Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The appellant sought access to police records relating to an impaired driving investigation in which he was the accused.

The Police denied access, claiming the records were exempt under the law enforcement provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that the records did not qualify as a 'report' under section 8(2)(a) and that disclosure would not interfere with an ongoing law enforcement matter or investigation under sections 8(1)(a) or (b).

The Adjudicator also found that the Police failed to conduct a reasonable search for additional responsive records, such as CAD system data and officer notebooks.

The Police were ordered to disclose the records and conduct a further search.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Toronto Police Services Board denying access to portions of police records relating to his apprehension under the Mental Health Act.

The Police claimed exemptions under sections 14(1) and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, finding that the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and thus subject to the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b).

The appellant sought access to Ministry of Health investigation reports regarding the care and death of her mother at a long-term care facility.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, citing the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained the deceased mother's personal medical information and were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumptions against disclosure under sections 21(3)(a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellants requested access to their adoption file, including information regarding anonymous complaints made about their suitability as adoptive parents.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services denied access to portions of the records under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected persons' privacy.

The adjudicator found that the records contained the personal information of both the appellants and the affected persons.

Balancing the factors under section 21(2), the adjudicator concluded that the affected persons' expectation of confidentiality significantly outweighed the appellants' interest in disclosure, upholding the exemption for most of the records but ordering the disclosure of one severable record.

The Ministry of the Environment received a freedom of information request for records relating to contamination on a company's property.

The Ministry decided to disclose several records, and the company appealed, arguing the records were exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third party information.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the records contained technical information supplied in confidence, disclosure of most records could not reasonably be expected to cause the harms outlined in section 17(1).

However, specific records containing unique equipment specifications were found to be exempt under section 17(1)(a) as their disclosure could prejudice the company's competitive position.

The Ministry was ordered to withhold those specific records and disclose the remainder.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to Ontario Hydro for records pertaining to its exemption from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Ontario Hydro denied access, stating no responsive records existed because it was still covered by the Act at the time.

During mediation, the appellant clarified the request included successor companies.

Ontario Hydro Services Company (OHSC) argued the request was specific to Ontario Hydro and no clarification was needed.

The Commissioner found that Ontario Hydro had an obligation under section 24(2) of the Act to seek clarification before narrowly interpreting the request.

The Commissioner ordered OHSC to issue a revised access decision encompassing records relating to the successor companies.

The appellants requested the name of a driver involved in a motor vehicle incident from the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services.

The Ministry denied access under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the requested information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation into a possible violation of the Highway Traffic Act, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 21(3)(b).

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation denying access to correspondence regarding a museum closure.

The Ministry claimed the records contained personal information of affected persons and withheld them under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the records contained personal information of both the appellant and the affected persons.

Applying sections 21 and 49(b), the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of parts of two records where consent was provided, but upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the remaining records to protect the affected persons' privacy.

The appellant, a Township Councillor, submitted a freedom of information request to the Township of King for survey records regarding septic tank problems.

The survey was conducted by a sub-consultant retained by a consultant for an environmental assessment study jointly undertaken by the Township and the Regional Municipality of York.

The Township denied access, claiming it did not have custody or control of the records, as the sub-consultant refused to release them citing confidentiality.

The adjudicator found that the Township had control of the records within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, given its statutory mandate, agency relationship with the consultants, and reliance on the records.

The Township was ordered to direct the sub-consultant to provide the records and to issue an access decision.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Board denying access to two pages of a complaint review file concerning a veterinarian.

The Board claimed the records were exempt under the law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the records contained highly sensitive personal information about professional misconduct complaints against various veterinarians, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator also found that the records could not reasonably be severed, and upheld the Board's decision to withhold the records in their entirety.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $118.50 issued by the Town of Amherstburg for processing a freedom of information request for various municipal records, including police budgets and committee minutes.

The adjudicator reviewed the estimated search times for six items and found some to be unreasonable, particularly for records that should be easily retrievable or were located off-site.

The fee estimate was reduced to $83.50.

The appellant, a former auxiliary member of the Sudbury Regional Police Service, requested access to her personnel file under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police denied access, arguing the records fell outside the Act's jurisdiction under sections 52(3)1 and 3, which exclude records relating to labour relations or employment.

The Adjudicator found that auxiliary police officers are volunteers and are not engaged in 'employment' within the meaning of the Act.

Consequently, the records fall within the jurisdiction of the Act, and the Police were ordered to issue an access decision.

The appellant requested access to focus group and polling reports on education-related issues from the Ministry of Education and Training.

The Ministry denied access to several records, claiming they contained advice or recommendations under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the factual results and analysis of public opinion in the focus group reports did not constitute advice or recommendations and ordered their disclosure.

However, specific sections containing strategic conclusions and suggested courses of action were found to be exempt.

The appellant's claim that a compelling public interest under section 23 required full disclosure was dismissed, as the public interest was satisfied by the disclosure of the factual results.

The requester sought access to the electronic appointment schedule of a senior employee in the Premier's Office.

Cabinet Office denied access to portions of the records, claiming they were not in the institution's custody or control, or were exempt under various provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records, which were maintained on a government database, were in the lawful custody of the Premier's Office.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of the Cabinet records exemption (s. 12(1)) for entries reflecting the Premier's priority-setting functions, and the personal privacy exemption (s. 21(1)) for entries relating to the employee's personal and partisan activities, as well as the personal information of third parties.

However, entries relating to the employee's professional activities were ordered disclosed.

A member of the media appealed the Town of Lindsay's decision to deny access to records detailing the severance package of a retired municipal employee.

The Town claimed exemptions under sections 6(1)(b) (closed meeting) and 14(1) (invasion of privacy) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that the records revealed the substance of deliberations of in-camera council meetings properly held under the Municipal Act to discuss personal matters and labour relations.

The Adjudicator also held that the public interest override in section 16 does not apply to the closed meeting exemption in section 6.

The Town's decision was upheld.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to La Cité Collégiale for records relating to the classification of a job position.

The College denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(6)3.

The adjudicator found that the records were collected, prepared, and used in relation to communications about employment-related matters in which the College has a legal interest, specifically a grievance filed by the appellant.

The adjudicator upheld the College's decision and found the records fell outside the jurisdiction of the Act.

The appellants made a freedom of information request to the Thunder Bay Police Service for records relating to the sudden death of their son.

The Police disclosed some records but withheld others, citing the invasion of privacy exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the withheld records contained the personal information of the deceased son and other identifiable witnesses.

The adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, concluding that the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to Ontario Hydro for records relating to the energy consumption and billing of a property she had purchased, following a dispute with the previous owners who reclaimed the property.

Hydro denied access to portions of the records under the personal privacy exemption.

The adjudicator found that the records contained the personal information of both the appellant and the previous owners.

However, because the previous owners had already provided the appellant with copies of some of the hydro bills in the context of their dispute, applying the privacy exemption to withhold those same records would lead to an 'absurd result'.

Hydro was ordered to disclose the portions of the records that related to the time period the appellant was in possession of the property.

A requester appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to an 80-page report prepared by the Greater Toronto Trucking Association regarding the towing industry.

The City claimed the record was exempt under section 10(1)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third party commercial information.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while some pages contained commercial and financial information supplied in confidence, the City only established a reasonable expectation of competitive harm for specific pages detailing actual operating expenses and hook-up times.

The City was ordered to disclose the remainder of the record.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Management Board of Cabinet for copies of all bids tendered for a specific project.

The institution granted partial access but withheld the names of proposed subcontractors under the third party information exemption in section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the denial of access.

The adjudicator found that while the subcontractor names constituted commercial information, they were not supplied in confidence and there was no detailed and convincing evidence of a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure.

The institution was ordered to disclose the subcontractor names to the appellant.