Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The appellant, a former civilian employee of the Waterloo Regional Police Service, requested access to all information relating to her in the possession of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

The Municipality denied access to some records, claiming they were excluded under section 52(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, or exempt under sections 12 and 14.

The Adjudicator found that section 52(3) did not apply because the related legal proceedings had been settled 14 years prior.

However, the Adjudicator upheld the application of solicitor-client privilege and personal privacy exemptions to several records, ordering the disclosure of the remaining records.

The Adjudicator also found the Municipality's search for an alleged audio tape to be reasonable.

The appellant appealed the Regional Municipality of York's decision to deny access to portions of her social services and Eligibility Review Officer (ERO) files regarding an overpayment investigation.

The Municipality claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for law enforcement and invasion of privacy.

The Adjudicator found that an investigation conducted solely to determine an overpayment under the General Welfare Assistance Act does not qualify as a 'law enforcement' investigation.

Furthermore, disclosing the appellant's own severable personal information would not constitute an unjustified invasion of third-party privacy.

The Municipality was ordered to disclose the severed records.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to the investigation into her husband's sudden death.

The Police denied access under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The adjudicator found that the appellant did not establish she was the personal representative of her husband's estate under section 54(a).

Furthermore, the records were compiled during a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption of an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b), which could not be rebutted.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant, representing the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Fund, appealed a decision by the Halton Regional Police Services Board denying access to information identifying the owner and insurer of a vehicle involved in a fatal accident.

The Police claimed the information was exempt under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b).

The adjudicator also concluded that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, as the Fund had alternative means to obtain the information through civil discovery processes.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the City of Vaughan for a confidential memorandum from the City Solicitor to the City Council.

The City denied access under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The appellant appealed, arguing the City waived privilege by referencing the advice in a public committee report and under the Planning Act.

The Adjudicator found the record was a privileged communication and that the minimal disclosure of the 'bottom line' of the advice did not constitute an express or implied waiver of privilege.

The City's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Casino Corporation's decision to deny access to records relating to a financial settlement with a third party over a cancelled teletheatre operation at Casino Windsor.

The Adjudicator found that some records were exempt as cabinet records, third party commercial information, and information prejudicial to the Corporation's economic interests.

The public interest override did not apply.

The Corporation was ordered to disclose four records that did not meet the exemption criteria, while the decision to withhold the remaining records was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Education and Training's deemed refusal to provide access to records relating to Bill 160.

The Ministry had issued an interim decision with a fee estimate, which the requester accepted and paid, but the Ministry failed to issue a final decision within the prescribed time limit.

The adjudicator found the Ministry in a deemed refusal situation and ordered it to issue a final decision letter to the requester without recourse to a time extension.

The affected party requested a reconsideration of Order P-1609, arguing that Record 21 fell outside the timeframe of the original freedom of information request and was therefore not responsive.

The Adjudicator found that failing to address the responsiveness of Record 21 in the original order constituted a jurisdictional defect, warranting reconsideration.

Upon reconsideration, the Adjudicator determined that Record 21 was attached to correspondence within the requested timeframe and was therefore responsive.

The Adjudicator also found no error in the original decision that Record 21 was not exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and ordered its disclosure.

The appellant submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of Education and Training for briefing and issue notes relating to Bill 160.

The Ministry issued an interim decision with a fee estimate after the 30-day time limit had expired.

The appellant paid the fee deposit, but the Ministry failed to issue a final decision, placing itself in a deemed refusal situation.

The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to issue a final decision on access to the records by a specified date without recourse to a time extension.

The appellant appealed the Toronto Police Services Board's decision to deny access to records relating to the 1992 bombing of an abortion clinic.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including the law enforcement exemptions.

The Adjudicator found that the records related to an ongoing law enforcement investigation and that their disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with that investigation.

The decision of the Police to deny access under sections 8(1)(a) and (b) was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Education and Training's deemed refusal to provide access to records relating to a school capital grant request.

The Ministry failed to issue a decision within the 30-day period prescribed by section 26 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and did not request a time extension.

The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to issue a decision letter to the appellant by a specified date without recourse to a time extension.

The appellant requested access to letters sent to the Ministry of Education and Training by the former Chair of Le College des Grands Lacs regarding alleged financial irregularities.

The Ministry denied access under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Adjudicator found that while the records contained highly sensitive personal information supplied in confidence, fairness demanded that the individuals complained against be given disclosure of the substance of the allegations to respond to them.

The Adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the records.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Peel Regional Police Services Board denying access to portions of police notes and claiming no further records existed regarding a complaint against him.

The adjudicator upheld the severances under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, finding the withheld information was the personal information of a witness compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

The adjudicator also found the police conducted a reasonable search for the requested records and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant requested access to police investigation records relating to the murder of her brother by an individual who subsequently committed suicide.

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

The adjudicator found that the records contained highly sensitive medical information compiled during a criminal investigation, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator also held that the appellant's desire to use the records for a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons did not constitute a compelling public interest under section 23.

The Ministry's decision was upheld, save for five pages containing no personal information.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board for a report regarding consulting services for Employee Benefit Programs.

The Board initially denied access under various exemptions, but later claimed the request was frivolous or vexatious under section 4(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that the Board failed to establish that the request was part of a pattern of conduct amounting to an abuse of the right of access, or that it was made in bad faith or for a purpose other than to obtain access.

The Board's decision that the request was frivolous or vexatious was not upheld.

The appellant, a member of the media, appealed a fee estimate of $5,492 provided by the City of Hamilton for processing a freedom of information request regarding fire prevention activities at a specific property.

The Adjudicator reviewed the City's breakdown of search, preparation, and reproduction costs.

Finding that the City overestimated the time required to search electronic databases, review e-mails, and sever records, the Adjudicator reduced the allowable search and preparation time.

The fee estimate was reduced to $1,869.50.

An employee of the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board requested access to her personal information relating to her long-term disability benefits and return to work.

The Board denied access to 13 records, claiming they fell outside the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)3.

The adjudicator found that while the records related to an employment matter, the Board failed to establish a sufficient legal interest, as there was no pending or reasonably foreseeable grievance or legal action.

The records were ordered to be processed under the Act.

The appellant, a member of the media, appealed the Ontario Casino Corporation's decision to deny access to a settlement agreement regarding a cancelled teletheatre at the Windsor Casino.

The Corporation claimed exemptions under section 18(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing disclosure would prejudice its economic interests and competitive position in ongoing negotiations for a third casino complex.

The adjudicator upheld the Corporation's decision, finding that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice its economic interests and that the appellant failed to establish a compelling public interest under section 23 that would override the exemption.

The appellant appealed a decision by the police services board denying access to records concerning an investigation into the conduct of police officers at the scene of a motor vehicle accident.

The police claimed the records were excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)1, as they related to anticipated proceedings regarding employment.

The adjudicator found that the records were collected by the professional standards unit for an ongoing investigation that could result in disciplinary proceedings under the Police Services Act.

Consequently, the records fell outside the jurisdiction of the Act, and the police's decision was upheld.

A requester sought access to correspondence and submissions from a named tourist organization to the Ministry of Natural Resources.

The Ministry granted partial access, and the third party appealed, arguing the records were exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that only a portion of one record contained commercial information supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to result in similar information no longer being supplied.

The Ministry was ordered to withhold that portion and disclose the remaining records.