Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The appellant, an unincorporated association, sought access to information relating to employees of the Township of Southgate under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Township denied access, and the association appealed.

A preliminary issue was raised regarding whether an unincorporated association has the capacity to make a request and file an appeal under the Act.

The adjudicator held that the word 'person' in sections 4(1) and 39(1) of the Act should be given a broad and liberal meaning to include unincorporated associations, consistent with the Act's purpose of making government information available to the public.

The preliminary objection was dismissed, and the appeal was allowed to proceed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) for land transfer documents and related records.

The ORC failed to issue a decision letter within the prescribed 30-day period and did not request a time extension, resulting in a deemed refusal under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator ordered the ORC to issue a decision letter to the appellant without recourse to a time extension.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Ottawa for records relating to a Heritage Day event.

The City denied access to a two-page internal e-mail memorandum, claiming it was exempt under section 7(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as advice or recommendations.

On appeal, the adjudicator found that the record consisted of factual statements given in response to specific questions and did not contain advice or recommendations.

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

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Finance for records relating to pay equity funding for the broader public sector.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under the employment-related matters exclusion in section 65(6)3.

The Adjudicator found that because the employees affected by the pay equity funding are employed by broader public sector employers and not the government, there is no employment relationship.

Consequently, the records do not relate to labour relations or employment-related matters within the meaning of the exclusion.

The Ministry was ordered to issue an access decision.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Town of Kapuskasing for records relating to a 1986 environmental spill and subsequent remediation efforts.

The Town denied access to ten responsive records under the third party information exemption in section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Town and affected parties failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence of a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure.

The records were ordered disclosed.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the Town's search for additional responsive records was reasonable.

The appellant sought access to the employment contract of a named police employee.

The Police granted partial access but withheld the term of the contract, exact salary, and training requirements under the personal privacy exemption in section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator upheld the decision, finding that the withheld information constituted personal information and did not fall within the exceptions in section 14(4)(a), meaning its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant submitted two requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to police investigations concerning himself, including a videotaped interview.

The Police granted partial access and withheld the remaining portions under various exemptions, including sections 38(a) and 38(b).

The Adjudicator found that the withheld portions of the written records were exempt under section 38(b) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

However, the Adjudicator ordered the disclosure of the videotape, finding that withholding it would result in an absurd result since the appellant provided the information in the first place, and it did not qualify as a law enforcement report under section 8(2)(a).

The appellant, Sierra Legal Defence Fund, appealed the Ministry of the Environment's failure to disclose information regarding environmental non-compliance in accordance with an informal agreement.

The appellant alleged political interference caused delays in the release of the records.

The adjudicator found that the Ministry's conduct in failing to meet agreed-upon timelines was inappropriate and contrary to the public interest.

However, due to the difficulty in identifying responsive records and the breakdown of the informal agreement, the adjudicator dismissed the appeal without prejudice to the appellant's right to make new, specific access requests under the Act.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Toronto Police Services Board for all records relating to himself.

The Police disclosed some records but the appellant appealed, arguing that additional records should exist regarding specific occurrences.

The Adjudicator found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search of their databases and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant submitted a written request for records to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board.

The Police treated the request as a request for disclosure between law enforcement agencies under section 32 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, rather than an access request under Part I, partly because the required $5 request fee was not paid.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the request was a valid Part I access request, noting that the Police had a duty to advise the requester of the fee requirement rather than relying on its absence to deny the request's validity under Part I. The appeal was allowed, subject to the appellant paying the $5 fee.

The appellant requested access to a police occurrence report regarding the sudden death of her son.

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

The appellant argued she was entitled to the records as the estate trustee under section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that while the appellant was the personal representative, her request was primarily motivated by a personal desire to understand her son's death rather than the administration of his estate.

The Adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, concluding that the records were exempt from disclosure as their release would constitute an unjustified invasion of the deceased's personal privacy.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Natural Resources for construction drawings and related documents concerning a proposed watercourse diversion.

The Ministry and affected third parties objected to disclosure under sections 17(1) (third party information) and 21(1) (personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the records did not contain personal information, as they related to property and individuals in their professional capacities.

Furthermore, the records did not qualify for the third party information exemption because they were not supplied in confidence and there was no reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records, subject to severing the property owner's name and home address.

The appellant requested access to a workplace harassment investigation report prepared by an independent consultant for the City of Welland.

The City denied access, claiming the report was excluded under section 52(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as an employment-related record, or alternatively exempt under sections 38(a) and 38(b).

The Assistant Commissioner found that section 52(3) did not apply because there were no ongoing or reasonably anticipated proceedings, and the City lacked a sufficient legal interest.

The section 38(a) exemption for advice or recommendations was rejected as the report was largely factual.

However, the section 38(b) exemption for unjustified invasion of personal privacy was partially upheld to protect the personal information of other identifiable individuals, while ordering disclosure of the portions outlining the substance of the appellant's complaint.

The Family Responsibility Office (FRO) inadvertently mailed a Statement of Arrears containing the personal information of a support recipient and her payor-partner to an unrelated payor.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated the privacy breach.

The Commissioner found that the disclosed records contained personal information under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that the disclosure was not authorized under section 42.

The Commissioner commended FRO's prompt response and made recommendations to improve mailing procedures and privacy training.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Durham Regional Police Services Board for an incident report relating to allegations of a sexual assault against her.

The Police provided partial access but withheld information relating to the accused and other individuals under the personal privacy exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator upheld the Police's 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 Act.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines for records relating to the development of the Mining Act Part VII Regulation and Mine Rehabilitation Code, specifically concerning financial assurances for mine closures.

The Ministry denied access to several records, claiming they contained advice and recommendations from the Ministry of Finance.

The adjudicator found that the records qualified for exemption under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they contained suggested courses of action for the deliberative process.

The adjudicator also dismissed the appellant's claim that a compelling public interest in disclosure outweighed the exemption under section 23, noting a lack of evidence of broadly-based public concern.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care's decision to deny access to a report prepared by the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council (HPRAC) regarding the regulation of acupuncture.

The Ministry claimed the report was exempt under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as it contained advice or recommendations.

The Adjudicator found that while the report contained advice and recommendations, it fell within the mandatory exception in section 13(2)(k) because HPRAC is a council attached to the Ministry established for the purpose of making reports or recommendations.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the report in its entirety.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Brantford Police Services Board for records relating to incidents from 1996 and a complaint against a police officer.

The Police withheld 150 pages, claiming they were excluded from the Act under sections 52(3)1 and 52(3)3 as employment-related records, and withheld portions of 26 pages under section 38(b) to protect personal privacy.

The Adjudicator found that the 150 pages were not excluded under section 52(3) because the proceedings were completed and the Police no longer had a legal interest in the matter.

The Adjudicator ordered the Police to issue an access decision for those 150 pages.

However, the Adjudicator upheld the decision to withhold the portions of the 26 pages, finding that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other individuals involved in the investigation.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to various employment, grievance, and workers' compensation records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The City claimed the records were excluded from the Act under the labour relations and employment-related matters exclusion in section 52(3)3.

The adjudicator found that the records related to ongoing grievances, a WSIB claim, and harassment complaints, engaging the City's legal interest.

The adjudicator upheld the City's decision to deny access and found that the City had conducted a reasonable search for the requested records.

The appellant sought access to records held by the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee relating to his deceased father and himself.

The Public Guardian released some records but withheld others under various exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including unjustified invasion of personal privacy, solicitor-client privilege, and law enforcement reports.

The adjudicator found that the appellant was not a personal representative of his father's estate.

The adjudicator upheld the application of the personal privacy and solicitor-client privilege exemptions for the majority of the withheld records.

However, the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of a small number of records that contained information already known to or supplied by the appellant, finding that their disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy and that they were not exempt as law enforcement reports.