IPCO 1998

The requester appealed the Ministry of Education and Training's deemed refusal to provide access to records relating to Bill 160.

The Ministry had issued an interim decision with a fee estimate, which the requester accepted and paid, but the Ministry failed to issue a final decision within the prescribed time limit.

The adjudicator found the Ministry in a deemed refusal situation and ordered it to issue a final decision letter to the requester without recourse to a time extension.

The complainant alleged that the Ministry of Health improperly disclosed his personal information to a university for a health survey without his consent.

The Ministry challenged the Commissioner's jurisdiction to investigate the complaint.

The Commissioner found she had jurisdiction under her general supervisory and reporting mandate.

On the merits, the Commissioner concluded that the disclosure of the complainant's name, address, and other details met the requirements for the research purpose exception under section 21(1)(e) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and therefore complied with section 42.

An anonymous complainant alleged that the Ministry of Labour violated privacy by providing client telephone numbers to a private company for a client service survey.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether the information constituted 'personal information' and whether it was improperly disclosed.

The Assistant Commissioner concluded that the information was personal information.

Although there was no evidence that an actual disclosure occurred, any such disclosure would not have complied with section 42 of the Act.

The Ministry was recommended to ensure future surveys comply with notice and consent requirements.

The complainant, a divorced support payor, filed a privacy complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services after receiving a request to complete a financial statement to determine the adequacy of child support for his ex-wife, who was receiving Family Benefits.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the requested financial information constituted personal information under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer concluded that the Ministry's collection of this information was necessary for the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity, specifically determining eligibility for social assistance, and thus complied with section 38(2).

However, the Officer found that the Ministry's notice of collection was deficient under section 39(2) because it failed to cite the specific statutory provisions authorizing the collection and lacked the business address of the contact person.

The Ministry was ordered to amend its notice of collection accordingly.

The complainants filed a privacy complaint regarding a county's social services department requiring welfare applicants to obtain signatures from prospective employers on a job search form.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether this requirement resulted in the improper disclosure of personal information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The investigator concluded that the form constructively disclosed the applicants' status as welfare recipients to prospective employers.

The investigator found that the applicants' implicit consent to this disclosure was vitiated by economic duress, as they were told they would not receive benefits without the signatures.

The county was found to be in non-compliance with the Act and agreed to discontinue the practice and amend its forms.

The City of Toronto received a freedom of information request for records relating to a demolished building.

The City decided to disclose invoices and letters provided by the demolition company.

The company appealed, arguing the records were exempt under sections 10(1)(a) and (c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as commercial information supplied in confidence.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence that the information was supplied to the City in confidence, either explicitly or implicitly.

The City was ordered to disclose the records to the requester.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Toronto Police Services Board for his employment application file.

The Police denied access, claiming the records were excluded under section 52(3) of the Act.

The appellant appealed, limiting the scope to a one-page Employment Investigator's Report.

The adjudicator found that the record was collected, prepared, maintained, or used by the Police in relation to a job competition, which constitutes an employment-related matter in which the institution has an interest.

Consequently, the record was excluded from the scope of the Act under section 52(3)3, and the decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board for his student records from 1956.

The Board conducted multiple searches but could not locate the records, noting that retention guidelines did not exist prior to 1972 and the records were likely destroyed.

The adjudicator found that the Board's search efforts were reasonable in the circumstances and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision by the South Simcoe Police Services Board to deny access to portions of an accident report concerning a fatal parachuting accident.

The Police claimed the withheld information was exempt under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the records were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption against disclosure in section 14(3)(b).

The appeal was dismissed and the decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a 1981 police investigation in which he was a subject.

The Sudbury Regional Police Services Board initially refused to confirm or deny the existence of records, but later confirmed their existence and claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the records contained personal information compiled for law enforcement purposes, and that disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The decision of the Police to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records of catering and meal charges paid by the District School Board Number 26.

The Board provided a fee estimate of $840 for 30 hours of search time but did not provide an interim access decision.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Board failed to provide sufficient information to justify the fee estimate and failed to follow the established procedure of providing an interim access decision.

The fee estimate was disallowed, and the Board was ordered to issue a final access decision.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Toronto Police Services Board for a copy of a suicide note written by his estranged wife 19 years ago.

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

The adjudicator upheld the decision, finding that the note was compiled as part of a police investigation into a possible violation of law, and its disclosure was therefore presumed to be an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The appellant appealed a decision by the Halton Regional Police Services Board denying access to portions of occurrence reports from a 1971 investigation and claiming that seized documents could not be located.

The adjudicator found that the undisclosed portions of the occurrence reports were exempt from disclosure under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy.

The adjudicator also found that the Police conducted a reasonable search for the seized documents, which likely no longer exist.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Toronto Licencing Commission appealed a decision by the Peel Regional Police Services Board denying access to records relating to an investigation of a taxi driver.

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

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

The Adjudicator also rejected the Commission's argument that it was entitled to the records under section 32(f)(ii), noting that section 32 does not create a right of access.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the District School Board Number 3 to deny access to Grade 12 advanced mathematics final examination questions and answers.

The Board claimed the records were exempt under section 11(h) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act because the questions were to be used in an upcoming examination.

The Adjudicator distinguished previous orders where questions were drawn from a test bank for completed exams, finding that the requested records contained virtually identical questions to those intended for an upcoming examination.

The Board's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Windsor Police Services Board denying access to a police report regarding the 1993 suicide of her brother.

The Police denied access under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that the records contained personal information of the deceased and other identifiable individuals, and that the presumption in section 14(3)(b) applied because the records were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

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

The appellant requested access to the Board's legal budgets and legal invoices for a specific school project, seeking only the dollar amounts.

The Board denied access, claiming the records were exempt under sections 11(c), 11(d), and 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the Board's search for the legal budget was reasonable as no such budget existed.

However, the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of the dollar amounts in the legal invoices, finding that they did not qualify for exemption under the economic interests or solicitor-client privilege provisions.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the County of Renfrew for records relating to a gravel pit property.

The County disclosed some records but withheld others, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the decision and also challenged the reasonableness of the County's search for records.

The Adjudicator found that the withheld records, which consisted of communications between the Township's solicitor and the Township Clerk or Planner, qualified for exemption under both branches of section 12.

The Adjudicator also concluded that the County's search for responsive records was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed regarding the withheld records and the search, but the County was ordered to disclose additional records it had identified during mediation and no longer sought to withhold.

The appellant appealed the County of Renfrew's decision to deny access to certain records requested under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The appellant also challenged the reasonableness of the search and the denial of a fee waiver.

The Adjudicator declined to consider discretionary exemptions raised late by the County.

The Adjudicator upheld the application of solicitor-client privilege to numerous records, finding that communications involving the Township's planner as an agent maintained privilege.

However, privilege was waived for records shared with third parties lacking a common interest.

The Adjudicator found the County's search reasonable and upheld the denial of a fee waiver, ordering the disclosure of the non-exempt records.

The appellant made two requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to sewer repairs and video taping.

The City provided access to some records and stated no additional records existed.

The appellant appealed, claiming more records should exist.

The Adjudicator found that the appellant had expanded the scope of the original request and that the City's search for responsive records was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.