Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

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, who has a visual impairment, requested access to his personal information from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal in an audiotape format.

The Tribunal agreed to provide the audiotapes but issued a fee estimate.

The appellant appealed, arguing he should receive the audiotapes at no charge as an accommodation for his disability.

The adjudicator found that the Tribunal complied with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by offering the requested format upon payment of the mandatory fee.

The adjudicator declined to rule on the human rights accommodation issue, deferring to an ongoing proceeding before the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

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 submitted eight broad Freedom of Information requests to Ontario Hydro regarding nuclear safety, waste management, and related issues.

Ontario Hydro issued fee estimates totalling $22,087.12 and denied the appellant's request for a fee waiver.

The appellant appealed the fee estimates and the denial of the fee waiver.

The Adjudicator upheld the fee estimates as reasonable given the voluminous records and extensive search required.

The Adjudicator also upheld the denial of the fee waiver, finding that while the records related to a public health and safety concern, it would not be fair and equitable to waive the fees due to the extremely broad scope of the requests and the appellant's lack of cooperation in narrowing them.

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 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 appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Correctional Services for records relating to his incarceration, including medical and detention centre records.

The Ministry denied access to several records, claiming they were excluded under the labour relations and employment provisions of section 65(6) due to an anticipated civil lawsuit by the appellant against the Crown.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were not excluded under section 65(6) because the anticipated proceedings did not arise in an employment or labour relations context.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the exemption of the Correctional Officers' names under section 49(b) to protect their personal privacy, but ordered the disclosure of the remaining portions of the records, finding that the Ministry failed to establish that disclosure would jeopardize the security of the detention centre under section 14(1)(k).

The Ministry's search for records was deemed reasonable.

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 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 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 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.

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 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 submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General for records relating to the movements of a named individual at Camp Ipperwash.

The Ministry refused to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records pursuant to section 21(5) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that disclosing the mere existence or non-existence of the records would reveal personal information about the named individual's involvement in law enforcement activities, constituting an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Commissioner also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The appellant sought access to records relating to his adoption application, including notes of conversations and unsolicited letters from three named individuals.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator ordered the disclosure of pages containing only the personal information of the appellant and his consenting wife, as well as information the appellant himself had supplied.

However, the adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to the remaining records, finding that the highly sensitive nature of the information and the affected persons' expectation of confidentiality outweighed the appellant's interest in responding to the allegations against him.

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 appellants appealed the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care's decision to deny access to records relating to the regulation of osteopathic practitioners.

In an interim order, the Assistant Commissioner deferred consideration of certain records pending notification of affected persons.

The affected persons consented to disclosure.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the remaining records did not qualify for exemption under sections 13(1), 18(1)(g), 19, or 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, except for one portion containing personal information of an unidentified individual.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records with that single severance.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities for records relating to Superbuild funding applications.

The Ministry notified a third party and extended the time to respond, but failed to issue a decision by the extended deadline.

The appellant appealed the deemed refusal.

The adjudicator found that the Ministry failed to comply with the statutory time limits under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and ordered the Ministry to issue a decision letter to the appellant without further time extensions.

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.