Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The appellant requested access to original documents containing the signature of his deceased father-in-law, a former employee of the Town of Ancaster, to verify the signature on the deceased's Will.

The Town denied access under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming it would be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that while the signature qualified as personal information, its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy given the circumstances, including the estate administrator's lack of objection.

The Town was ordered to provide access via an on-site examination.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) denying access to records relating to himself and six corporations compiled during OSC investigations.

The OSC claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for advice or recommendations, law enforcement, relations with other governments, and invasion of privacy.

The adjudicator ordered the OSC to produce certain withheld attachments to determine if they fell outside the Act's jurisdiction due to the Securities Act.

The adjudicator also found that some records were exempt as personal information or law enforcement reports, while ordering the disclosure of other records that did not meet the exemption criteria.

The appellant, an unsuccessful applicant for a Police Constable position, requested access to his recruitment file under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Toronto Police Services Board denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act's jurisdiction under section 52(3)3 as employment-related records.

The Adjudicator found that while the records related to an employment matter, the Police did not have a sufficient legal interest in the matter because there was no pending or reasonably foreseeable dispute that could affect their legal rights or obligations.

The records were therefore subject to the Act, and the Police were ordered to issue an access decision.

The appellant sought access to police notes and reports regarding an alleged assault against him at a high school.

The Halton Regional Police Services Board denied access to portions of the records, citing exemptions for invasion of privacy and law enforcement.

The adjudicator upheld the police's decision, finding that the withheld information contained personal information of other individuals compiled during a law enforcement investigation, and its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy.

The adjudicator also found that the public interest override did not apply, as the appellant's interest was primarily private.

An employee of the Toronto Police Services Board appealed a decision denying access to 73 pages of his departmental medical file.

The Police claimed the records fell outside the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act pursuant to section 52(3).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were collected and used in relation to an employment-related matter in which the Police had a legal interest, specifically the maintenance of discipline and a potential grievance regarding the employee's transfer.

The records were therefore excluded from the Act's jurisdiction.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Toronto for records pertaining to the University Settlement Centre.

The City extended the time for responding to the request, citing the large number of records and the need to search multiple program areas.

The appellant appealed the time extension.

The adjudicator upheld the City's decision, finding that the request necessitated extensive searches by experienced staff and that meeting the original time limit would unreasonably interfere with the City's operations.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Toronto for various employment and labour relations files.

The City denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Act pursuant to section 52(3)1.

The adjudicator found that the records were collected, prepared, maintained, or used by the City in relation to ongoing legal proceedings concerning the appellant's employment.

Consequently, the records met the three-part test under section 52(3)1 and were excluded from the Act's jurisdiction.

The City's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying full access to records relating to an affected person's application for compensation arising from an alleged sexual assault.

The adjudicator found that the records contained highly sensitive personal information of both the appellant and the affected person.

The adjudicator upheld the Board's decision to withhold most of the information under the personal privacy exemption, but ordered the disclosure of one letter granting a time extension, excluding the affected person's address.

The adjudicator also found that the Board erred by failing to notify the affected person before disclosing portions of the records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for records held by the Ontario Provincial Police, specifically referencing the Criminal Investigation Department, Biker Squad, and Investigation Support Bureau.

The Ministry refused to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records pursuant to section 14(3) of the Act.

On appeal, the adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records, if they existed, would qualify for exemption under the law enforcement provisions, and that disclosing the mere existence of such records would convey information that could compromise the effectiveness of a law enforcement activity.

The appellant submitted a multi-part request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of Finance for records relating to property assessment complaints and compliance with various orders.

The Ministry denied access to certain sales data under section 22(a) on the basis that it was publicly available for purchase, and stated no further records existed for other parts of the request.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that certain parts of the request were questions rather than requests for records, the Ministry's search for records was reasonable, and the sales data was exempt under section 22(a) as it was available through a regularized system of access.

A construction firm appealed the Regional Municipality of Waterloo's decision to refuse a freedom of information request regarding a municipal employee's salary and hiring details.

The Region claimed the request was frivolous, vexatious, and made in bad faith due to ongoing legal disputes between the parties.

The Adjudicator found that while the appellant's actions may have been inappropriate, they did not amount to bad faith or a dishonest purpose.

The Region was ordered to process the request.

The appellant appealed the Toronto Police Services Board's decision denying access to various records, including files relating to public complaints against police officers and records of previous arrests.

The Adjudicator found that the public complaint records did not fall outside the Act under sections 52(3)1 or 52(3)3, as the related proceedings were not current or in the reasonably proximate past, and the Police lacked a sufficient legal interest.

The Adjudicator upheld the Police's decision to withhold portions of arrest records and the appellant's criminal record under section 38(b), as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

Finally, the Adjudicator found that the Police conducted a reasonable search for records relating to a 1995 incident, which had been purged in accordance with their retention schedule.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Township of Osgoode to deny access to portions of a quarterly report prepared by an environmental management company regarding the operation of a municipal landfill site.

The Township claimed the third party information exemption under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the severed information qualified as commercial and financial information supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the affected party's competitive position.

The adjudicator also found that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, as there was no compelling public interest in disclosure that clearly outweighed the purpose of the exemption.

The Township's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to police records relating to sexual assault allegations against her deceased husband.

The appellant argued she was entitled to the records as the executrix of his estate under section 66(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the request did not relate to the administration of the estate, as the records contained no financial information.

The adjudicator further held that the records contained the personal information of the alleged victims and witnesses, and their disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b) because they were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

A member of the media requested access to a settlement agreement between the City of Hamilton and a former employee regarding a wrongful dismissal lawsuit.

The City denied access, claiming exemptions for economic interests, solicitor-client privilege, and personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the settlement agreement was not exempt under the economic interests or solicitor-client privilege exemptions, as it was an executed contract intended to end litigation and the City failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of financial harm.

The adjudicator also found that, with the exception of a schedule containing a letter of reference, disclosure of the agreement would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, given the public interest in scrutinizing the expenditure of public funds.

The City was ordered to disclose the agreement and two of its schedules.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to deny access to records relating to pay equity funding and redistribution.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, primarily arguing the records would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations (section 12(1)).

The Assistant Commissioner refused to allow the Ministry to raise a new discretionary exemption late in the process.

Most of the records were found to be exempt under section 12(1) as they were Cabinet submissions, drafts, or contained information that would reveal Cabinet deliberations.

However, one record and several fax transmittal sheets were ordered disclosed as they did not qualify for the exemption.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Toronto for records relating to storm sewer and water service at a specific address.

The City provided access to various files, but the appellant appealed, claiming that a letter and invoice from November 1995 were missing and that information was improperly severed from inspection reports.

The Adjudicator found that the severed information issue was moot as the City had subsequently provided unsevered copies.

The Adjudicator also concluded that the City's search for the missing records was reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Environment and Energy's decision to deny access to a document entitled 'Operations Division - Delivery Strategy'.

The Ministry claimed the record was exempt under the law enforcement exemption in section 14(1)(c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that the record contained detailed methodologies for investigators and enforcement staff, the disclosure of which would reveal investigative techniques and hinder the Ministry's ability to enforce environmental laws.

The Adjudicator also found that the public interest override in section 23 does not apply to section 14(1)(c).

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Education and Training for records relating to Great Lakes College.

The Ministry claimed it only had custody or control of some records, provided a fee estimate of $416, and denied a fee waiver.

The adjudicator found the Ministry did not have custody or control of the remaining records but ordered the Ministry to transfer those portions of the request to the College.

The adjudicator upheld the fee estimate and the denial of the fee waiver, finding the appellant did not demonstrate financial hardship sufficient to make a waiver fair and equitable.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board for the handwritten notes of an officer who investigated a motor vehicle accident in which the appellant was injured, including witness names and statements.

The Police granted partial access but withheld portions containing a witness statement and identifying information under the personal privacy exemption.

The adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, finding that the withheld information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.