IPCO 1998

The appellant, a disabled person, made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to his application for employment as a police officer with the Peel Regional Police Services Board.

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

The adjudicator found that the records were collected, prepared, maintained, or used in relation to employment-related matters in which the Police have an interest.

Consequently, the records fell within the section 52(3)3 exclusion, and the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant requested an occurrence report from the Halton Regional Police Services Board regarding an alleged assault against him.

The Police disclosed the report but severed references to the alleged assailant, relying on exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the exemptions for law enforcement and invasion of privacy did not apply, as the appellant had originally provided the severed information to the Police.

The Assistant Commissioner also noted that the Police improperly fettered their discretion by relying on a blanket policy of refusing access when criminal charges are before the courts.

The Police were ordered to disclose the entire record.

A newspaper reporter appealed the Sudbury Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to a list of 10 licensed establishments identified in a joint study as accounting for half of all impaired drivers who had their last drink in a licensed establishment.

The Police claimed the third party information exemption under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that the record contained commercial and scientific information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the competitive position of the establishments under section 10(1)(a).

The Adjudicator also found that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, as the Police and establishments had already taken steps to address the study's findings.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

An occasional supply teacher requested records from the Toronto District School Board regarding teacher hirings and supply lists.

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

The requester appealed.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Board's decision, finding that because the requester had subsequently filed a grievance, the records were being maintained in relation to a labour relations proceeding before an arbitrator, thereby excluding them from the Act's jurisdiction.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a construction project performed by his firm for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

The Region denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for closed meetings, advice or recommendations, third party information, and solicitor-client privilege.

The Adjudicator found that the Region conducted a reasonable search for records.

The Adjudicator upheld the Region's decision to deny access to most of the records under the claimed exemptions, but ordered the disclosure of a few records containing reference notes that did not qualify for the third party information exemption.

The appellant, a representative of the Toronto Fire Fighters Association, requested access to written, practical, and oral examination materials for a Fire Captain job competition.

The City of Toronto denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3).

The Adjudicator found that the records were collected, prepared, maintained, and used by the City in relation to meetings, discussions, and consultations about employment-related matters in which the City has an interest.

Consequently, the records were excluded from the Act's jurisdiction under section 52(3)3, and the City's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Port Hope Police Services Board denying access to portions of records relating to an alleged assault against the appellant.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including invasion of privacy.

The Adjudicator upheld the decision to withhold information under section 38(b), finding that its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy as it was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

However, the Adjudicator found that the Police failed to conduct a reasonable search for other records identified by the appellant and ordered a further search.

A former Township councillor appealed the Township of Horton's decision regarding a freedom of information request.

The appellant challenged the $5.80 photocopying fee and argued that additional records should exist.

The Adjudicator upheld the fee as reasonable and mandatory under the regulations.

The Adjudicator also found that the Township conducted a reasonable search for the requested records, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant requested access to records from the Peel District School Board confirming when and where he co-habited with a named employee and that he was named as a beneficiary on her life insurance policy.

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

The Adjudicator upheld the Board's decision, finding that the records contained the personal information of both the appellant and the affected person, and that under section 38(b), the affected person's right to privacy outweighed the appellant's right of access.

The appellant appealed the Village of Grand Bend's decision to deny access to records concerning a share purchase transaction and settlement of litigation.

The Village claimed the records were exempt under section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they would reveal the substance of deliberations of a closed meeting.

The adjudicator found that the records met the three-part test for the closed meeting exemption, as they were considered during an authorized in camera meeting regarding land acquisition and litigation.

The adjudicator also held that the public interest override in section 16 does not apply to records exempt under section 6.

The Village's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Toronto Police Services Board for records relating to an employment background check.

The Police denied access to portions of the records, citing exemptions for relations with other governments and invasion of privacy.

The Adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, finding that the withheld information was either received in confidence from other government agencies (including CPIC data) or compiled as part of law enforcement investigations into other individuals, the disclosure of which would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $450 provided by the school board for a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The request sought access to telephone and facsimile records from 1995.

The Inquiry Officer found that the board provided detailed evidence of the extensive manual searches required to locate the responsive records, which exceeded the estimated 15 hours.

The fee estimate was upheld as reasonable.

The appellant requested access to records relating to his two children and general statistics on student suspensions from the Toronto District School Board.

The Board narrowed the request to disciplinary actions and denied access to several records under various exemptions, including invasion of privacy and right to a fair trial.

The appellant appealed, arguing the search was unreasonable and more records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found the Board's search was reasonable and the additional records sought fell outside the narrowed scope.

The Officer ordered partial disclosure of the records, finding that some contained the personal information of other individuals which could not be severed, thus qualifying for exemption under section 38(b) of the Act.

The Board's claim under section 8(1)(f) was rejected.

The appellant requested access to a police occurrence report relating to a complaint filed against him by a co-worker.

The Police granted partial access, withholding the complainant's personal information and the substance of the complaint under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner 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 the complainant's personal privacy under section 38(b).

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Toronto Police Services Board for a 911 tape of a telephone call from a specific residence.

The Police refused to confirm or deny the existence of the record under section 14(5) of the Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that disclosing the existence or non-existence of the record would reveal personal information about an identifiable individual and constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant requested a videotape of a breathalyser test from the Toronto Police Services Board.

The Police claimed the record no longer existed, despite it having been used at the appellant's trial shortly before the request.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the Police's record retention practices were disturbing and compromised the integrity of the access process, the search conducted for the missing videotape was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a member of the Terrace Bay Police Services Board, requested access to a complaint filed against him by a co-worker.

The Police denied access, claiming the records were 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 records were collected and maintained for an anticipated disciplinary proceeding relating to the employment of a person by the institution, and thus fell within the section 52(3)1 exclusion.

The appellant appealed the Meaford Thornbury Police Services Board's decision to deny access to various occurrence reports and an audio tape under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police claimed exemptions under sections 8 (law enforcement) and 14 (invasion of privacy).

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the records were properly exempt under sections 14(1) and 38(b) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

However, three occurrence reports contained information provided by the appellant or recorded in their presence, making the privacy exemption inapplicable.

The Inquiry Officer also rejected the Police's law enforcement exemption claims for these three reports, finding no evidence of ongoing matters or that the records qualified as 'reports'.

The Police were ordered to disclose the three reports.

The appellant, the sister of a deceased individual, appealed a decision by the Windsor Police Services Board denying access to a police report regarding her brother's sudden death.

The Police claimed the records were exempt under the invasion of privacy provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant did not qualify as the deceased's personal representative under section 54(a) of the Act.

Furthermore, the records were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Near North District School Board denying access to records relating to a job competition in which the appellant was an unsuccessful candidate.

The appellant alleged the delegated head had a conflict of interest due to bias.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the bias claim, finding no personal interest or reasonable perception of bias.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record relating to the successful candidate's qualifications fell outside the scope of the Act under the employment records exclusion in section 52(3)3.

While the Board breached its records retention policy by destroying the interview notes prematurely, the Inquiry Officer concluded the search for those records was reasonable because they no longer existed.