IPCO 1998

The appellants submitted requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for ten police occurrence reports relating to ongoing disputes with neighbours.

The Police initially deemed the requests frivolous and vexatious but later withdrew this claim, granting partial access and withholding the remainder under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The appellants appealed, alleging the Police's search was inadequate and their decisions were biased due to ongoing civil litigation against the Police.

The Adjudicator dismissed the bias allegations, found the Police's search for records to be reasonable, and upheld the decision to withhold the remaining information under section 38(b), as it constituted an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The City of Toronto received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to the environmental contamination of a former gasoline service station.

The City decided to disclose the records.

An affected organization appealed, arguing the records were exempt under sections 10(1)(a) and (b) as third party information supplied in confidence.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while some records contained technical or commercial information, none were supplied in confidence with a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure.

The appeal was dismissed and the City was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant requested access to their own personal information from the Halton Regional Police Services Board.

The Police disclosed most of an occurrence report but withheld a small entry containing a numerical code, claiming exemptions for invasion of privacy and law enforcement.

The Adjudicator found that the withheld portion was the appellant's own personal information, as it contained the investigating officer's opinion about the appellant.

The Adjudicator rejected the invasion of privacy exemption because the record only contained the appellant's information.

The law enforcement exemptions were also rejected because the occurrence report did not qualify as a 'report' under the Act, and there was insufficient evidence that disclosure would expose the officer to civil liability.

The Police were ordered to disclose the withheld portion.

The requester appealed the Halton Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to an occurrence report and police officer's notes relating to complaints or allegations made about the requester.

The Adjudicator found that the records contained the personal information of both the requester and another identifiable individual.

The Adjudicator concluded that the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

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

The appellant requested access to the service records of three named police officers, including prior or pending complaints and internal discipline procedures.

The Halton Regional Police Services Board estimated a fee of $2,850 based on a search of 957 disciplinary files.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Police interpreted the request too broadly, leading to an unnecessarily high fee estimate.

The Police were ordered to conduct a new search based on the plain wording of the request and issue a new access decision.

The requester appealed the City of Thunder Bay's deemed refusal to provide a decision on a freedom of information request for a garbage pick-up agreement and the City Manager's contract.

The City failed to issue a decision letter within the 30-day time limit, citing a work stoppage and resource restrictions.

The adjudicator found that the work stoppage did not relieve the City of its obligations under the Act, emphasizing the importance of timely access to information.

The City was ordered to issue a decision letter without recourse to a time extension.

The appellant appealed a decision by the South Bruce-Grey Police Services Board to deny access to portions of an occurrence report under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police claimed the undisclosed information was exempt under section 14(1) (invasion of privacy).

The Adjudicator found that the records contained the personal information of both the appellant and an affected person, and that the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

Consequently, the disclosure of the affected person's information would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The Adjudicator upheld the Police's decision to exempt the information under section 38(b).

The appellant requested access to the examination and scoring method used for the position of Fire Prevention Inspector from the City of Vaughan.

The City denied access under section 11(h) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

During the appeal, it was revealed that grievances had been filed regarding the hiring process.

The Adjudicator found that the record was maintained and would be used by the City in relation to ongoing grievance arbitrations, which are proceedings relating to labour relations.

Consequently, the record fell within the jurisdictional exclusion in section 52(3)1 of the Act, and the appeal was dismissed.

In a final order following Interim Order M-1121, the Assistant Commissioner considered whether the Woodstock Police Services Board conducted a reasonable search for 911 audio recordings.

The police provided affidavits explaining that discrepancies in the length of gaps and audio quality between two cassette tapes were due to the use of a 'Multi Music Scan' feature and different volume settings during copying.

The Assistant Commissioner accepted the explanation, found the search reasonable, and reminded the police of their inherent responsibility to retain original records subject to an ongoing access request.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Halton Regional Police Services Board denying access to an occurrence report and police notebook entries relating to an incident involving the appellant.

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

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Police's decision, finding that the records related to an ongoing law enforcement investigation and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with that investigation under sections 8(1)(a) and (b) and 38(a) of the Act.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Halton Regional Police Services Board refusing to confirm or deny the existence of surveillance records concerning him, pursuant to section 8(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that if such records existed, their disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or reveal law enforcement intelligence information under sections 8(1)(a), (b), and (g).

Furthermore, disclosing the mere existence or non-existence of the records would communicate exempt information.

The Police's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Town of Amherstburg Police Services Board for records relating to a complaint made against her.

The Police denied access to the records, citing the personal privacy exemptions under sections 14 and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator upheld the decision to withhold the records, finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the affected persons.

However, the adjudicator found that the Police's search for some of the requested records was too narrow and ordered them to conduct a further search.

The appellant appealed the City of Windsor's decision to deny access to a list of developers and related correspondence concerning a request for proposals for a development project.

The City claimed the records were exempt under section 9(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as they were received in confidence from the Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC).

The Adjudicator upheld the exemption for the information received from the ORC, finding it was an agency of the provincial government and had supplied the information in confidence.

The City was ordered to disclose the names of local politicians included in the records that were not part of the confidential ORC list.

The appellant requested access to a videotaped statement he gave to the Halton Regional Police Services Board following his arrest.

The Police denied access, claiming the record was excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)1 because it was used in a disciplinary hearing regarding the arresting officers.

The Adjudicator found that the record was collected, maintained, and used in relation to a proceeding before another entity relating to the employment of a person.

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

The Toronto Licencing Commission appealed a decision by the Toronto Police Services Board denying access to records relating to sexual assault charges against a taxi driver.

The Commission sought the records to determine whether to revoke the driver's licence.

The Adjudicator found that section 32(f)(ii) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act did not apply to an access request under Part I. The Adjudicator upheld the Police's decision to deny access under section 14(1), finding that the records were compiled for a law enforcement investigation and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Adjudicator also found that the public interest in disclosure did not outweigh the purpose of the exemption.

The appellant, representing the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (O.P.S.E.U.), appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to position specifications for essential service positions during a 1996 strike.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were currently being used by the Ministry in relation to ongoing labour relations negotiations.

Consequently, the records fell within the scope of section 65(6)2 and were excluded from the Act.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $97.90 issued by the Ministry of Finance for processing a freedom of information request.

The adjudicator found that the request involved both personal information and general records.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's calculation of $90.00 for three hours of search time and $0.40 for photocopying, but disallowed the $7.50 charge for preparation time as the Ministry provided no representations to justify it.

The total allowable fee was reduced to $90.40.

A requester sought access to contracts between Ontario Hydro and a consulting firm.

Hydro decided to disclose the records.

The consulting firm appealed, claiming the records contained personal information and third party commercial information exempt under sections 21(1) and 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained corporate, not personal, information, and that the consulting firm failed to establish that the commercial information was supplied in confidence or that its disclosure would cause harm.

The appeal was dismissed and Hydro was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Casino Corporation's decision to deny access to records relating to a financial settlement with a third party over a cancelled teletheatre operation at Casino Windsor.

The Adjudicator found that some records were exempt as cabinet records, third party commercial information, and information prejudicial to the Corporation's economic interests.

The public interest override did not apply.

The Corporation was ordered to disclose four records that did not meet the exemption criteria, while the decision to withhold the remaining records was upheld.

The appellant submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of Education and Training for briefing and issue notes relating to Bill 160.

The Ministry issued an interim decision with a fee estimate after the 30-day time limit had expired.

The appellant paid the fee deposit, but the Ministry failed to issue a final decision, placing itself in a deemed refusal situation.

The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to issue a final decision on access to the records by a specified date without recourse to a time extension.