Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The appellant requested records relating to the drafting of two City of Toronto by-laws.

The City denied access to certain records, claiming exemptions for draft by-laws and solicitor-client privilege.

The adjudicator found that most of the draft by-laws were exempt under section 6(1)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as they had not been considered in a public meeting.

The adjudicator also found that the remaining records, consisting of communications among the City's drafting team, were subject to solicitor-client communication privilege under section 12.

However, the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of one draft by-law that had been considered in a public meeting, finding that the City had expressly waived privilege over it.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for records relating to an investigation of a housing authority tenant.

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

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained highly sensitive financial and employment information of the tenant and his spouse, the disclosure of which would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

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

A requester sought access to site evaluation reports and Certificates of Approval for various sites from the Ministry of the Environment.

The Ministry decided to disclose the records, but a third-party engineering company appealed, arguing the records contained trade secrets and technical information supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which would prejudice its competitive position under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that while the records contained technical information supplied in confidence, the company failed to establish a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure, noting that much of the information was already publicly available or routinely disclosed.

The Ministry's decision to disclose the records was upheld.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Toronto Police Services Board for records relating to an assault charge.

The Police denied access to portions of the records, claiming exemptions for relations with other governments and invasion of privacy.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional records, including a micro-cassette recording, should exist.

The Adjudicator upheld the Police's decision to withhold information in the Confidential Crown Envelope under section 38(a) and found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search for the requested records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to criminal charges against him, including the Crown brief, witness statements, and police notes.

The Adjudicator found that certain records containing the personal information of the victim and other individuals were exempt from disclosure as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under sections 21 and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, the Adjudicator rejected the Ministry's claim that the remaining records were exempt under the solicitor-client and litigation privilege in section 19, finding that the privilege had expired with the termination of the litigation, did not apply to communications with opposing parties, or had been waived.

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

The appellant appealed a decision of the Pension Commission of Ontario regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to the drafting of an amendment to Regulation 909 under the Pension Benefits Act, and records identifying individuals who accessed a specific pension plan.

The adjudicator upheld the Commission's fee estimate and found that several records were exempt under solicitor-client communication privilege, as they were confidential communications made for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice.

Portions of other records were found exempt under the cabinet records exemption because they revealed the content of draft regulations.

However, the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of the name and organization of a union representative on a plan viewing form, finding that this information related to the individual's representative capacity and did not qualify as personal information.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate and a 'no responsive records' decision issued by the Ontario Human Rights Commission in response to a request for statistical and policy information regarding the Commission's use of section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The adjudicator found that the Commission's fee estimate for preparing records for disclosure was too high, reducing the time estimate from two minutes to one minute per page, and ordered a revised fee estimate.

The adjudicator upheld the Commission's decision that it had conducted a reasonable search for the requested policy records.

The Ministry requested a reconsideration of Order P-1575, which had ordered a further search for records relating to the appellant's performance appraisal.

The Ministry argued that the appellant's subsequent filing of a grievance constituted new evidence that brought the records under the employment-related exclusion in section 65(6)3 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner denied the reconsideration request, finding that he was functus officio as there was no jurisdictional defect or accidental error in the original decision.

Furthermore, the reconsideration was moot because the Ministry had already fully complied with the original order.

An insurance company, acting on behalf of an insured involved in a fatal motor vehicle accident, requested access to police investigation records, including witness statements and occurrence reports.

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

The Adjudicator found that portions of the records containing the personal information of witnesses and the deceased were exempt from disclosure as their release would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy.

Furthermore, a two-page occurrence report was found to be a formal report prepared in the course of law enforcement and was exempt.

However, the remaining records, which were merely descriptive, did not qualify as reports and were ordered to be disclosed to the appellant.

The Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board requested a reconsideration of Order MO-1167, which had found that certain employment-related records requested by an employee were subject to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board provided new evidence that a grievance had in fact been filed, contrary to the factual finding in the original order.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the original decision was based on an accidental error of fact regarding the existence of the grievance, permitting reconsideration under the doctrine of functus officio.

Upon reconsideration, the Assistant Commissioner concluded that the records related to an employment-related matter in which the Board had a legal interest, bringing them within the scope of section 52(3) and outside the jurisdiction of the Act.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Lindsay Police Services Board denying access to a line-by-line budget document under the closed meeting exemption in section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the budget was discussed in camera, the Police failed to establish that a statute authorized holding the meeting in the absence of the public, as the discussions did not qualify as 'intimate financial matters' under the Police Services Act or the Board's By-Law.

The Police were ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant, an unsuccessful bidder for a consulting services contract, made a freedom of information request to the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board for reports regarding the selection of a benefits consultant.

The Board denied access, claiming the records were excluded under the labour relations provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, or alternatively exempt under provisions relating to closed meetings, economic interests, and third-party information.

The adjudicator found that the records did not fall within the labour relations exclusion and were not exempt under the closed meeting or economic interests exemptions.

However, the adjudicator found that specific details of the successful bidder's business plan were exempt as third-party commercial information.

The Board was ordered to disclose the remaining portions of the records.

The appellant requested the names of three individuals involved in an incident where her son was struck by a baseball, intending to sue them.

The Durham Regional Police Services Board denied access to a supplementary report containing two of the names, citing exemptions for personal privacy and law enforcement reports.

The adjudicator found that the names, addresses, and dates of birth were exempt under section 38(b) as their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy, having been compiled during an investigation into a possible violation of law.

However, the adjudicator found that the remaining information in the report did not qualify as a law enforcement report under section 8(2)(a) and ordered it disclosed after severing the identifying information.

The appellant, an insurance company, sought access to records from the Ministry of the Attorney General relating to the circumstances of an insured's death to defend a civil action.

The Ministry denied access citing solicitor-client privilege and invasion of privacy.

On reconsideration, the Adjudicator found that while many records contained personal information and were exempt under section 21, certain photographs of the accident scene and correspondence did not contain personal information.

The Adjudicator also held that litigation privilege under section 19 had expired for the police photographs since the related criminal litigation had terminated.

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

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Finance for records relating to a company's compliance with the Corporations Tax Act and the discontinuation of a Business Corporations Act proceeding.

The Ministry denied access to certain computer printouts under the tax information exemption in section 17(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator upheld the exemption, finding the records contained information obtained on a tax return or gathered to determine tax liability.

The adjudicator also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply and that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The appellant requested police records relating to the sudden death of his sister, acting as the estate trustee.

The London Police Services Board denied access under various exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that while the appellant was a personal representative, the request did not relate to the administration of the estate, precluding him from exercising the deceased's access rights.

The records were largely exempt as their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy, having been compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

However, applying the absurd result principle, the Commissioner ordered the disclosure of specific pages containing the appellant's own personal information.

The Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation received a freedom of information request for records relating to funding provided to the Eelam Thamil Information Centre (ETHIC).

The Ministry decided to grant partial access to the records.

ETHIC appealed the decision, arguing the records contained confidential financial information.

The adjudicator found that ETHIC failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence to satisfy the three-part test under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, specifically failing to prove the information was supplied in confidence or that disclosure would cause a reasonable expectation of harm.

The appeal was dismissed and the Ministry's decision to disclose the records was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Hamilton for records relating to fire prevention activities.

The City extended the time to respond twice, citing the large volume of records.

The appellant appealed the second extension.

The adjudicator found that the City failed to justify the total time required for both extensions, rendering them unreasonable.

However, given the imminent expiry of the second extension, the adjudicator ordered the City to issue an access decision by that date.

The appellant, a Correctional Officer, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to a workplace investigation into allegations against him.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the factors favouring privacy protection, including the highly sensitive nature of the information and the expectation of confidentiality, outweighed the factors favouring disclosure.

The adjudicator also found that the Ministry's search for responsive records was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for information regarding the ranks and educational levels of former municipal Chiefs of Police who joined the Ontario Provincial Police following police service amalgamations.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(6)3 as employment-related matters in which the Ministry had an interest.

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner found that while the records related to an employment-related matter, the Ministry failed to establish a sufficient legal interest, as there was no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable dispute that had the capacity to affect the Ministry's legal rights or obligations.

The Ministry was ordered to issue an access decision under the Act.