IPCO 1999

The appellant, a private investigator acting on behalf of a deceased's wife, appealed a decision by the Niagara Regional Police Services Board denying access to various records relating to a fatal motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the appellant was not acting as a personal representative for the administration of the estate under section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator ordered the disclosure of the wife's own statement and the description of items seized from the driver's car, as the driver had consented to disclosure.

The remaining records were found to be exempt under section 14(1) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant requested access to records relating to the Trillium Lakelands District School Board's transportation and walking policies, and requested a fee waiver on the basis that disclosure would benefit public health and safety.

The Board denied the fee waiver and issued a fee estimate of $1,970.00.

On appeal, the adjudicator found that the appellant made a strong case for a fee waiver under section 45(4)(c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as the new school bus policy raised serious safety concerns in the community.

However, the adjudicator found it fair and equitable to waive fees only for records directly relating to the safety issue, and not for overly broad historical records.

The Board was ordered to issue a revised fee estimate for the remaining records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Kitchener for records relating to the pre-qualification of bidders for a new fire department headquarters.

The City denied access to evaluation records held by its architect, claiming they were not in the City's custody or control.

On appeal, the adjudicator applied a purposive approach to the concept of control under section 4(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the architect acted as the City's agent in the pre-qualification process, which was directly connected to the City's statutory function.

Consequently, the records were under the City's control, and the City was ordered to direct the architect to produce them for an access decision.

The appellant, acting as Estate Trustee for her deceased father, appealed a decision by the Peel Regional Police Services Board denying access to portions of a police investigation file regarding alleged theft from the deceased.

The adjudicator found that while the appellant had a right of access as a personal representative, the withheld records were exempt.

Specifically, witness statements and officer notes were exempt as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Furthermore, applying the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Campbell, the adjudicator held that communications between the police and the Crown Attorney were protected by solicitor-client privilege under section 12, explicitly departing from previous IPC precedent.

The appellant appealed the Toronto Police Service's decision to deny access to a videotape of his booking and release.

The Police claimed the record was excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)1, as it was used in an ongoing investigation into the appellant's complaint against several police officers.

The adjudicator found that the videotape was used in relation to employment-related proceedings under the Police Services Act.

The appeal was dismissed, and the record was found to be excluded from the scope of the Act.

A Regional Councillor requested access to bid documents and related correspondence submitted by two companies for a municipal paving contract.

The Region denied access under the third party information exemption in section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that only the unit pricing information qualified for exemption under section 10(1)(a), as its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the companies' competitive position.

The remaining information, including lists of past projects and sub-contractors, did not qualify for exemption.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, and ordered the Region to disclose the non-exempt portions of the records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Mississauga for property inspection reports.

The City denied access to certain reports, claiming they were exempt as law enforcement reports under section 8(2)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the records were mere observations and recordings of fact, not formal 'reports' within the meaning of the exemption.

The Commissioner also found that the records did not contain exempt third party information under section 10(1).

The City was ordered to disclose the records.

The requester appealed the York Catholic District School Board's decision to deny access to portions of a record concerning the pre-qualification of contractors for a school construction project, and its claim that no other responsive records existed.

The adjudicator found that records held by the Board's architect relating to the pre-qualification process were under the Board's 'control' for the purposes of the Act, given the statutory framework and the agency relationship.

The adjudicator also found that the withheld scoring information in the identified record did not qualify for the third-party information exemption because it was generated by the architect rather than 'supplied' by the contractors, and no reasonable expectation of harm was established.

The Board was ordered to disclose the withheld information and to direct the architect to produce additional responsive records for an access decision.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Toronto Police Services Board for records relating to his unsuccessful application for the position of Police Constable.

The Police denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)3 as employment-related matters in which they had an interest.

The adjudicator found that while the records related to an employment matter, the Police did not have a legal interest capable of being engaged, as the Police Services Act public complaint mechanism is not intended for human resources complaints by unsuccessful job applicants.

The adjudicator also found that the Police conducted a reasonable search for a missing test score sheet.

The Police were ordered to issue an access decision for the records.

The appellant requested access to a police report naming him as a suspect in a theft allegation.

The Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board denied access, citing exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator upheld the decision, finding that the records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other individuals named in the report.

The public interest override did not apply.

The appellant, a lawyer representing a company, appealed the Regional Municipality of York's decision to deny access to three records relating to an environmental investigation of the company.

The Region claimed the records contained personal information supplied in confidence by identifiable individuals, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the records contained personal information about the individuals who provided the information, not just information about the company.

The adjudicator concluded that the information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Region's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury for a letter from the Town's law firm and an attached settlement agreement.

The Town disclosed the settlement agreement but withheld the letter under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The appellant argued that privilege was lost because the Town incorporated the advice into a municipal resolution and the Town's lawyer disclosed the 'bottom line' of the advice.

The adjudicator found that the letter was a confidential communication subject to solicitor-client privilege and that the minimal disclosure of the advice's conclusion did not constitute a waiver of privilege.

The Town's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant, a victim of sexual assaults, submitted a freedom of information request to the Cornwall Police Services Board for records relating to the investigation of his former school teacher.

The Police denied access to portions of the records, citing personal privacy exemptions.

On appeal, the Adjudicator found that the withheld information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other identifiable individuals.

The decision of the Police to deny access was upheld.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Halton Regional Police Services Board for access to police officers' notebook entries regarding a domestic call involving the appellant.

The Police granted partial access and denied the remainder under section 38(b) of the Act, claiming it would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the withheld information qualified as personal information of both the appellant and the affected person.

The adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, concluding that the information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and its disclosure was therefore presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Strathroy Public Utilities Commission for minutes of in-camera meetings and work orders relating to a hydro problem on his property.

The P.U.C. denied access to the meeting minutes under section 6(1)(b) of the Act.

The adjudicator upheld the P.U.C.'s decision, finding that the records revealed the substance of deliberations of meetings properly held in camera under the Municipal Act due to potential litigation.

The adjudicator also found the P.U.C.'s search for work orders to be reasonable.

The appellant sought access to police records, including witness statements, relating to an assault against him.

The Guelph Police Services Board denied access to portions of the records under the personal privacy exemption of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b).

The adjudicator rejected the appellant's argument that his need for the records to pursue a civil action and a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board claim constituted a compelling public interest under section 16.

The police's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the City of Ottawa for records relating to the redevelopment of Landsdowne Park.

The City denied access to an appraisal report and two other records, claiming exemptions for third party information and economic interests.

The adjudicator upheld the City's decision to withhold the records, finding that disclosure of the appraisal report could prejudice the City's financial interests and negotiations, and that disclosure of the other records could significantly prejudice the competitive position of third party proponents.

However, the adjudicator found that the City failed to demonstrate it had conducted a reasonable search for additional responsive records and ordered a further search.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Northwest Catholic District School Board for records relating to a letter of concern she wrote about a school employee.

The Board denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under the employment-related matters exclusion in section 52(3)3.

The adjudicator upheld the Board's decision, finding that the records were collected in relation to an employment-related matter in which the Board had a legal interest, as there was a reasonable prospect the employee would contest the Board's actions.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Toronto Police Services Board for records relating to her complaint of sexual assault.

The Police denied access to the records, citing various exemptions including the unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Adjudicator found that while much of the information was exempt as it was compiled during a law enforcement investigation and was highly sensitive, applying the exemption to information the appellant herself provided to the police would lead to an absurd result.

The Police were ordered to disclose the appellant's own statements and information she provided, while the decision to withhold the remaining records was upheld.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission for information relating to an investigation of his MBA program studies and tuition reimbursement.

After viewing his personnel file, the appellant noted that certain documents, including a note regarding a discussion with Revenue Canada, were missing during a subsequent viewing.

The adjudicator found that Toronto Hydro had not taken all reasonable steps to locate the responsive records, as it only searched two areas and did not search other files relating to the appellant after the documents were noted as missing.

Toronto Hydro was ordered to conduct a further search of all files relating to the appellant and issue a new access decision.