Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The requester appealed the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board's decision to deny access to certain police records relating to a charge of uttering death threats.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the law enforcement exemption to CPIC transmission codes and the relations with other governments exemption to information obtained from the CPIC database.

The Officer rejected the application of the published information exemption to the requester's driver's licence history.

The Officer also found that disclosure of personal information of other individuals compiled during a law enforcement investigation would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy, except for information already known to the requester.

The appellant sought access to records from the Ministry of the Attorney General relating to attempts to have him charged with spreading hate propaganda.

The Ministry denied access to various records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, solicitor-client privilege, and danger to safety or health.

The Inquiry Officer allowed the Ministry to raise discretionary exemptions late due to the lack of prejudice.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the exemptions for advice or recommendations and solicitor-client privilege, finding the records were prepared by Crown counsel for legal advice or were draft responses for the Attorney General.

However, the Inquiry Officer rejected the danger to safety or health exemption, noting the hate propaganda materials were already published and known to the appellant.

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

The appellant appealed the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's decision to deny access to portions of their social assistance records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the severed information related to the eligibility for social service benefits of an affected person, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b).

However, the Officer ordered the disclosure of information in two records that had originally been supplied by the appellant, applying the 'absurd result' principle.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Halton Regional Police Services Board for correspondence relating to himself.

The Police granted partial access to two records but refused to confirm or deny the existence of any other records pursuant to section 8(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that merely confirming the existence or non-existence of a police intelligence file relating to the requester could reasonably be expected to interfere with the gathering of law enforcement intelligence information.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of the Attorney General regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to the Ontario Legal Aid Plan.

The Ministry claimed it did not have custody or control over certain manuals and policies, and provided a fee estimate of $6,525 for searching for other records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry did not have custody or control over the administrative records held by the Law Society of Upper Canada.

However, the Inquiry Officer found the Ministry's fee estimate unreasonable as it lacked sufficient evidence to justify 217.50 hours of search time.

The appellant requested access to a legal opinion provided to the City of Elliot Lake by its solicitors.

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

The appellant argued the City waived privilege by referring to the opinion in public and raised the public interest override.

The Inquiry Officer found the record was a confidential communication relating directly to legal advice, thus subject to common law solicitor-client privilege.

The public interest override in section 16 does not apply to section 12.

The City's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant, a former employee of Fanshawe College, appealed the College's decision to deny access to records relating to an Ombudsman's investigation.

The College claimed the records were exempt under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and contained the personal information of the College's Chair and lawyer.

The Inquiry Officer found that professional information is not personal information, and that the records did not meet the criteria for either branch of the solicitor-client privilege exemption because they were communications with a third party and there was no evidence of contemplated litigation.

The College was ordered to disclose the records in full.

The appellant company requested access to police investigation reports and notes regarding an incident where a child fell from a window in a building owned by the appellant.

The Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board denied access under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing exemptions for personal privacy and law enforcement.

The appellant appealed, arguing the information was needed to defend against a potential future civil lawsuit.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Criminal Code.

Therefore, disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Act.

The decision of the Police to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to her corporate and human resources personnel files from the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

The Municipality provided the records but withheld notations made on her resume during a job competition.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the notations were prepared and used in relation to a job competition, which is an employment-related matter in which the Municipality has an interest.

Therefore, the records were excluded from the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)3, and the Municipality's decision was upheld.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Toronto for medical reports, rehabilitation assessments, job descriptions, and performance evaluations.

The City denied access on the basis that the records were excluded under section 52(3) of the Act as employment-related records.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that the records were collected and used in relation to employment-related matters in which the City had an interest, specifically the duty to accommodate an employee with a disability and workers' compensation claims.

A reporter requested access to a report prepared by two City of London police officers regarding an internal investigation into the LaSalle Police Service.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the report was prepared in relation to employment-related matters in which the Police have a legal interest, specifically their obligation to monitor the actions of the force.

As the record met all requirements of section 52(3)3 and did not fall under any exceptions in section 52(4), it was excluded from the scope of the Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Regional Municipality of Halton's decision to deny access to records relating to an internal investigation of workplace misconduct.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Region conducted a reasonable search for the requested records.

Furthermore, 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 and maintained by the Region in relation to an employment-related matter in which the Region had an interest.

The appellants appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to portions of a letter written to the Public Complaints Commission by a named individual.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 49(b) and 21(3)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation under the Police Services Act, triggering the presumption against disclosure in section 21(3)(b).

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

The appellant sought access to records relating to a natural gas explosion that injured her and destroyed a neighbouring property.

The Ministry denied access under the law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that two of the records were exempt as their disclosure would interfere with an ongoing law enforcement investigation into the cause of the explosion.

However, a handwritten press release was ordered disclosed as it did not contain personal information and its release would not interfere with the investigation.

The appellant requested access to a police occurrence report regarding her arrest.

The Waterloo Regional Police Services Board granted partial access, withholding portions under various exemptions including section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the withheld information contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for his complete correctional file.

The Ministry disclosed most of the records but withheld two names and a telephone number on a request form, claiming exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the exemptions and argued that more records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information was properly exempt under sections 14(2)(d) and 49(a) as it related to the supervision of a person under correctional control.

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

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant made requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Townships of Belmont and Methuen for various records.

The Township charged fees based on its own municipal by-law rather than the fee scheme prescribed by the Act and its regulations.

The appellant appealed the fee estimates.

The Inquiry Officer found that the fee provisions in the Act prevail over the general fee-imposing powers in the Municipal Act, despite the latter's 'despite any Act' wording.

The Township was ordered to recalculate the fees in accordance with the Regulation, resulting in a reduction of the fees charged.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Township's search for additional records was reasonable.

The requester appealed a decision by the Halton Regional Police Services Board denying access to an occurrence report and police notes regarding a harassment complaint filed against her.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that applying the privacy exemption to information the requester herself provided to the police would lead to an absurd result, and ordered disclosure of those specific notebook entries.

The remaining records were found to be exempt as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the complainant's privacy.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Health for a briefing note regarding ancillary student health services fees at the University of Western Ontario.

The Ministry provided partial access, claiming exemptions under sections 18 and 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the application of section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) to severed portions of the record.

The Inquiry Officer found that the severed portions met the four criteria for the common law solicitor-client privilege, as the employee responsible for briefing the Minister acted as the Minister's agent in seeking and receiving legal advice.

The Ministry's decision to deny access to the severed portions was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board for records relating to his unsuccessful employment applications.

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

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search for the records.

Furthermore, the Inquiry Officer determined that the records fell within the employment-related matters exclusion in section 52(3)3, as they were prepared in relation to a job competition in which the Police had an interest.

The decision of the Police was upheld.