Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board for access to records relating to a disciplinary investigation against him.

The Police denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under section 52(3).

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that the records were collected and maintained in relation to proceedings before a tribunal that relate to the employment of a person by the institution, and thus fell outside the scope of the Act.

The requester appealed a decision by the Midland Police Services Board to deny access to portions of records regarding investigations and complaints about the requester.

The Police withheld the information under several exemptions, including section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information contained the personal information of other individuals and that its disclosure was presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b), as it was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

A union requested access to a forensic auditor's report regarding the City of Scarborough's Works and Environment Department.

The City denied access, and the union appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the report was prepared in relation to meetings and discussions about employment-related and labour relations matters in which the City had an interest.

Consequently, the record was excluded from the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)3, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested records relating to the financing, design, and construction of sewer and water works in Foleyet since 1985.

The Local Services Board of Foleyet claimed no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed and provided evidence that records should exist.

The Board did not provide representations or evidence of a reasonable search.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Board to conduct a further search and provide an affidavit detailing the steps taken.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of police officers' notes and witness statements relating to a motor vehicle accident.

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 Inquiry Officer found that the personal information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption against disclosure in section 21(3)(b).

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Township of Cardiff's decision to deny access to correspondence from the Township's solicitor concerning the appellant and a public official.

The Township claimed the records were exempt under section 12 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the appellant's personal information and were subject to common law solicitor-client privilege.

The Officer concluded that the records were exempt under section 38(a) and that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply to section 12.

The Township's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for their complete master file regarding disability benefits.

The Ministry granted full access to the 160-page file, but the appellant appealed, claiming additional medical reports from 1978 should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search was reasonable, noting that the requested documents pre-dated the appellant's 1988 application and were likely held by the Federal Government in Canada Pension Plan files.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Labour for records relating to policies compelling employers to disclose self-initiated environmental audits.

The Ministry initially responded that no responsive records existed, but after mediation and further searches, located and disclosed several records.

The appellant appealed, maintaining that additional records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had provided sufficient evidence of its inquiries and searches, concluding that the Ministry's search for additional records was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested access to his General Welfare Assistance file and asked for a fee waiver.

The Municipality reduced the fee to $32 after the appellant reviewed the file but denied the fee waiver.

The appellant appealed the denial, arguing financial hardship as his only income was from General Welfare Assistance.

The Inquiry Officer found that payment of the fee would constitute financial hardship and that the Municipality's decision to deny the waiver was not fair and equitable.

The Municipality was ordered to waive the fee and disclose the records.

A newspaper reporter appealed the Metropolitan Licensing Commission's decision to deny access to the names and details of natural persons who hold taxi licenses or act as agents.

The Inquiry Officer found that the requested information constituted personal information and its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, as it revealed financial assets and activities.

The Inquiry Officer also held that the public interest override did not apply, as the public interest in scrutinizing the taxi industry was not sufficiently compelling to outweigh the privacy exemption.

The Commission's decision was upheld.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Police Complaints Commissioner for records relating to an investigation initiated by the appellant and her husband.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to thirteen records under sections 14(2)(a) and 49(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that only one record met the three-part test for a report prepared in the course of law enforcement.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the remaining twelve records to the appellant.

The requester appealed the Region's decision to deny access to portions of his human resources file and notes from a workplace investigation into allegations of misconduct.

The adjudicator found that the Region had conducted a reasonable search for the records.

Furthermore, the adjudicator determined that the records were excluded from the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)3, as they were prepared by the Region in relation to an employment-related matter in which the Region had a legal interest.

The Region's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to a Sheriff's report and a witness statement regarding an investigation into a bailiff company.

The Inquiry Officer denied the requester's preliminary requests for oral representations and an exchange of representations.

On the merits, the Inquiry Officer found that portions of the records contained only the requester's personal information or non-personal information and ordered them disclosed.

However, the remaining portions contained intertwined personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold these portions under the invasion of privacy exemption, finding that the public interest override did not apply as the requester's interest was personal rather than public.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Toronto for environmental reports regarding a specified property.

The City denied access under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the records contained third party information.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the records contained technical and scientific information, they were not supplied in confidence, nor could their disclosure reasonably be expected to result in the harms specified in section 10(1).

The City was ordered to disclose the records to the appellant.

A former employee of the City of Toronto appealed the City's decision to deny access to records relating to his employment and specific incidents.

The City claimed the records were excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3).

The Inquiry Officer found that the remaining records, a memorandum and a police occurrence report, were collected and maintained for use in pending grievance arbitrations.

As the arbitrations were proceedings relating to labour relations before an 'other entity', the records fell within the section 52(3)1 exclusion.

The City's decision was upheld.

The appellant, representing the liability insurers for an establishment and its employees, appealed the Brockville Police Services Board's decision to deny access to records relating to an assault investigation.

The Police claimed the records were exempt as law enforcement reports.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information.

Applying the 'absurd result' principle, the Officer ordered the disclosure of statements originally supplied by the appellant's clients.

The remaining records were found to be exempt under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry of Natural Resources received a freedom of information request for purchase orders and bid summary sheets.

The Ministry decided to grant full access.

A third party appealed, claiming a one-page Contract Purchase Transaction containing pricing details for camera repair services was exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal, finding that while the record contained commercial and financial information supplied by the third party, the third party failed to establish a reasonable expectation that the information was supplied in confidence.

A requester sought access to Ministry of Natural Resources purchase orders.

The Ministry decided to grant full access.

A third party appealed, claiming a purchase order containing pricing details for repair services qualified for exemption under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal, finding that while the record contained commercial information supplied by the third party, the appellant failed to establish that the information was supplied in confidence.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to final investigation reports regarding sexual assaults in correctional facilities.

The Ministry initially claimed the mandatory personal information exemption under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and later raised discretionary exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer permitted the late raising of exemptions due to the unique circumstances of the appeal.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained highly sensitive personal information and that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 21(1).

Although the Ministry failed to search for records relating to youth facilities, no further search was ordered because those records would also be exempt.

The appellant requested access to documents relating to a municipal cartage by-law from the City of Vaughan.

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

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that the records were prepared by a City Solicitor for use in giving legal advice and in contemplation of litigation, thereby qualifying for exemption under Branch 2 of section 12.