IPCO 2000

A member of the media requested records detailing the results of all Police Services Act disciplinary hearings involving members of the Niagara Regional Police Services Board over a five-year period.

The Police denied access, claiming the records fell outside the jurisdiction of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3).

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the records were collected and maintained in relation to employment-related matters in which the Police have a statutory interest.

Consequently, the records were excluded from the scope of the Act and the appeal was dismissed.

A member of the media requested records detailing the results of all Police Act hearings involving members of the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board over a five-year period.

The Police denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)3.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the Police had construed the request too narrowly, all responsive records were collected or maintained in relation to employment-related matters in which the Police had an interest.

Consequently, the records were excluded from the Act's jurisdiction and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Guelph Police Services Board's decision to deny access to severed portions of a consultant's report under the invasion of privacy exemption in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the severed information on pages 65 and 97 constituted personal information and its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

However, the severed information on page 98 did not constitute personal information as it related to management practices rather than an identifiable individual.

The Police were ordered to disclose the severed information on page 98.

The appellant requested access to her Employee Health Services file from the City of Toronto under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The City denied access, claiming the records fell outside the Act's jurisdiction under section 52(3) as they related to labour relations and employment-related matters.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that the records were collected and used in relation to meetings and communications about the appellant's employment and WSIB claims, in which the City had a current legal interest.

The appellant, a former police officer, appealed the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to various occurrence reports and police files in which he was named.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for law enforcement and unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Adjudicator found that the Police conducted a reasonable search for missing records.

The Adjudicator upheld the decision to withhold most of the records under section 38(b) as they related to a suicide investigation and contained highly sensitive personal information.

However, the Adjudicator ordered the disclosure of the appellant's own witness statements and certain factual recordings, finding that withholding them would lead to an absurd result and that the law enforcement exemptions did not apply.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth for itemized legal bills and consultant/lobbyist invoices related to the Red Hill Creek Expressway.

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

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Region's decision, finding that the legal accounts and the consultant invoices, which were integrated into the legal services provided by the law firm, were protected by common law solicitor-client communication privilege.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the City of Toronto for a legal opinion regarding a proposed sewer by-law.

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

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), which had obtained the opinion and shared it with the City, also claimed the record was exempt under section 10(1)(b) as third party information.

The adjudicator found that the City was not the client and could not claim privilege, and that any privilege the WWF had was waived when it shared the opinion with the City.

The adjudicator also found that the requirements for the third party information exemption were not met.

The City was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant sought access to police records relating to his arrest and detention, alleging physical and sexual assault by police officers.

The Toronto Police Services Board denied access, citing various exemptions including invasion of privacy.

In an interim order, the adjudicator found the Police failed to properly exercise their discretion under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and ordered them to do so.

The Police subsequently provided representations balancing the appellant's right of access against the privacy interests of other individuals, concluding the balance favoured privacy protection.

The adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, finding the exercise of discretion was proper and in accordance with the Act.

The appellant appealed a decision by the police denying access to certain records related to a criminal charge against him.

The police claimed the records were exempt under section 9(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as information received in confidence from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The adjudicator found that because the criminal litigation had concluded, any privilege attached to the records had terminated and there was no continuing expectation of confidentiality.

The police were ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant made a freedom of information request for unapproved municipal council minutes.

The Municipality agreed to disclose the minutes and provided them within 16 days of the council meeting, well within the 30-day limit prescribed by section 19 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing that section 74 of the Municipal Act requires disclosure 'within a reasonable time', which she interpreted as faster than the 30-day limit to allow for public scrutiny before the next council meeting.

The adjudicator dismissed the appeal, finding that the Municipality fully complied with its statutory obligations under section 19 of the Act by responding within 30 days.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board for records relating to a sexual assault investigation involving his wife at a nursing home.

The Police granted partial access but withheld certain information under the personal privacy and law enforcement exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, finding that the withheld information consisted of the personal information of other identifiable individuals compiled during a law enforcement investigation, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of their personal privacy under section 38(b).

The appellant appealed a decision by the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board to deny access to portions of records relating to her 1979 sexual assault complaint.

The Police withheld the information under the invasion of privacy exemptions in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, finding that the withheld information consisted of the personal information of other individuals compiled during a law enforcement investigation, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of their personal privacy under section 38(b) of the Act.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Sault Ste.

Marie Police Services Board for records relating to the investigation into her son's death.

The Police denied access to a cassette tape from the son's answering machine under the personal privacy exemption (s. 14(1)).

The appellant appealed, arguing she owned the tape and had provided it to the Police.

The Adjudicator found that the tape contained the personal information of the callers and the deceased, but not the appellant.

The Adjudicator held that the information was compiled during a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption against disclosure under s. 14(3)(b).

Furthermore, the 'absurd result' principle did not apply because the appellant did not have direct, first-hand knowledge of the tape's contents.

The decision of the Police to deny access was upheld.

The appellant sought access to police records concerning the investigation into the death of his daughter.

The Police denied access, citing exemptions for law enforcement, civil liability, and unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the appellant did not have lawful custody of his daughter at the time of her death, precluding access under section 54(c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator upheld the Police's decision to withhold the records under section 38(b), as disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the deceased and other individuals.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Toronto Police Services Board for records relating to a theft complaint in which he was named as a suspect.

The Police disclosed part of an occurrence report but withheld other portions under the personal privacy exemption.

The appellant appealed, arguing he had a right to the information to defend against allegations and that more records should exist.

The adjudicator upheld the Police's decision to withhold the information, finding its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the privacy of other individuals.

However, the adjudicator found the Police unreasonably narrowed the scope of the request and ordered them to conduct a further search for additional records, such as police officers' notebooks.

The appellants, parents of a 17-year-old girl killed in a motor vehicle accident, appealed a decision by the Durham Regional Police Service denying their freedom of information request for witness statements.

The Police denied access under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing the protection of personal information.

The Adjudicator upheld the decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation, triggering a presumption of an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The Adjudicator further held that the appellants' desire for understanding, while sympathetic, constituted a private matter and did not meet the compelling public interest override in section 16.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee for records relating to his mother's estate.

The OPGT, acting as litigation guardian for the appellant's brother, denied access to certain records under the personal privacy exemption.

The adjudicator found that the records contained highly sensitive financial and legal information relating to the brother.

The adjudicator concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the brother's personal privacy and upheld the OPGT's decision to deny access.

The requester appealed a deemed refusal by the Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) to provide access to records relating to the acquisition and sale of a specified property.

The ORC had previously extended the time to process the request but failed to issue a final decision within the extended timeframe.

The adjudicator ordered the ORC to issue final decisions on access to two groups of records by specified dates, without recourse to further time extensions.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General's decision to deny access to records relating to a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention complaint filed against the appellant.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6)3.

The adjudicator found that the records were collected, prepared, maintained, or used by the Ministry in relation to an employment-related matter in which the Ministry had an interest, specifically the ongoing dispute and Ombudsman investigation regarding the complaint.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, concluding the records were excluded from the Act.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Correctional Services' decision to deny access to an occurrence report regarding a workplace complaint.

The Ministry claimed the record fell outside the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under the labour relations exclusion in section 65(6)3.

The adjudicator found that the record was collected and used in relation to meetings and discussions about labour relations matters in which the Ministry had an ongoing legal interest, specifically related to active grievances filed by the appellant.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, concluding the record was excluded from the Act.