IPCO 1999

The appellant sought access to a record described as the 'Russell Report' from the Township of Cavan-Millbrook-North Monaghan under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Township denied access, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12 of the Act.

The adjudicator found that the record contained the appellant's personal information but upheld the Township's decision to deny access, concluding that the record was a confidential communication from the Township's solicitor made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and thus protected by solicitor-client communication privilege.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Thunder Bay Police Services Board to deny access to portions of a Police General Occurrence Report regarding parking violations.

The Police claimed the withheld information was exempt under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, read with sections 14(1)(f) and 14(3)(b).

The adjudicator found that the withheld information contained the personal information of both the appellant and a complainant, compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

The adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, concluding that the presumption against disclosure applied and the information could not be reasonably severed.

The appellant requested access to a Phase 3 Environmental Site Assessment report regarding a specified address within the City of Toronto.

The City denied access under sections 10(1)(a) and (c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the record contained third-party scientific and technical information supplied in confidence.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the record contained scientific and technical information supplied in confidence, the City and the affected developer failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the developer's competitive position or result in undue loss.

The City was ordered to disclose the record in its entirety.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board for policies and procedures regarding the investigation of alcohol-related driving offences.

The Police denied access, claiming exemptions under sections 8(1)(a), (b), (c), and (e) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the Police failed to establish that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing investigation, reveal confidential investigative techniques, or endanger the life or physical safety of any person.

The Police were ordered to disclose the record in its entirety.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Toronto Police Services Board for his personal file regarding his unsuccessful candidacy for a Police Constable position, specifically seeking the reasons for his permanent exclusion from future employment.

The Police denied access to certain records, claiming exemptions including law enforcement intelligence information.

The Adjudicator found that while the background check itself was a human resources function, the specific information withheld was obtained through the Police's intelligence gathering function and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal law enforcement intelligence information.

The Adjudicator ordered the disclosure of non-exempt portions of one record but upheld the decision to withhold the remaining information under section 8(1)(g) of the Act.

The requester, a solicitor representing the estate and family of a deceased individual killed in a motor vehicle accident, appealed the Peel Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to a motor vehicle collision report.

The requester claimed access under section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as the deceased's personal representative.

The Adjudicator found that the requester did not provide evidence of authority to act as the personal representative and that the request, intended for a wrongful death lawsuit, did not relate to the administration of the estate.

The Adjudicator further held that the record was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton for a list of companies with Special Discharge Agreements relating to sewer and waste.

The Region denied access under the law enforcement exemption.

The adjudicator found that the law enforcement exemption did not apply because disclosure would not reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter.

The adjudicator also found that the third party information exemption did not apply because the names of the companies were not supplied in confidence.

The Region was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant sought access to records relating to condominium developments from the Town of Halton Hills under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Town denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for closed meetings, solicitor-client privilege, and economic interests.

The adjudicator found that most records were properly withheld under solicitor-client privilege and the economic interests exemption.

However, the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of three records, finding that two did not qualify for the closed meeting or economic interests exemptions, and that the Town had waived solicitor-client privilege over one record by inadvertently allowing the appellant to view it during a file review.

The appellant appealed the Region's decision to deny access to portions of records relating to a successful bidder's proposal for a review of municipal legal services.

The Region claimed exemptions under sections 10(1) (third party information) and 14(1) (invasion of privacy) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that while the educational and employment histories of the bidder's employees were exempt as personal information, the bidder's past project experience was not personal information.

Furthermore, the Adjudicator held that the third party commercial information exemption did not apply because there was no reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure.

The Region was ordered to disclose the project experience information.

The appellant, the wife of a deceased individual who died in a fatal subway accident, requested access to police records relating to the investigation of his death.

The Toronto Police Services Board denied access to portions of the records under the personal privacy exemption.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the appellant did not qualify as a personal representative under section 54(a) of the Act because she did not provide the required documentation and her purpose (contemplating a civil lawsuit) did not relate to the administration of the estate.

The Commissioner further held that the records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumed unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b), and that no compelling public interest outweighed the exemption.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Kingston for the names of agencies accepting workfare placements.

The City denied access, citing exemptions for personal privacy and economic interests.

The adjudicator found that disclosing the agency names could lead to the identification of individual social assistance recipients, constituting personal information.

The adjudicator concluded that disclosure would be a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Although there was a compelling public interest in the workfare program, it did not clearly outweigh the privacy interests of the vulnerable individuals involved.

The City's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Toronto Police Services Board denying access to portions of police records relating to his apprehension under the Mental Health Act.

The Police claimed exemptions under sections 14(1) and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, finding that the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and thus subject to the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b).

The appellant sought access to police records relating to an impaired driving investigation in which he was the accused.

The Police denied access, claiming the records were exempt under the law enforcement provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that the records did not qualify as a 'report' under section 8(2)(a) and that disclosure would not interfere with an ongoing law enforcement matter or investigation under sections 8(1)(a) or (b).

The Adjudicator also found that the Police failed to conduct a reasonable search for additional responsive records, such as CAD system data and officer notebooks.

The Police were ordered to disclose the records and conduct a further search.

The appellant, a Township Councillor, submitted a freedom of information request to the Township of King for survey records regarding septic tank problems.

The survey was conducted by a sub-consultant retained by a consultant for an environmental assessment study jointly undertaken by the Township and the Regional Municipality of York.

The Township denied access, claiming it did not have custody or control of the records, as the sub-consultant refused to release them citing confidentiality.

The adjudicator found that the Township had control of the records within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, given its statutory mandate, agency relationship with the consultants, and reliance on the records.

The Township was ordered to direct the sub-consultant to provide the records and to issue an access decision.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $118.50 issued by the Town of Amherstburg for processing a freedom of information request for various municipal records, including police budgets and committee minutes.

The adjudicator reviewed the estimated search times for six items and found some to be unreasonable, particularly for records that should be easily retrievable or were located off-site.

The fee estimate was reduced to $83.50.

The appellant, a former auxiliary member of the Sudbury Regional Police Service, requested access to her personnel file under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police denied access, arguing the records fell outside the Act's jurisdiction under sections 52(3)1 and 3, which exclude records relating to labour relations or employment.

The Adjudicator found that auxiliary police officers are volunteers and are not engaged in 'employment' within the meaning of the Act.

Consequently, the records fall within the jurisdiction of the Act, and the Police were ordered to issue an access decision.

A member of the media appealed the Town of Lindsay's decision to deny access to records detailing the severance package of a retired municipal employee.

The Town claimed exemptions under sections 6(1)(b) (closed meeting) and 14(1) (invasion of privacy) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that the records revealed the substance of deliberations of in-camera council meetings properly held under the Municipal Act to discuss personal matters and labour relations.

The Adjudicator also held that the public interest override in section 16 does not apply to the closed meeting exemption in section 6.

The Town's decision was upheld.

The appellants made a freedom of information request to the Thunder Bay Police Service for records relating to the sudden death of their son.

The Police disclosed some records but withheld others, citing the invasion of privacy exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the withheld records contained the personal information of the deceased son and other identifiable witnesses.

The adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, concluding that the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

A requester appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to an 80-page report prepared by the Greater Toronto Trucking Association regarding the towing industry.

The City claimed the record was exempt under section 10(1)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third party commercial information.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while some pages contained commercial and financial information supplied in confidence, the City only established a reasonable expectation of competitive harm for specific pages detailing actual operating expenses and hook-up times.

The City was ordered to disclose the remainder of the record.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Town of Ajax for records relating to by-law and building complaints at two properties.

The Town denied access to portions of the records, citing law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions.

The adjudicator found that the records contained personal information and upheld the Town's decision to withhold the identity of the by-law complainant under the law enforcement exemption for confidential sources.

The adjudicator also found that disclosing the building permit information of the affected persons would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy given the highly sensitive nature of the ongoing neighbour dispute.