IPCO 2000

The appellant appealed a fee estimate provided by the Amherstburg Police Services Board in response to a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The fee estimate included $30 for one hour of search time and $15 for 30 minutes of preparation time.

The adjudicator found the estimated times to be reasonable given the locations searched and the volume of responsive records.

The fee estimate was upheld.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to a response to a request for proposals submitted by an affected party.

During the inquiry, the affected party requested that its representations be withheld from the appellant due to confidentiality concerns.

The adjudicator applied the Wigmore test and the IPC's confidentiality criteria, finding that some portions of the representations met the criteria for withholding, while other portions consisting of generalized assertions of law and argument did not.

The adjudicator ordered that the non-confidential portions be shared with the appellant.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Toronto for a complete copy of his employment and medical files to assist in civil litigation arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The City denied access, claiming the records fell outside the jurisdiction of the Act under section 52(3)3.

The adjudicator found that the records were collected, prepared, maintained, and used by the City in relation to meetings, consultations, discussions, or communications about employment-related matters in which the City has an interest, specifically regarding workplace accommodation and recovery of WCB/WSIB advances.

The adjudicator upheld the City's decision, concluding the records are excluded from the Act.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Thunder Bay for records relating to parking violations on a specific residential street.

The City denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, law enforcement, and unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that while some records contained personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation and were exempt under sections 14(1) and 38(b), the City failed to establish that the remaining records qualified for the advice or recommendations exemption or the law enforcement exemptions.

The City was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Township of Southgate for records related to road construction and maintenance.

The Township provided a fee estimate of $400.00 for search, preparation, and photocopying.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate.

The Adjudicator found that the Township failed to justify the search and preparation charges, as it did not provide a detailed breakdown or comply with interim notice requirements.

The Adjudicator did not uphold the search and preparation fees but upheld the photocopying charges at a rate of $.20 per page.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Toronto Police Services Board for his full file relating to a specific court matter.

The Police located responsive records but denied access to most of them, citing exemptions including danger to life or safety, facilitating the commission of an unlawful act, and unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the Police conducted a reasonable search for records and upheld the decision to withhold the records under sections 38(a) and 38(b) of the Act.

The appellant sought access to police records relating to the investigation and prosecution of a hospital security officer who allegedly assaulted him.

The Police denied access to many records, citing exemptions for relations with other governments and unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Adjudicator found that certain records in the Confidential Crown Brief containing 'opinion work product' remained exempt under section 9(1) despite the end of litigation, while 'ordinary work product' did not.

The Adjudicator also ordered the disclosure of information already known to the appellant or provided by him, finding that its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Police's search for missing videotapes was deemed reasonable.

The appellant requested access to records relating to his application for a Police Constable position with the York Regional Police Service.

The Police denied access to background investigation records, claiming exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the records contained personal information of both the appellant and the individuals who provided references.

The adjudicator held that the section 38(c) exemption applied to information from three individuals who supplied it in confidence, but not to four others who were named as references by the appellant.

However, the adjudicator found that section 38(b) applied to protect the privacy of the three individuals who did not consent to disclosure among the four.

The Police were ordered to disclose the remaining records.

The requester appealed the Township of Edwardsburgh's decision regarding access to a May 1999 environmental monitoring report prepared by a consultant.

The Township claimed the report was not in its custody or control, as it had been rejected and returned to the consultant, who retained physical possession.

The Assistant Commissioner applied a purposive approach to the 'custody or control' test under section 4(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Finding that the consultant acted as an agent for the Township in fulfilling its statutory core function of obtaining a Certificate of Approval, the Assistant Commissioner concluded the record was under the Township's control and ordered the Township to obtain the record and issue an access decision.

The appellant sought access to police notebook entries regarding an incident involving the local transit authority.

The Police granted partial access, withholding information relating to a witness under the personal privacy exemption.

In a previous interim order, the Assistant Commissioner found the Police failed to exercise their discretion under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

After reviewing the Police's subsequent representations on their exercise of discretion, the Assistant Commissioner found the Police still failed to properly balance the competing interests of access and privacy, and ordered them to reconsider their exercise of discretion.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to call trace records obtained from Bell Canada.

In an interim order, the Assistant Commissioner found the records fell under the presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy exemption but ordered the Police to exercise their discretion under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police subsequently provided representations explaining their decision to withhold the records, balancing the right of access against the privacy rights of third parties.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Police's exercise of discretion and found the records exempt under section 38(b).

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the City of Toronto for records relating to his tenure as President of a community recreation centre.

The City granted partial access, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy, and charged a fee while denying a fee waiver.

The appellant appealed, alleging a conflict of interest by City staff processing the request.

The Adjudicator found no conflict of interest that interfered with the decision-making process.

The Adjudicator upheld the application of the invasion of privacy and solicitor-client privilege exemptions, and most of the advice or recommendations exemptions.

The Adjudicator reduced the fee by disallowing search and preparation costs since the request involved the appellant's personal information, but upheld the photocopying fee and the denial of the fee waiver.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Niagara Regional Police Service for records relating to an investigation into allegations that the appellant had personated a police officer.

The Police denied access to the records, citing exemptions for personal information and unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the affected individuals.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the South Bruce-Grey Police Services Board for records relating to police investigations involving himself.

The Police disclosed some records but withheld others under the law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions, and refused to confirm or deny the existence of records relating to a specific incident.

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the withheld records did not qualify as law enforcement reports but were exempt as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Commissioner also held that the Police could not refuse to confirm or deny the existence of the remaining records, but found those records were also exempt under the personal privacy exemption.

A conflict of interest allegation against the Police's FOI Co-ordinator was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Township's decision to deny access to a letter of credit provided by a developer for a subdivision project.

The Township claimed exemptions under section 11(a) (economic interests) and section 10(1) (third party information) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the information did not "belong to" the Township under section 11(a) and was not "supplied in confidence" under section 10(1) because it was the product of negotiation.

The Township was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant, through their lawyer, submitted a freedom of information request to the Peel Regional Police Services Board for records relating to a fraud investigation involving the appellant.

The Police granted partial access but denied access to the majority of the records under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant appealed, arguing the decision letter was inadequate, the "absurd result" doctrine should apply since they knew the identities of the individuals involved, and the search for records was incomplete.

The Assistant Commissioner found the initial decision letter inadequate but noted a revised letter had been provided.

The Assistant Commissioner rejected the application of the "absurd result" doctrine, upheld the privacy exemption as the records were compiled during a law enforcement investigation, and concluded the Police conducted a reasonable search.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chatham-Kent Police Services Board denying access to records relating to an investigation of her complaint against members of the Amherstburg Police Service.

The Police claimed the records were excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under sections 52(3)1 and 52(3)3 as employment-related records.

The Adjudicator found that neither exclusion applied, as the related proceedings were completed and the Police no longer had a legal interest in the matter.

The Adjudicator also found the Police failed to demonstrate they conducted a reasonable search for the investigating officer's notes, and ordered a further search and a new access decision.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to portions of correspondence regarding a sports league.

The City withheld the name, address, and other personal information of a member of the public who had submitted concerns about the league, claiming exemptions under sections 14(1) and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that the withheld information qualified as personal information and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's privacy, particularly given that the information was supplied in confidence.

The City's decision was upheld.

The appellant, a lawyer representing a client injured in a transit incident, requested police notebook entries containing a witness statement.

The Police treated the request as a general records request under Part I of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and denied access under section 14(1), relying on the presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy in section 14(3)(b).

The adjudicator found that because the lawyer was acting as an agent for the client, the request should have been processed as a request for personal information under Part II of the Act.

While the section 14(3)(b) presumption applied, the Police were ordered to reconsider their exercise of discretion under section 38(b) in light of the specific circumstances of the case.

The appellant requested copies of correspondence between the Township of Glenelg and its solicitor regarding liability associated with letters from a property owners' group.

The Township denied access under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming solicitor-client and litigation privilege.

The adjudicator found that two records were not confidential because their contents were discussed in open council meetings and must be disclosed.

The other two records were confidential communications for legal advice and were exempt from disclosure.