IPCO 1998

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $6500 provided by the Peel District School Board for processing a freedom of information request for records relating to real estate transactions.

The Board based its estimate on an invoice from its lawyers, who held the records and conducted a sample search.

The Inquiry Officer found that while retrieval and photocopying costs were allowable, the time spent by the lawyers reviewing records for disclosure was not an allowable charge under the Act.

The Inquiry Officer reduced the allowable processing time to half an hour per file and did not uphold the total estimated fee of $6500.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Town of Fort Erie for an audit report regarding allegations of fraud by a senior municipal official.

The Town denied access, claiming it did not have custody or control of the draft report, which was held by its external counsel and prepared by an accounting firm retained by counsel.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the draft report was prepared for the Town's benefit and paid for by the Town, meaning it belonged to the Town under the principles of solicitor-client file ownership.

Consequently, the record was under the Town's control within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Town was ordered to produce the record to the IPC so the inquiry could proceed on the claimed exemptions.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the York Regional Police Services Board for access to records concerning herself.

The Police denied access in part based on the invasion of privacy exemption.

The appellant subsequently requested correction of her personal information and appealed the denial of access, the failure to correct, and the adequacy of the search.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police's search was reasonable and that they could delay the correction decision until the access appeal was resolved.

The Officer also found that the presumption of unjustified invasion of privacy did not apply to information provided by or known to the appellant, ordering partial disclosure.

A newspaper reporter appealed the County of Brant's decision to deny access to monthly billing records submitted by County councillors for mileage and remuneration.

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

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the remuneration figures constituted personal information, their disclosure would not be an unjustified invasion of privacy because the annual totals and per diem rates were already public, and disclosure was desirable for public scrutiny.

The County was ordered to disclose the records in their entirety.

The appellant, acting as the Estate Trustee for a deceased individual, requested access to a police report regarding the individual's death.

The Niagara Regional Police Services Board denied access under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The sole issue on appeal was whether the appellant qualified under section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to exercise the deceased's right of access.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the appellant was the personal representative and required the records to administer the estate, specifically to determine if a major beneficiary was disentitled due to criminal conduct.

The Police were ordered to issue a new decision.

The appellant appealed the City of Kingston's decision to deny access to a record containing the names and job titles of municipal employees who accepted buyouts under a Voluntary Exit Program.

The Assistant Commissioner first determined that the record was not excluded from the Act under the labour relations provisions in section 52(3).

However, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the City's decision to deny access under section 14(1), finding that the record contained personal information and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant's argument that a compelling public interest in disclosure outweighed the privacy exemption under section 16 was also rejected.

The appellant appealed the City of Orillia's response to a freedom of information request for records relating to the Mayor's Action Committee.

In an interim order, the City was ordered to conduct a further search and provide an affidavit detailing the search.

The City conducted the search, located additional records, and disclosed them to the appellant.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the City had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records and concluded the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to records relating to the investigation into the death of his son.

The Police claimed the records were exempt under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (invasion of privacy).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained personal information of the deceased son and other identifiable individuals.

Applying section 14(3)(b), the Assistant Commissioner determined that disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy because the information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The decision of the Police to deny access under section 38(b) was upheld.

The appellant made a 19-part access request to the City of Hamilton regarding a specific property, company, and individual.

The City responded to parts 1-11 but denied parts 12-19, claiming they were frivolous and vexatious under section 4(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The City argued the request was part of a pattern of conduct amounting to an abuse of the right of access, made in bad faith, and for a purpose other than to obtain access, stemming from the appellant losing title to the property through a municipal tax sale.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City failed to establish reasonable grounds for its claims, noting that a single prior request did not constitute a pattern of conduct, and that seeking information to potentially use against the City in another forum does not mean the request was made for a purpose other than to obtain access.

The City was ordered to make an access decision for parts 12-19.

The appellant requested access to witness statements and photographs related to a fatal motor vehicle accident involving a family member.

The Waterloo Regional Police Services Board granted partial access but withheld certain pages under the law enforcement and personal 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 constituted personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and its disclosure would result in a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $4,500 issued by the Health Unit for a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The request sought 20 years of records relating to approved sewage disposal sites.

The appellant argued that the information should be provided without a fee pursuant to section 19 of the Environmental Protection Act.

The Inquiry Officer rejected this argument but found the Health Unit's estimated search time of two minutes per record to be unreasonable.

The Inquiry Officer reduced the estimated search time to one minute per record, resulting in a revised fee estimate of $2,250.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to records relating to their purchase of a home from the City and a subsequent property dispute.

The City claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, primarily relying on solicitor-client privilege and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the majority of the records were exempt under section 12 as they were prepared for or by counsel in contemplation of litigation regarding the property dispute.

A small number of records were found not to be subject to privilege and were ordered disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the City's refusal to disclose certain records containing third-party personal information under section 14(1).

The appellant requested access to the dollar values of legal accounts rendered to the Bruce-Grey Roman Catholic Separate School Board in connection with a construction project.

The Board denied the request, claiming it was frivolous and vexatious under section 4(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the Board failed to establish that the request was part of a pattern of conduct amounting to an abuse of the right of access, made in bad faith, or for a purpose other than to obtain access.

The Board was ordered to process the request.

The appellant requested a fire department inspection report for a building they currently own.

The City of Toronto granted access to the report but redacted the name and address of the addressee, claiming the personal information exemption under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the redactions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the redacted information constituted personal information and that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The City's decision to withhold the information was upheld.

The appellant, an employee of the City of Toronto, requested access to an independent investigator's report regarding workplace concerns.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the record was collected, prepared, maintained, or used in relation to meetings, consultations, discussions, or communications about employment-related matters in which the City had an interest.

The appeal was dismissed as the record fell outside the jurisdiction of the Act.

The appellant appealed the quantum of a $290.70 fee estimate provided by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for processing a freedom of information request for food and beverage receipts.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Municipality's breakdown of search time, preparation time, and photocopying costs under the pre-1996 version of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Finding the estimated times and costs to be reasonable and calculated in accordance with the Act and Regulation, the Inquiry Officer upheld the fee estimate.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $92.00 provided by the Simcoe County Board of Education for processing a freedom of information request for telephone bills.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the $75.00 charge for search time and the $0.20 per page charge for photocopies, finding them reasonable given the volume of records.

However, the $15.00 charge for preparation time was disallowed because the Board failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish its reasonableness.

The appellants submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board for a list of items removed from their home during a search and the document authorizing the removal.

The Police denied access, citing sections 38(a) and 8(2)(b) of the Act.

The appellants appealed.

The Inquiry Officer determined that the Information and Privacy Commissioner had no jurisdiction under the Act to deal with the requested records and dismissed the appeal.

A police officer requested access to records concerning allegations made about her to the Internal Affairs Bureau.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected in relation to an anticipated disciplinary hearing, which constitutes a proceeding relating to employment.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant, a victim of a dog attack, requested records relating to the incident from the City of Scarborough.

The City disclosed the records but withheld the names and telephone numbers of the dog owners under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while the information was highly sensitive, the appellant required the names of the dog owners to commence a civil action for damages.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the names but upheld the City's decision to withhold the telephone numbers, as they were not necessary for the civil action.