Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

An employee appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services' decision to deny access to a grievance report and duty roster sheets.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under the labour relations exclusion.

The adjudicator found that the records were collected, maintained, and used by the Ministry in relation to proceedings before the Grievance Settlement Board, which relate to labour relations.

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

The appellant, the Ontario Federation of Justices of the Peace Associations, appealed a decision by the Management Board Secretariat denying access to records relating to the Report of the Ontario Justice of the Peace Remuneration Commission.

The Secretariat claimed the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6)3 as they related to employment-related matters.

The Assistant Commissioner found that because justices of the peace are independent judicial officers and not employees of the Crown, the employer/employee relationship required to trigger section 65(6)3 did not exist.

The Secretariat was ordered to issue a new decision letter processing the request under the Act.

The Ontario Federation of Justices of the Peace Associations appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's refusal to disclose records relating to the 1995 Report of the Ontario Justice of the Peace Remuneration Commission.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6)3 as they related to employment-related matters.

The Assistant Commissioner found that because justices of the peace are independent judicial officers and not employees of the Crown, the employment-related exclusion did not apply.

The Ministry was ordered to issue a new access decision.

The appellant requested access to records from the Peel District School Board confirming when and where he co-habited with a named employee and that he was named as a beneficiary on her life insurance policy.

The Board denied access under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Adjudicator upheld the Board's decision, finding that the records contained the personal information of both the appellant and the affected person, and that under section 38(b), the affected person's right to privacy outweighed the appellant's right of access.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board denying access to records relating to the appellant's employment with the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board.

The OLRB claimed the records were excluded under section 65(6) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that records sent by or to the municipal employer were excluded from the Act, extending the definition of 'institution' in section 65(6) to include municipal institutions to avoid an absurd result.

The OLRB was ordered to issue an access decision for the remaining records.

An insurance company appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to the death of an insured individual.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) and section 21 (invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that only a small portion of the records qualified for litigation privilege under section 19, as the litigation had terminated and the rationale for the privilege no longer existed for most records.

However, the Adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to records containing personal information under section 21, finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for a legal opinion obtained by the Ministry of Natural Resources regarding its authority to charge anchoring fees in a provincial park.

The Ministry denied access, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant argued the Ministry waived privilege by referencing the opinion in correspondence.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the record was subject to common law solicitor-client privilege and that the Ministry's minimal references to the opinion outside of a litigation context did not constitute an implied waiver.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Village of Grand Bend's decision to deny access to records concerning a share purchase transaction and settlement of litigation.

The Village claimed the records were exempt under section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they would reveal the substance of deliberations of a closed meeting.

The adjudicator found that the records met the three-part test for the closed meeting exemption, as they were considered during an authorized in camera meeting regarding land acquisition and litigation.

The adjudicator also held that the public interest override in section 16 does not apply to records exempt under section 6.

The Village's decision 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 employment background check.

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

The Adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, finding that the withheld information was either received in confidence from other government agencies (including CPIC data) or compiled as part of law enforcement investigations into other individuals, the disclosure of which would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant requested access to records relating to his two children and general statistics on student suspensions from the Toronto District School Board.

The Board narrowed the request to disciplinary actions and denied access to several records under various exemptions, including invasion of privacy and right to a fair trial.

The appellant appealed, arguing the search was unreasonable and more records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found the Board's search was reasonable and the additional records sought fell outside the narrowed scope.

The Officer ordered partial disclosure of the records, finding that some contained the personal information of other individuals which could not be severed, thus qualifying for exemption under section 38(b) of the Act.

The Board's claim under section 8(1)(f) was rejected.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $450 provided by the school board for a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The request sought access to telephone and facsimile records from 1995.

The Inquiry Officer found that the board provided detailed evidence of the extensive manual searches required to locate the responsive records, which exceeded the estimated 15 hours.

The fee estimate was upheld as reasonable.

Ontario Hydro requested a reconsideration of an order requiring it to disclose a contract with a named individual.

Hydro argued there were jurisdictional defects in the interpretation of sections 65(6), 65(7), 18(1)(c), 14(1)(e), and 17(1) of the Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found no jurisdictional errors, noting that Hydro's arguments related to findings of fact and the weighing of evidence.

The request for reconsideration was denied, but a temporary stay of the order was granted pending settlement discussions regarding a judicial review application.

The appellant requested access to a police occurrence report relating to a complaint filed against him by a co-worker.

The Police granted partial access, withholding the complainant's personal information and the substance of the complaint under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

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

The appellant appealed a decision by the Police Complaints Commissioner denying access to two pages of records relating to an investigation into a complaint against a police officer.

The institution claimed exemptions under sections 14(1)(a) and 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the law enforcement exemptions did not apply, as there was no evidence of expected harm and the records were not 'reports'.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the records to the appellant, subject to the severance of identifying information of other individuals to protect their personal privacy under section 49(b).

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Toronto Police Services Board for a 911 tape of a telephone call from a specific residence.

The Police refused to confirm or deny the existence of the record under section 14(5) of the Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that disclosing the existence or non-existence of the record would reveal personal information about an identifiable individual and constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant, a non-profit organization, requested access to records regarding municipal and industrial air and water dischargers in non-compliance with environmental limits.

The Ministry of the Environment provided a fee estimate and denied the appellant's request for a fee waiver.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the issues surrounding non-complying discharges are of public interest and relate directly to public health and safety.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Ministry to waive the search and preparation charges, but upheld the decision not to waive photocopying and shipping costs.

The appellant requested a videotape of a breathalyser test from the Toronto Police Services Board.

The Police claimed the record no longer existed, despite it having been used at the appellant's trial shortly before the request.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the Police's record retention practices were disturbing and compromised the integrity of the access process, the search conducted for the missing videotape was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a member of the Terrace Bay Police Services Board, requested access to a complaint filed against him by a co-worker.

The Police denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3).

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the records were collected and maintained for an anticipated disciplinary proceeding relating to the employment of a person by the institution, and thus fell within the section 52(3)1 exclusion.

The appellant appealed the Meaford Thornbury Police Services Board's decision to deny access to various occurrence reports and an audio tape under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police claimed exemptions under sections 8 (law enforcement) and 14 (invasion of privacy).

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the records were properly exempt under sections 14(1) and 38(b) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

However, three occurrence reports contained information provided by the appellant or recorded in their presence, making the privacy exemption inapplicable.

The Inquiry Officer also rejected the Police's law enforcement exemption claims for these three reports, finding no evidence of ongoing matters or that the records qualified as 'reports'.

The Police were ordered to disclose the three reports.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for technical scientific manuals.

After the Ministry was ordered to disclose the manuals, it assessed a fee of $69.80 for photocopying.

The appellant appealed the fee and requested a fee waiver, arguing that disclosure would benefit public health and safety.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the fee estimate and denied the fee waiver, finding that the dissemination of highly technical scientific manuals would not yield a public benefit or contribute to the understanding of an important public health issue.