Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the respondent police board for records relating to an investigation of a break and enter at his home.

The police denied access to parts of the records, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The adjudicator found that the records contained the personal information of a suspect and a witness, which was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

Applying the presumption under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the adjudicator concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and upheld the police's decision to withhold the records under section 38(b).

The appellant requested corrections to a letter written by the Chair of the Assessment Review Board to the Ombudsman of Ontario regarding the appellant's assessment hearing.

The Board refused to make the corrections but offered to attach a statement of disagreement.

On appeal, the adjudicator found that the entire record contained the appellant's personal information.

The adjudicator ordered the Board to attach a memorandum correcting four specific factual inaccuracies in the record, and permitted the appellant to attach a statement of disagreement regarding the remaining items.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Toronto for access to her employee health file.

The City denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Act under section 52(3)3 as they related to employment-related matters in which the City had an interest.

The adjudicator found that the records were collected and used in relation to meetings and discussions about accommodating the appellant's medical condition, which is an employment-related matter.

The adjudicator also found the City had a continuing legal interest in the matter due to potential human rights complaints.

The City's decision to deny access was upheld.

The complainant, the sole owner of a company, filed a privacy complaint after the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board issued a press release and posted it on its website detailing charges against him and his company under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The press release included his name, age, home address, and the charges.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were not excluded under the labour relations or public records exceptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

While disclosing the complainant's name and charges in a press release was a consistent purpose under section 42(c), disclosing his age and home address, as well as posting any of his personal information on the Internet, violated the Act.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Thunder Bay Police Services Board to deny access to portions of a Police General Occurrence Report regarding parking violations.

The Police claimed the withheld information was exempt under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, read with sections 14(1)(f) and 14(3)(b).

The adjudicator found that the withheld information contained the personal information of both the appellant and a complainant, compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

The adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, concluding that the presumption against disclosure applied and the information could not be reasonably severed.

The appellant sought access to a record described as the 'Russell Report' from the Township of Cavan-Millbrook-North Monaghan under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Township denied access, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12 of the Act.

The adjudicator found that the record contained the appellant's personal information but upheld the Township's decision to deny access, concluding that the record was a confidential communication from the Township's solicitor made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and thus protected by solicitor-client communication privilege.

The appellant requested access to a Phase 3 Environmental Site Assessment report regarding a specified address within the City of Toronto.

The City denied access under sections 10(1)(a) and (c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the record contained third-party scientific and technical information supplied in confidence.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the record contained scientific and technical information supplied in confidence, the City and the affected developer failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the developer's competitive position or result in undue loss.

The City was ordered to disclose the record in its entirety.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board for policies and procedures regarding the investigation of alcohol-related driving offences.

The Police denied access, claiming exemptions under sections 8(1)(a), (b), (c), and (e) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the Police failed to establish that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing investigation, reveal confidential investigative techniques, or endanger the life or physical safety of any person.

The Police were ordered to disclose the record in its entirety.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Toronto Police Services Board for his personal file regarding his unsuccessful candidacy for a Police Constable position, specifically seeking the reasons for his permanent exclusion from future employment.

The Police denied access to certain records, claiming exemptions including law enforcement intelligence information.

The Adjudicator found that while the background check itself was a human resources function, the specific information withheld was obtained through the Police's intelligence gathering function and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal law enforcement intelligence information.

The Adjudicator ordered the disclosure of non-exempt portions of one record but upheld the decision to withhold the remaining information under section 8(1)(g) of the Act.

The requester, a solicitor representing the estate and family of a deceased individual killed in a motor vehicle accident, appealed the Peel Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to a motor vehicle collision report.

The requester claimed access under section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as the deceased's personal representative.

The Adjudicator found that the requester did not provide evidence of authority to act as the personal representative and that the request, intended for a wrongful death lawsuit, did not relate to the administration of the estate.

The Adjudicator further held that the record was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton for a list of companies with Special Discharge Agreements relating to sewer and waste.

The Region denied access under the law enforcement exemption.

The adjudicator found that the law enforcement exemption did not apply because disclosure would not reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter.

The adjudicator also found that the third party information exemption did not apply because the names of the companies were not supplied in confidence.

The Region was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant sought access to records relating to condominium developments from the Town of Halton Hills under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Town denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for closed meetings, solicitor-client privilege, and economic interests.

The adjudicator found that most records were properly withheld under solicitor-client privilege and the economic interests exemption.

However, the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of three records, finding that two did not qualify for the closed meeting or economic interests exemptions, and that the Town had waived solicitor-client privilege over one record by inadvertently allowing the appellant to view it during a file review.

The requester sought access to records relating to the relocation of a stream at a waste disposal site.

The Ministry of Natural Resources decided to disclose certain records.

Two affected parties appealed the decision, claiming the records contained scientific and technical information supplied in confidence and were exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that while some records contained technical information, the appellants failed to establish that the information was supplied in confidence.

The appeal was dismissed and the records were ordered disclosed.

The appellant appealed the Region's decision to deny access to portions of records relating to a successful bidder's proposal for a review of municipal legal services.

The Region claimed exemptions under sections 10(1) (third party information) and 14(1) (invasion of privacy) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that while the educational and employment histories of the bidder's employees were exempt as personal information, the bidder's past project experience was not personal information.

Furthermore, the Adjudicator held that the third party commercial information exemption did not apply because there was no reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure.

The Region was ordered to disclose the project experience information.

The appellant, the wife of a deceased individual who died in a fatal subway accident, requested access to police records relating to the investigation of his death.

The Toronto Police Services Board denied access to portions of the records under the personal privacy exemption.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the appellant did not qualify as a personal representative under section 54(a) of the Act because she did not provide the required documentation and her purpose (contemplating a civil lawsuit) did not relate to the administration of the estate.

The Commissioner further held that the records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumed unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b), and that no compelling public interest outweighed the exemption.

An heir tracer appealed the Public Guardian and Trustee's decision to deny access to lists of estates being administered by the PGT.

The PGT claimed the information was exempt under the personal privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Senior Adjudicator found that all requested information qualified as personal information.

Applying the presumption against disclosure of financial information and balancing the factors under section 21(2), the Adjudicator ordered the disclosure of the deceased individuals' names, addresses, last occupations, places of death, and dates of death, finding that the benefit to unknown heirs outweighed the diminished privacy interests of the deceased.

The remaining information, including financial values and inheritors' names, was found to be exempt, and the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The appellants appealed a decision by the Ministry of Health denying access to an ambulance call report concerning their deceased daughter.

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

The adjudicator found that the record contained medical information subject to the presumed invasion of privacy under section 21(3)(a), and that the remaining information was highly sensitive under section 21(2)(f).

Despite unlisted factors weighing moderately in favour of disclosure, the adjudicator concluded that the privacy interests prevailed and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Kingston for the names of agencies accepting workfare placements.

The City denied access, citing exemptions for personal privacy and economic interests.

The adjudicator found that disclosing the agency names could lead to the identification of individual social assistance recipients, constituting personal information.

The adjudicator concluded that disclosure would be a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Although there was a compelling public interest in the workfare program, it did not clearly outweigh the privacy interests of the vulnerable individuals involved.

The City's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.

The Ministry received the request but did not open the envelope for several weeks due to a backlog, and calculated the 30-day statutory response period from the date the envelope was opened.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner held that the 30-day period under section 26 of the Act begins upon receipt of the request, not when the envelope is opened.

The Ministry was deemed to have refused the request under section 29(4) and was ordered to issue a decision without a time extension.

The complainant, a teacher on medical leave, filed a privacy complaint after the College's Human Resources Manager accessed his medical file under threat of termination.

The College argued the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6)1 because they were maintained in relation to ongoing and anticipated proceedings, including grievances and a human rights complaint.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were collected, maintained, and used in relation to labour relations and employment-related proceedings.

Consequently, the records fell within the section 65(6)1 exclusion and were outside the Commissioner's jurisdiction.