Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The appellant requested access to police records relating to an investigation of a fire at their business premises.

The Police denied access under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

During mediation, arson charges were laid against the appellant.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision to deny access under section 38(a) in conjunction with section 8(1)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, finding that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement matter before the courts.

The appellant requested access to his compensation claim file from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

The Board denied access to 41 pages under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the personal information of the appellant, the affected police officers, and other individuals.

The presumption against disclosure in section 21(3)(b) did not apply because the records related to the investigation of charges against the appellant, not the officers.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the records, except for the names and employment addresses of the affected officers, which were protected as highly sensitive personal information.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to portions of their file with the Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner and to transfer part of the request to the Peel Regional Police Services Board.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the transfer of the request.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were not exempt as law enforcement reports under section 14(2)(a) and that the appellant's own tax return information was not exempt under section 17(2).

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption of a portion of one page containing the personal information of another individual under section 21(1).

The Ministry of Environment and Energy received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to the continuation of the Intervenor Funding Project.

The Ministry denied access to portions of a record, claiming exemptions for Cabinet records and advice or recommendations.

The requester appealed the severances.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the severances were properly exempt under either section 12(1) or 13(1), as they would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations or the advice of a public servant.

However, two severances did not qualify for either exemption and were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant requested access to documents disclosed during his criminal trial from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, citing solicitor-client privilege and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 21(3)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the County of Renfrew for records relating to an incident at his wife's place of employment.

The County denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Act under section 52(3).

The appellant appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected and used in relation to an investigation, discipline, and a grievance, which are employment-related matters in which the County has an interest.

The appeal was dismissed, and the records were held to be excluded from the Act.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board for records relating to domestic assaults by her husband.

The Police denied access to portions of the records, citing the invasion of privacy exemptions under sections 14(1) and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while the records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, applying the presumption against disclosure to information the appellant herself provided or was present for would lead to an absurd result.

The Police were ordered to disclose those portions.

The Inquiry Officer also found the Police's search for records was reasonable.

The appellant appealed the Town of Niagara-On-The-Lake's response to a freedom of information request, arguing that additional records from a December 23, 1996 meeting should exist.

The Town provided evidence that it searched the relevant offices and that the employees present at the meeting did not have any notes.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Town's search for responsive records was reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for records relating to the investigation of a complaint he filed against members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police.

The Police claimed the records were excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3), which excludes records relating to labour relations and employment-related matters.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected and used by the Police in relation to a communication about an employment-related matter in which the Police have an interest.

The decision of the Police to deny access was upheld.

The appellants sought access to a police occurrence report regarding a motor vehicle accident in which their son was killed.

The Waterloo Regional Police Services Board granted partial access, withholding certain information under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

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 a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant, a sewage hauler, submitted a freedom of information request to the Health Unit for the names, addresses, and approved disposal sites of all licensed sewage haulers in the area.

The Health Unit denied access under the third party information exemption in section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained commercial information, not personal information.

However, the exemption under section 10(1) did not apply because the information was not supplied in confidence, as the Environmental Protection Act requires such certificates of approval to be made available to the public.

The Health Unit was ordered to disclose the records.

The complainant alleged that the Management Board Secretariat improperly disclosed her personal information to a private collection agency to recover a social assistance overpayment.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether the information was 'personal information' under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and whether its disclosure complied with section 42.

The Commissioner concluded that the information was personal information, but its disclosure to the collection agency was for the same purpose for which it was obtained, and thus complied with the Act.

The Commissioner also found adequate safeguards were in place but recommended contractual improvements for future agreements.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Police Complaints Commissioner (PCC) for records relating to the investigation of his complaint against members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police.

The PCC denied access to 19 records, claiming exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were not excluded from the Act under section 65(6) as employment-related records.

The Officer upheld the exemption for one record as a law enforcement report under section 14(2)(a) but ordered the disclosure of several others.

For the remaining records containing personal information of other individuals, the PCC was ordered to re-exercise its discretion under section 49(b).

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services' decision to deny access to an OPP report regarding an investigation into allegations of fraud and corruption.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Criminal Code.

Therefore, the presumption in section 21(3)(b) applied, and disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Regional Municipality of Halton's decision to deny access to the hourly and mileage rates contained in a bid from an appraisal firm under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information constituted commercial information supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the affected party's competitive position.

The decision to deny access under section 10(1)(a) was upheld.

The appellant submitted a request to the City of Toronto under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to all files in which his name appeared.

The City granted partial access but withheld portions of counselling records containing allegations made by another individual, citing the invasion of privacy exemptions in sections 14(1) and 38(b).

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that the information was highly sensitive, supplied in confidence, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's privacy.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to a record relating to a transfer of shares in a corporation.

The Ministry claimed the record was exempt from disclosure under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information relating to the financial history or activities of affected persons, and that its disclosure was presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(f).

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a request to the Township of Carlow under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to the selection process for the Township's Road Superintendent.

The Township denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Act under section 52(3).

During mediation, it was revealed that some evaluation sheets had been destroyed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected in relation to meetings about an employment-related matter in which the Township had an interest, satisfying the requirements of section 52(3)3.

The records were therefore excluded from the scope of the Act.

The destruction of records was not referred to the Compliance Department because the Act did not apply to them.

The appellant, former owner of a trailer park, appealed a decision by the Health Unit to disclose records relating to complaints about a septic bed to an adjoining property owner.

The appellant objected to disclosure under the third party information exemption (s. 10(1)) and personal privacy exemptions (ss. 14(1), 38(b)) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records did not meet the three-part test for third party information, as they were not supplied in confidence and no harm was reasonably expected from disclosure.

Furthermore, the records related to a commercial operation and did not contain personal information.

The Health Unit's decision to disclose the records was upheld.

The appellant, an injured worker, requested access to his Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) claim file under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The WCB provided the file, but the appellant appealed, arguing that additional records, including an audit report and documents he mailed to the WCB, should have been located.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed affidavits from the WCB detailing their search efforts and concluded that the WCB's search for responsive records was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.