IPCO 1997

The appellant, a victim of an assault, requested access to police records relating to the incident under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Halton Regional Police Services Board denied access to the names of suspects, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that the records were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Criminal Code, and therefore disclosure of the suspects' names would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Act.

The requester sought access to a police report and related records concerning an incident in which the requester was injured.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denied access, citing law enforcement and privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Criminal Code.

As a result, disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The records were held to be properly exempt under section 38(b), and the decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of Order M-835, which denied access to police disciplinary records under section 52(3)1 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant argued that police officers are not 'employees' at common law, and therefore disciplinary proceedings do not relate to 'employment' under the Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while police officers may not be employees at common law, the Police Services Act characterizes their work as employment.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the original decision was correct and declined the request for reconsideration.

The appellant, a newspaper columnist, sought access under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the identities of individuals who requested copies of his property tax certificate.

The Town of Flamborough denied access under section 14, citing an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The appellant argued he needed the information to pursue a defamation lawsuit regarding an anonymous 'sham' newspaper article.

The Inquiry Officer balanced the competing interests and ordered the disclosure of the names, finding the appellant's need to exercise his legal rights outweighed the privacy interests, but upheld the exemption for one affected person's address.

The appellant requested access to records concerning the purchase of land by the City of Barrie for a sports field complex, including a list of individuals involved with the selling company.

The City granted partial access and provided a fee estimate of $104, claiming various exemptions including third party information, economic interests, and closed meetings.

The appellant appealed the fee, the exemptions, and the adequacy of the search.

The Inquiry Officer found the appeal was not frivolous, reduced the fee to $58.30, dismissed the application of most exemptions due to lack of evidence, upheld the exemption for one published record, and found the City's search was reasonable.

The City was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records upon payment of the revised fee.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a detailed history of repairs on a building owned by the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Ltd. The Municipality granted partial access but denied access to the contractor's submission.

During mediation, the appellant clarified they sought specific quantity measurements on a particular form.

The Municipality provided invoices containing the measurements, but the appellant insisted on the specific form.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Municipality had made a reasonable effort to locate the responsive record and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Toronto for records relating to quarantine procedures and the mishandling of rabies specimens by the Toronto Humane Society.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the City and the affected third party failed to provide representations or satisfy the three-part test for the exemption.

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

The appellant appealed the City of Stoney Creek's decision denying access to certain records and claiming no further responsive records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that a draft letter prepared by the City's counsel constituted a 'record' under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, both the draft letter and a legal opinion were found to be exempt from disclosure under the solicitor-client privilege exemption in section 12.

The Inquiry Officer also concluded that the City had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant company made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Town of Meaford for records relating to a tendering process for a project.

The Town granted partial access but denied access to certain records under the advice and recommendations exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that portions of the records were exempt under section 7(1) as advice or recommendations, and that certain reference information was exempt under section 10(1) as third party information supplied in confidence.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Town's search for responsive records was not reasonable and ordered a further search.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board to deny access to police surveillance reports concerning the appellant.

The Police claimed exemptions under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained law enforcement intelligence information gathered in a covert manner, qualifying for exemption under section 8(1)(g).

Consequently, the records were exempt from disclosure under section 38(a), and the decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Board's decision regarding a freedom of information request for notes relating to his performance appraisal.

The appellant sought the original notes upon which a condensed version was based.

The Inquiry Officer found that the original notes had been destroyed by a school administrator after the request was received, in breach of section 5 of Regulation 823.

However, because the records no longer existed, the Officer concluded that the Board had taken all reasonable steps to locate the remaining responsive records and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant requested access to correspondence between the Township and two named individuals regarding the appellant's property.

The Township denied access under the invasion of privacy exemption of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the personal information of both the appellant and the affected persons.

Balancing the factors, the Inquiry Officer determined that the affected persons' privacy interests could be adequately protected by severing their identifying information.

The Township was ordered to disclose the severed records to the appellant.

The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to grants made to a named organization.

The Municipality decided to grant partial access, severing personal information.

The organization appealed, claiming the remaining information was exempt as third party information under section 10.

The Inquiry Officer found that the organization failed to provide evidence that the financial information was supplied in confidence or that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause the specified harms.

The Inquiry Officer also confirmed that the information to be disclosed did not contain personal information.

The Municipality's decision to disclose the severed records was upheld.

The appellant requested access to bingo lottery records containing the name of a specific individual.

The Township denied access under the third party information and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third party information exemption did not apply as the information was not supplied in confidence and no harm was established.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the disclosure of the personal information would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy because it was relevant to a fair determination of the appellant's rights in an ongoing court action.

The Township was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Niagara Regional Police Services Board denying access to portions of a police report regarding a break and enter at the appellant's property.

The Police withheld the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of suspects under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information constituted personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumed unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision to deny access under section 38(b) of the Act.

The appellant appealed the Municipality's decision to deny access to a letter sent by an affected person to the Regional Chair.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained highly sensitive personal information of the appellant, the affected person, and other identifiable individuals.

The Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that the record could not be reasonably severed under section 4(2).

The Municipality's decision was upheld.

A police officer requested access to an internal investigation report regarding a complaint he had made.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denied access, claiming the record was excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3).

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the report was prepared in relation to consultations and communications about employment-related or labour relations matters in which the Police have a legal interest.

The appellants appealed the Prince Edward County Board of Education's response to their request for records relating to their child, a special education student.

The appellants argued that additional records should exist, including a hospital booklet, a medication log, a special education file folder, and a third medical report.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board had provided sufficient evidence, including an affidavit from the Supervisor of Special Education Services, to demonstrate that it had made a reasonable effort to identify and locate the requested records.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to various police records and photographs concerning himself.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including sections 8, 9, 14, 15, 38, and 50.

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

However, the Officer rejected the Police's reliance on sections 15(a) and 50(2) to deny access to the photographs, ordering the Police to review them for mandatory exemptions.

The Officer ordered the disclosure of one page containing CPIC information, finding no reasonable expectation of confidentiality under section 9(1)(d), but upheld the application of section 38(b) to withhold the remaining records as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

A teacher requested access to his personnel file and a file containing student complaints kept by the school principal under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board denied access to certain records, claiming they were excluded under section 52(3)3 as employment-related matters.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were prepared and maintained by the principal on behalf of the Board in relation to an employment-related matter in which the Board had an interest.

The appeal was dismissed as the records were excluded from the scope of the Act.