IPCO 2001

The appellant appealed a decision by the Hamilton Police Service denying access to records relating to a fraud investigation in which the appellant was the complainant.

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

The adjudicator found that the Police conducted a reasonable search for records and properly applied the personal privacy exemptions under sections 14(1) and 38(b) to withhold the personal information of the investigated individual.

The Police were ordered to disclose seven phone message sheets, but their decision to withhold the remaining records was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Toronto for records concerning the boundaries, building structure, and uses of two residential properties involved in a neighbourhood dispute.

The City granted partial access, withholding certain records under the personal privacy and solicitor-client privilege exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, challenging the exemptions and the reasonableness of the City's search for records.

The adjudicator found that the City's search was reasonable for most records but ordered an additional search for one specific letter.

The adjudicator upheld the City's application of the personal privacy exemption, finding the information was compiled during an investigation into possible by-law violations.

The adjudicator also upheld the application of litigation privilege to records created for the dominant purpose of prosecuting the appellant and defending against her civil claim.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $150 charged by the municipality for processing a freedom of information request for waste site revenue records.

The municipality based the fee on five hours of manual search time.

The adjudicator found that while a manual search was necessary, the estimated time of five hours was excessive for the volume of records involved.

The adjudicator reduced the reasonable search time to 2.5 hours and upheld a fee of $75.00.

The appellant requested access to an itemized list of expenses and claims filed by a named individual from the London Police Services Board.

The Police denied access, claiming the records were exempt under the law enforcement exemption as they related to an ongoing investigation.

The adjudicator found that while the records fell within the scope of the Act as expense accounts, they were exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(a) because their release could reasonably be expected to interfere with ongoing investigations under the Police Services Act and the Criminal Code.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's fee estimate of $4,875.00 for preparing and severing 13 videotapes of former City of York council meetings.

The City claimed it needed to dub the tapes to a different format and spend extensive time editing and severing personal information.

The adjudicator found the City's estimate for dubbing and final editing excessive, noting that standard equipment could duplicate the tapes more efficiently.

The adjudicator upheld the estimated time for severing personal information but disallowed charges for inserting statements and final editing.

The fee estimate was reduced to $2,112.50.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Durham Regional Police Service denying access to four documents related to an investigation by the Professional Standards Branch into complaints against two police officers.

The Police claimed the records were excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)3.

The adjudicator found that the records were collected, prepared, or used by the Police in relation to communications about employment-related matters in which the Police have an interest, specifically the complaints under the Police Services Act and related ongoing civil litigation.

The adjudicator upheld the Police's decision that the Act does not apply to the records.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Waterloo Regional Police Services Board denying access to portions of an occurrence report and an officer's notebook relating to a specific incident.

The Police withheld information under the personal privacy exemption and advised that one officer's notebook was lost.

The adjudicator found that the withheld information contained the personal information of an affected person compiled during a law enforcement investigation, and its disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Act.

The adjudicator also found that the Police conducted a reasonable search for records, accepting the sworn affidavit of the officer who lost his notebook.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted multiple freedom of information requests to the City of Vaughan regarding a grading dispute and by-law enforcement.

The City refused to process the latest requests, claiming they were frivolous or vexatious, part of a pattern of conduct amounting to an abuse of the right of access, and made in bad faith or for a purpose other than to obtain access.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the City failed to establish that the requests were frivolous or vexatious.

The Commissioner ordered the City to process the requests and issue access decisions.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Municipality of Bayham for a confidential staff report concerning her property tax arrears, which had been considered during an in-camera municipal council meeting.

The Municipality denied access under section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the adjudicator found that the record contained the appellant's personal information and that its disclosure would reveal the substance of the council's in-camera deliberations.

The adjudicator also determined that the exception in section 6(2)(b) did not apply because the specific deliberations occurred in a closed session from which the appellant was excused.

The Municipality's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant sought access to a police occurrence report regarding an investigation into harassing phone calls.

The Halton Regional Police Service granted partial access, withholding portions containing the personal information of other individuals under the personal privacy exemption in section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the withheld information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and its disclosure was presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The appellant appealed the City of Burlington's decision to deny access to records relating to a donation for the McNichol project.

The City claimed exemptions under sections 10, 11, and 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that draft agreements were responsive to the request.

The Adjudicator ordered the disclosure of specific donation payment details, finding they would not prejudice the City's economic interests, but upheld exemptions for fundraising strategy and personal information of the donors.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board for all records pertaining to her son.

After multiple searches and a previous order requiring a new search, the appellant appealed again, claiming additional records should exist.

The Adjudicator found that the Board had canvassed appropriate staff, expended reasonable effort, and conducted a reasonable search.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Hamilton for records relating to the City's smoking by-law as it relates to Ivor Wynne Stadium.

The City disclosed some records but withheld others, claiming they were either non-responsive or exempt under section 12 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the City properly severed non-responsive information relating to restaurants, as it fell outside the scope of the specific request.

The adjudicator also upheld the application of solicitor-client communication privilege to the remaining withheld records, which consisted of confidential communications between City staff and legal counsel made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Township of Oro-Medonte denying access to legal opinions prepared by the Township's solicitor.

The Township claimed the records were exempt from disclosure under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act due to solicitor-client privilege.

The appellant argued that the Township waived this privilege by intending to attach the opinions to a public Report to Council.

The adjudicator found that the records were subject to solicitor-client communication privilege and that the Township had not waived this privilege, as there was no intention to attach the legal opinions to the public report.

The Township's decision was upheld.

The complainant, a father involved in a custody dispute, wrote a confidential letter to the Children's Lawyer expressing concerns about the lawyer assigned to his children.

Despite a specific request for confidentiality, the Children's Lawyer shared the letter with the assigned lawyer and the complainant's own counsel.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated and found that the letter contained personal information and that its disclosure to both lawyers violated section 42 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Mediator recommended that the Office of the Children's Lawyer develop guidelines for handling confidential complaints.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee denying access to 52 pages of records relating to the interpretation of 'income' under the Cemeteries Act.

The institution claimed the records were exempt under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the records, which consisted of legal counsel's notes, working papers, and background documents provided by the client for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, fell within the scope of solicitor-client communication privilege.

The institution's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to portions of handwritten notes related to a controversial subdivision and golf course development.

The Ministry claimed the withheld information was exempt under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as it contained personal information whose disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the information was personal information, the public interest in subjecting the government's activities to public scrutiny outweighed the privacy interests.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the withheld portions.

The appellant, an insurance adjuster, requested access to records relating to an Office of the Fire Marshal investigation into a commercial fire.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General denied access to the records, claiming exemptions for law enforcement, personal privacy, third party information, and solicitor-client privilege.

The adjudicator found that all records were responsive to the request.

Certain records containing witness statements were found to be exempt under the personal privacy exemption.

The adjudicator rejected the application of the third party information exemption, finding insufficient evidence of reasonable expectation of harm.

Two records were found to be exempt under solicitor-client privilege, while the remaining claims for privilege were rejected.

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

The appellant appealed the Ontario Securities Commission's decision to deny access to a review document provided by the Investment Dealers Association.

The adjudicator found that the Investment Dealers Association is a recognized self-regulatory organization and that the record was received in confidence.

Applying section 153 of the Securities Act and section 67(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the adjudicator upheld the decision to deny access, concluding the record was excluded from the access provisions.

The appellant requested access to electronic records from the Ministry of the Environment's Drive Clean database.

The Ministry denied access, claiming exemptions under section 18(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for valuable government information and economic interests.

The adjudicator found that the requested data constituted the results of environmental testing carried out for the Ministry, falling within the mandatory exception in section 18(2).

Consequently, the Ministry was precluded from relying on the section 18(1) exemptions.

The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to provide a representative sample of 50 records with personal information severed.