Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The complainant alleged that the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) improperly disclosed his personal information, including his claim file, to an insurance company without valid consent.

The WCB relied on an authorization signed by the complainant in 1994 for a separate long-term disability claim.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner's Compliance Review Officer found that the information disclosed constituted 'personal information' under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer concluded that the disclosure was not in compliance with section 42 of the Act, as the complainant had not identified the specific information to be disclosed nor consented to the disclosure of his entire WCB file.

The WCB was recommended to ensure future compliance with section 42.

The appellant, a newspaper columnist, sought access under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the identities of individuals who requested copies of his property tax certificate.

The Town of Flamborough denied access under section 14, citing an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The appellant argued he needed the information to pursue a defamation lawsuit regarding an anonymous 'sham' newspaper article.

The Inquiry Officer balanced the competing interests and ordered the disclosure of the names, finding the appellant's need to exercise his legal rights outweighed the privacy interests, but upheld the exemption for one affected person's address.

The appellant, a victim of an assault, requested access to police records relating to the incident under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Halton Regional Police Services Board denied access to the names of suspects, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that the records were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Criminal Code, and therefore disclosure of the suspects' names would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Act.

The requester sought access to a police report and related records concerning an incident in which the requester was injured.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denied access, citing law enforcement and privacy exemptions.

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

As a result, disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The records were held to be properly exempt under section 38(b), and the decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of Order M-835, which denied access to police disciplinary records under section 52(3)1 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant argued that police officers are not 'employees' at common law, and therefore disciplinary proceedings do not relate to 'employment' under the Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while police officers may not be employees at common law, the Police Services Act characterizes their work as employment.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the original decision was correct and declined the request for reconsideration.

The appellant requested access to records concerning the purchase of land by the City of Barrie for a sports field complex, including a list of individuals involved with the selling company.

The City granted partial access and provided a fee estimate of $104, claiming various exemptions including third party information, economic interests, and closed meetings.

The appellant appealed the fee, the exemptions, and the adequacy of the search.

The Inquiry Officer found the appeal was not frivolous, reduced the fee to $58.30, dismissed the application of most exemptions due to lack of evidence, upheld the exemption for one published record, and found the City's search was reasonable.

The City was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records upon payment of the revised fee.

The appellant requested access to records contained in two Ontario Labour Relations Board files concerning unfair labour practice complaints.

The Board denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6).

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the Board, acting as an impartial adjudicator, did not collect or maintain the records in relation to proceedings in which it had an interest as an employer.

Therefore, section 65(6) did not apply to the Board's own records.

However, records originating from or sent to Ontario Hydro (the employer) were excluded under section 65(6)1.

The Board was ordered to issue a new decision letter for the non-excluded records.

The appellant requested access to two Ontario Labour Relations Board files relating to applications made during a strike.

The Board denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6).

The Inquiry Officer found that section 65(6) did not apply to records maintained by the Board in its capacity as an impartial adjudicator, as it did not have an interest in the proceedings in the sense intended by the Act.

However, records originating with or sent to the Management Board of Cabinet (the employer) were excluded.

The Board was ordered to issue a new access decision for the non-excluded records.

The appellant sought access to Ministry of Labour files relating to an occupational disease claim filed by a former university employee.

The Ministry denied access to certain correspondence under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The appellant argued that the employee had published details of her claim on an internet website, creating a public interest in disclosure.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the employee's personal information, including medical and highly sensitive information supplied in confidence.

Although the employee's public posting of some information favoured disclosure, it did not outweigh the privacy protection factors.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override did not apply, as the dispute was primarily private in nature.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services' decision to deny access to records relating to a named individual and a publication.

The Ministry claimed the records, which comprised 116 pages of information filed with the Intelligence Section of the Ontario Provincial Police, were exempt under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records qualified for exemption under section 14(1)(g) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal law enforcement intelligence information.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to deny access to records relating to her human rights complaint.

The OHRC claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for advice or recommendations, law enforcement, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained only the appellant's personal information, dismissing the privacy exemption for third parties.

The advice and recommendations exemption was not upheld for the case officer's notes.

However, the law enforcement exemption was upheld for most records, as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing investigation.

The OHRC was ordered to disclose three records that did not qualify for the exemption.

The appellant sought access to records sent by the Ministry of the Attorney General to the Law Society of Upper Canada regarding his past criminal prosecution.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that any common law or statutory privilege attaching to the records was waived when the Ministry voluntarily disclosed them to the Law Society.

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

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for all documents in his Family Support Plan (FSP) file.

The Ministry denied access to several pages, citing exemptions for advice and recommendations, law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold records containing the personal information of an affected person (the appellant's former spouse) and records subject to solicitor-client privilege.

However, the Commissioner ordered the disclosure of certain FSP computer printouts, finding that they did not qualify for the law enforcement exemption under section 14(1) of the Act.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a detailed history of repairs on a building owned by the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Ltd. The Municipality granted partial access but denied access to the contractor's submission.

During mediation, the appellant clarified they sought specific quantity measurements on a particular form.

The Municipality provided invoices containing the measurements, but the appellant insisted on the specific form.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Municipality had made a reasonable effort to locate the responsive record and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant requested access to a tender for a highway repaving contract and the cost of spreading gravel on highway shoulders.

The Ministry provided a fee estimate of $270.80 and denied a fee waiver.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate and the denial of the fee waiver.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the fee estimate as reasonable and calculated in accordance with the Act.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the denial of the fee waiver, finding that the appellant did not establish financial hardship and that the dissemination of the records would not directly benefit public health or safety.

The appellant, a former employee of a non-profit housing corporation, sought access to OPP records regarding a fraud investigation into his activities.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access to portions of the records, citing various exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer determined that most of the records contained the personal information of other individuals and that their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b), as the information was compiled during an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of a few records that contained only the appellant's personal information or could be severed, while upholding the Ministry's decision to withhold the remainder.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Toronto for records relating to quarantine procedures and the mishandling of rabies specimens by the Toronto Humane Society.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the City and the affected third party failed to provide representations or satisfy the three-part test for the exemption.

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

The appellant, acting through the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to a Special Investigations Unit (SIU) investigation of a police shooting in which the appellant was severely injured.

The Ministry denied access to witness statements and photographs under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the SIU report and appendices were exempt under section 14(2)(a) as a report prepared in the course of law enforcement, and that the witness statements were exempt under section 21(3)(b) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant appealed the City of Stoney Creek's decision denying access to certain records and claiming no further responsive records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that a draft letter prepared by the City's counsel constituted a 'record' under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, both the draft letter and a legal opinion were found to be exempt from disclosure under the solicitor-client privilege exemption in section 12.

The Inquiry Officer also concluded that the City had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant requested access to a Special Investigations Unit (SIU) report relating to a police shooting death.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access, claiming the record was exempt as a law enforcement report under section 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the public interest override in section 11(1) applied.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Commissioner does not have the power to order disclosure under section 11(1), as that duty belongs solely to the head of the institution.

The Inquiry Officer further held that the SIU Director's report met the three-part test for exemption under section 14(2)(a), as it was a formal report prepared in the course of a law enforcement investigation by an agency with the function of enforcing compliance with a law.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.