Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to a non-profit housing project.

The Ministry denied access to certain records, claiming exemptions for third party information and solicitor-client privilege.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third party information exemption did not apply because there was insufficient evidence that the information was supplied in confidence.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the solicitor-client privilege exemption did not apply to a briefing note, as it did not represent confidential communication for legal advice nor was it prepared by Crown counsel for litigation.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellants, newspaper reporters, appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to computer data relating to police officers collected on the Public Complaints System.

The Police claimed the records were excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3) as employment-related records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected and maintained in relation to communications about employment-related matters in which the Police have an interest, specifically investigations under Part VI of the Police Services Act.

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

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to six pages of documents relating to the appointment of a named individual to the Toronto Mayor's Committee on Community and Race Relations.

The City relied on the personal privacy exemption under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the personal information of the affected person, including employment history, educational history, and racial or ethnic origin.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and upheld the City's decision to deny access.

The appellant requested access to the minutes of a closed meeting of the Simcoe County Roman Catholic Separate School Board under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board responded that no such records existed, and the appellant appealed, arguing that minutes were kept.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's search for the records was reasonable, noting a misunderstanding between the appellant and the Board's Recording Secretary regarding the nature of the minutes kept for closed sessions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Natural Resources for correspondence relating to a specific court case and the involvement of a former Minister.

The Ministry identified responsive records and charged a fee of $183.60 for search time and photocopying.

The appellant appealed the fee, arguing that the Ministry searched for irrelevant records such as media clippings.

The Inquiry Officer found that while media clippings were not responsive to the request for 'correspondence', the search time expended by the Ministry was reasonable and the fees were calculated in accordance with the Act and Regulation.

The fee was upheld.

The requester appealed the City of Etobicoke Public Library Board's decision to deny access to portions of tender proposals for library shelving.

The Board claimed the records were exempt under section 10 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third party commercial information.

The Inquiry Officer applied a three-part test and found that unit prices and the Statement of Canadian Content were supplied in confidence and their disclosure could prejudice the affected parties' competitive position, thus qualifying for exemption.

However, the specification response forms and cover pages containing total quotation prices and bid deposits did not meet the test and were ordered disclosed.

The appellant sought access to the police investigation file concerning a motor vehicle accident in which his son died.

The Renfrew Police Services Board denied access, claiming exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were not excluded under the employment and labour relations provisions of section 52(3).

The Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption of the collision reports under the law enforcement exemption in section 8(2)(a), and the exemption of personal information of non-consenting individuals under the privacy exemption in section 14(1).

The Police were ordered to disclose photographs and the personal information of consenting witnesses, and to conduct a further search for additional records.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Orillia for records relating to structural and financial scenarios regarding the Orillia Police Service and alternate policing studies.

The City granted partial access and claimed exemptions.

The appellant appealed solely on the basis that more responsive records exist, particularly pre-dating 1991.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City's search for responsive records was reasonable, noting the extensive searches conducted by City staff in various record holdings and the application of the City's records retention schedule.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's decision to deny access to records relating to a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) complaint made against the appellant.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded from the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6)3.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected in relation to employment-related matters in which the Ministry has an interest, specifically potential liability under the Human Rights Code.

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

The appellant requested access to a police occurrence report regarding an incident where he and his dog were allegedly attacked by another dog.

The Halton Regional Police Services Board granted partial access but withheld the dog owner's personal information under the invasion of privacy and law enforcement exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer 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 personal privacy under section 38(b).

The appellant appealed the Borough of East York's decision to deny access to an agreement between the Borough and a financial institution regarding a realty tax installment plan.

The affected party objected to disclosure, claiming the record contained exempt third party information under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while standard clauses in the agreement were not supplied in confidence, the core concepts of the installment plan were supplied in confidence and their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the affected party's competitive position.

The Borough was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the record.

The appellant, an inmate, appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services' decision to deny access to certain records relating to his security, discipline, and health care under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

During mediation, the issues were narrowed to two paragraphs on page 21 and one paragraph on page 22.

The Ministry claimed these were exempt under sections 14(1)(i) and (k) of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry provided sufficient evidence that disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to jeopardize the security of a centre for lawful detention under section 14(1)(k).

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 City of Scarborough for a memorandum from a Development Control Engineer to the City Solicitor.

The City denied access, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the record met the criteria for common law solicitor-client privilege, the City had implicitly waived this privilege by placing the record in a publicly accessible file that had previously been viewed by another member of the public.

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

The appellants requested copies of the certificates of competency of three operators employed at the Township of Collingwood's Pollution Control Plant.

The Township denied access, claiming disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information did not qualify as employment or educational history, and noted that O. Reg. 435/93 requires the certificates to be conspicuously displayed at the workplace.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and ordered the Township to disclose the records.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denying access to a 911 tape relating to a domestic occurrence.

The tape contained the voices of the appellant, his son, and his former wife.

The Ministry argued that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that applying the presumption against disclosure would lead to an absurd result, as the appellant was present during the call and directed his son on what to say.

Balancing the factors, including the appellant's need for the tape to determine his rights and his prior knowledge of the information, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy and ordered the Ministry to release the tape.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board denying access to records related to a complaint of police misconduct.

The Inquiry Officer found that one record was exempt from disclosure as it would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy.

The remaining record, an internal investigation report, was found to be excluded from the scope of the Act under section 52(3)3 because it was collected and prepared in relation to an employment-related matter in which the Police have an interest.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to a contract between the City and a third-party company under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant raised preliminary issues regarding access to a detailed description of the record, access to the City's representations, and a Charter challenge to the inquiry process, all of which were dismissed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the contract contained commercial and financial information supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the company's competitive position.

The record was held to be exempt under section 10(1) of the Act, and the City's decision was upheld.

The requester, representing an insurance company, appealed the Sarnia Police Services Board's decision to deny access to records relating to a suspected arson investigation.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing the investigation was ongoing.

The Inquiry Officer found that the investigation had not been concluded and that premature disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement matter.

The decision to deny access under section 8(1)(b) was upheld.

The appellant, acting as the litigation administrator for her deceased husband's estate, requested access to police records concerning his death and an alleged fraud.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denied access, citing an unjustified invasion of the deceased's personal privacy.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the appellant qualified as a 'personal representative' under section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and that her request related to the administration of the estate.

The Police were ordered to disclose the records in their entirety.

A labour organization appealed a fee estimate of $705.70 charged by the Ministry of Community and Social Services for processing a freedom of information request.

The appellant also requested a fee waiver.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the fee, finding that the search time and photocopying charges were reasonable and lower than the maximum permitted by regulation.

The appeal for a fee waiver was dismissed as the appellant failed to provide evidence of financial hardship or that disclosure would benefit public health or safety.