant qualified as a 'personal representative' under section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and that her request related to the administration of the estate.

The Police were ordered to disclose the records in their entirety.

The requester, representing an insurance company, appealed the Sarnia Police Services Board's decision to deny access to records relating to a suspected arson investigation.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing the investigation was ongoing.

The Inquiry Officer found that the investigation had not been concluded and that premature disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement matter.

The decision to deny access under section 8(1)(b) was upheld.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Toronto for copies of a contract and amending agreements concerning food concessions in parks.

The City initially denied access but later abandoned its reliance on discretionary exemptions.

The third-party company objected to disclosure, arguing the records contained personal information and confidential third-party commercial information.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the records disclosed, finding that the information was either not personal, not supplied in confidence, or not reasonably expected to cause competitive harm or undue loss.

The appellant appealed the City of Stoney Creek's decision to deny access to minutes of meetings held by the City Review Committee regarding a proposed landfill site.

The City claimed exemptions under sections 7(1) (advice and recommendations), 11(e) (economic and other interests), and 12 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City could not raise discretionary exemptions late in the process without justification.

The Officer upheld the application of section 7(1) and section 12 to small portions of the records but ordered the disclosure of the majority of the records, finding that section 11(e) did not apply as the relevant negotiations had concluded.

The public interest override in section 16 was found not to apply to the exempt portions.

The appellant, a former employee, submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to a workplace harassment investigation that resulted in a reprimand.

The Township denied access to the consultant's investigation report, citing the employment records exclusion in section 52(3)3 of the Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Township's decision, finding that the report was prepared and used by the Township in relation to communications about an employment-related matter in which the Township had a legal interest.

The appellant requested a fee waiver for a freedom of information request regarding the revenues and expenditures of the Townships' Recreation Committee.

The Townships denied the fee waiver.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of financial hardship and that the disclosure of the records would not benefit public health or safety.

The appeal was dismissed and the Townships' decision to deny the fee waiver was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Township of Egremont to deny access to records relating to a tire dump on a neighbouring property.

The Township claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for solicitor-client privilege, relations with other governments, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the solicitor-client privilege exemption for certain records and the invasion of privacy exemption for one record and personal identifiers in others.

The Inquiry Officer found no compelling public interest to override the exemptions and ordered the disclosure of the remaining non-exempt records and severed portions.

The Township of Georgian Bay received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a copy of the appellant's building permit application and cottage plans.

The appellant objected to disclosure, claiming the records contained personal information and third-party information supplied in confidence, and that releasing the plans would infringe copyright.

The Inquiry Officer found that disclosure of the building permit application would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

Furthermore, the plans were not supplied in confidence and their disclosure under the Act does not constitute copyright infringement.

The Township's decision to disclose the records was upheld.

The appellant submitted a broad request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for all personal information held by the Peel Regional Police Services Board.

The Police advised that no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the Police failed to conduct a reasonable search and improperly destroyed records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police's decision to unilaterally narrow the search to three specific units was reasonable given the appellant's history of broad requests.

The search conducted by experienced employees in those units was deemed reasonable, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Michipicoten Township Police Services Board denying access to two witness statements related to an incident involving his wife.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The decision of the Police to withhold the records under section 38(b) was upheld.

The appellant requested access to an environmental assessment report regarding a proposed development site from the City of Toronto.

The City and the current property owner opposed disclosure, claiming the third party information exemption under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the record contained technical information supplied in confidence, the parties resisting disclosure failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of harm resulting from disclosure.

The City was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant submitted a 56-part request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Elliot Lake regarding land transactions.

The City refused access, claiming the request was frivolous or vexatious due to the appellant's pattern of conduct, including complaints and litigation.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City failed to establish that the request was part of a pattern of conduct amounting to an abuse of the right of access or interfering with operations, nor was it made for a purpose other than to obtain access.

The City was ordered to process the request.

The requesters appealed the County's decision regarding access to various employment and social assistance files.

The Inquiry Officer determined that recent amendments to the Act excluding labour relations records did not apply retrospectively to requests made before the amendments.

The Officer upheld the County's decision to withhold certain records under the law enforcement exemption and solicitor-client privilege, but ordered the disclosure of other records that did not qualify for privilege.

The County's search for records was found to be reasonable.

The appellant appealed a decision by the York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board denying access to proposals submitted by law firms in response to a Request for Proposals for legal services.

The Board and affected law firms claimed the records were exempt under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third party commercial information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the proposals contained commercial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the competitive position of the law firms.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Township of Thurlow's decision to deny access to portions of records relating to the sale of break open tickets, citing the invasion of privacy exemption under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records related to volunteer activities, not employment history, and that the information was relevant to a fair determination of the appellant's rights in an ongoing civil action.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Township to disclose the requested information, concluding that the factors favouring disclosure outweighed the affected person's privacy interests.

The appellant appealed the Brant County Roman Catholic Separate School Board's response to a freedom of information request, arguing that additional records should exist regarding meetings and investigations involving her and her son.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's search was not reasonable, as it failed to search files turned over to its legal firm, specific binders identified by the appellant, and personal notes of employees.

The Board was ordered to conduct a further search and issue a new access decision.