Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Toronto for copies of a contract and amending agreements concerning food concessions in parks.

The City initially denied access but later abandoned its reliance on discretionary exemptions.

The third-party company objected to disclosure, arguing the records contained personal information and confidential third-party commercial information.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the records disclosed, finding that the information was either not personal, not supplied in confidence, or not reasonably expected to cause competitive harm or undue loss.

The appellant appealed the City of Stoney Creek's decision to deny access to minutes of meetings held by the City Review Committee regarding a proposed landfill site.

The City claimed exemptions under sections 7(1) (advice and recommendations), 11(e) (economic and other interests), and 12 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City could not raise discretionary exemptions late in the process without justification.

The Officer upheld the application of section 7(1) and section 12 to small portions of the records but ordered the disclosure of the majority of the records, finding that section 11(e) did not apply as the relevant negotiations had concluded.

The public interest override in section 16 was found not to apply to the exempt portions.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for records relating to allegations made to his probation officer.

The Ministry granted partial access, claiming the invasion of privacy exemption under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the remainder.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that disclosure of some of the severed information would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, while the remainder would not.

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

The appellant, a former employee, submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to a workplace harassment investigation that resulted in a reprimand.

The Township denied access to the consultant's investigation report, citing the employment records exclusion in section 52(3)3 of the Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Township's decision, finding that the report was prepared and used by the Township in relation to communications about an employment-related matter in which the Township had a legal interest.

The appellant requested a fee waiver for a freedom of information request regarding the revenues and expenditures of the Townships' Recreation Committee.

The Townships denied the fee waiver.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of financial hardship and that the disclosure of the records would not benefit public health or safety.

The appeal was dismissed and the Townships' decision to deny the fee waiver was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Natural Resources for records relating to the provincial intent to create a public park in the Rouge River Valley.

The Ministry denied access to 41 records, claiming exemptions for Cabinet records and advice/recommendations under sections 12(1) and 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision for the majority of the records, finding that their disclosure would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations or advice and recommendations.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of certain records and portions of records that did not fall within the claimed exemptions.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records relating to the appellant held by the Ontario Provincial Police, pursuant to section 14(3) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the disclosure of the requested records, if they exist, could reasonably be expected to reveal law enforcement intelligence information under section 14(1)(g).

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, concluding that disclosing the mere existence or non-existence of such records would communicate information falling under the exemption.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for records relating to his applications for appointment as a private bailiff.

The Ministry initially withheld some information but later disclosed it during the inquiry.

The sole remaining issue was the reasonableness of the Ministry's search for records.

The Inquiry Officer found the search reasonable for the appellant's application file and related correspondence, but unreasonable regarding records about the need for private bailiffs and Ministry policies.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct a further search for those specific records.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Township of Egremont to deny access to records relating to a tire dump on a neighbouring property.

The Township claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for solicitor-client privilege, relations with other governments, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the solicitor-client privilege exemption for certain records and the invasion of privacy exemption for one record and personal identifiers in others.

The Inquiry Officer found no compelling public interest to override the exemptions and ordered the disclosure of the remaining non-exempt records and severed portions.

The appellant, a trade organization, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to a report on the review of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

The Ministry claimed the record was excluded under the labour relations provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and exempt as a Cabinet record.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record was not excluded under the labour relations provisions, as its connection to labour relations was too remote.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access, finding that the record was exempt from disclosure as it contained policy options or recommendations submitted to a committee of the Executive Council.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat for correspondence relating to a court decision on aboriginal fishing rights.

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

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding the records were confidential communications between a client and legal advisor.

The appellant's argument for a public interest override under section 23 was dismissed because section 23 does not apply to records exempt under section 19.

The Township of Georgian Bay received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a copy of the appellant's building permit application and cottage plans.

The appellant objected to disclosure, claiming the records contained personal information and third-party information supplied in confidence, and that releasing the plans would infringe copyright.

The Inquiry Officer found that disclosure of the building permit application would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

Furthermore, the plans were not supplied in confidence and their disclosure under the Act does not constitute copyright infringement.

The Township's decision to disclose the records was upheld.

The appellant submitted a broad request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for all personal information held by the Peel Regional Police Services Board.

The Police advised that no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the Police failed to conduct a reasonable search and improperly destroyed records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police's decision to unilaterally narrow the search to three specific units was reasonable given the appellant's history of broad requests.

The search conducted by experienced employees in those units was deemed reasonable, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to two police complaint files.

The Ministry responded that no additional records existed beyond those already provided.

The appellant appealed, arguing that more records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the steps taken by the Ministry to locate the records, including searches of index systems and consultations with investigators, and concluded that the Ministry's search was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Michipicoten Township Police Services Board denying access to two witness statements related to an incident involving his wife.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The decision of the Police to withhold the records under section 38(b) was upheld.

The appellant requested information regarding the frequency of mechanical restraints used on patients at a Ministry facility.

The Ministry provided a fee estimate of $2250 for 75 hours of manual search time.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate and the Ministry's refusal to grant a fee waiver.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the fee estimate, finding that a search of individual resident files was necessary to compile the requested statistics.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the denial of a fee waiver, as the appellant failed to provide evidence of financial hardship or that dissemination of the record would benefit public health or safety.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to three letters concerning the appellant and an affected person.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the letters contained personal information supplied in confidence by the affected person.

Balancing the appellant's right of access against the affected person's privacy rights, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would result in an unjustified invasion of privacy and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access.

The appellant sought access to records relating to a disturbance at the Bluewater Youth Centre and subsequent allegations of mistreatment at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre.

The Ministry denied access, claiming exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and arguing the Young Offenders Act removed the records from the Act's jurisdiction.

The Inquiry Officer found no conflict with the Young Offenders Act as the records at issue did not identify young persons.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the law enforcement exemption for small portions of the records but ordered the disclosure of the remaining factual information, finding it did not qualify as advice or recommendations.

The appellant requested access to an environmental assessment report regarding a proposed development site from the City of Toronto.

The City and the current property owner opposed disclosure, claiming the third party information exemption under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the record contained technical information supplied in confidence, the parties resisting disclosure failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of harm resulting from disclosure.

The City was ordered to disclose the record.

A member of a news organization appealed the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat's decision to deny access to the minutes of the Interministerial Committee of Aboriginal Emergencies meeting held during the 1995 Ipperwash Provincial Park occupation.

The institution claimed exemptions under solicitor-client privilege, right to a fair trial, and advice or recommendations.

The Commissioner found that portions of the record were subject to solicitor-client privilege, except where privilege had been waived by the Attorney General in the Legislature.

The fair trial exemption did not apply.

While the advice or recommendations exemption applied to certain options listed in the minutes, the Commissioner ordered their disclosure, finding that the compelling public interest in the government's handling of the Ipperwash crisis clearly outweighed the purpose of the exemption.