Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The appellant appealed the Regional Municipality of Peel's decision to deny access to a report prepared by a company, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer first determined that the Commissioner had independent jurisdiction to review the access request despite a related civil action.

The Officer found that solicitor-client privilege was lost when the cross-claim between the Municipality and the company was settled.

However, the Officer upheld the decision to deny access, finding the record was exempt as third party information because its disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the company's competitive position.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to a letter sent to the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee by an affected person.

The Ministry claimed the record was exempt under sections 21 and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

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

Weighing the factors, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the factors favouring privacy protection outweighed those favouring disclosure, and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access.

The appellant, a former police officer, requested access to records concerning his disciplinary matter under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police denied access, claiming the records were excluded under section 52(3) of the Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the records were collected and used in relation to proceedings before a tribunal relating to the employment of a person by the institution.

The records were therefore excluded from the scope of the Act, and the decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant, an employee of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, requested access to records relating to a workplace harassment investigation and subsequent review.

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

The adjudicator found that the records were prepared by the Ministry in relation to meetings and discussions about employment-related matters in which the Ministry has an interest.

The Ministry's decision was upheld, and the records were found to be excluded from the Act.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to the investigation into the sudden death of his son.

The Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police denied access, citing law enforcement and privacy exemptions.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the records were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Criminal Code, and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant requested copies of contracts between the Toronto Board of Education and various companies regarding the acquisition of a Human Resources and Financial Information Management System.

The Board and the third-party companies objected to disclosure under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing the records contained confidential commercial information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the contracts were the product of negotiations and therefore the information was not 'supplied' to the Board within the meaning of section 10(1).

The Board was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant, an employee of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, requested access to email records from backup tapes under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry provided a fee estimate of $6,782.36 for restoring the tapes and computer programming, and denied the appellant's request for a fee waiver.

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

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the fee estimate as reasonable and found that the Ministry's decision to deny the fee waiver was fair and equitable, noting the Ministry's efforts to accommodate the appellant and the lack of evidence of financial hardship.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to two job competitions for which she was an unsuccessful candidate.

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

The Assistant Commissioner found that the job competition records were collected, prepared, maintained, or used in relation to meetings, discussions, or communications about employment-related matters in which the Ministry has an interest, specifically regarding its legal obligations under the Human Rights Code.

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

The appellant appealed a decision by the Peterborough Community Police Services Board denying access to portions of records relating to his arrest for criminal harassment.

The Police withheld information under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that the police codes were properly exempt under section 38(a) and 8(1)(l), and that the disclosure of the remaining withheld information would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b).

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search for additional records.

The appellant, a former employee of the LCBO, submitted a freedom of information request for records relating to his civil, criminal, and arbitration cases following his suspension and termination.

The LCBO denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(6).

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the LCBO's decision, finding that the records were prepared and maintained in relation to proceedings before the Grievance Settlement Board, which relate to labour relations, and thus fall outside the scope of the Act.

A father complained that a separate school board improperly disclosed information from his son's Ontario Student Record to the police during an investigation into an assault.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act prevails over the confidentiality provisions of the Education Act.

The Officer concluded that the information disclosed was personal information, but that the school board disclosed it in compliance with section 32(g) of the Act to aid a law enforcement investigation.

The Officer recommended that the board review its protocol with the police to clarify the definition of personal information.

The complainant alleged that a regional police services board improperly collected and used personal information from his son's Ontario Student Record during an assault investigation.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act prevailed over the confidentiality provisions of the Education Act, and whether the police's collection and use of the information complied with the Act.

The Commissioner concluded that the Act prevailed over the Education Act's confidentiality provision, and that the police collected and used the personal information in compliance with the Act for law enforcement purposes.

The Commissioner recommended that the police review their protocol with the school board to clarify the definition of personal information.

The appellant, an employee of the Ministry of Transportation, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to a grievance and a refusal to work under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

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

The Assistant Commissioner found that the grievance records related to proceedings before the Grievance Settlement Board and the OHSA records related to an investigation in which the Ministry had an interest.

Both sets of records were held to fall within the section 65(6) exclusions and were therefore outside the scope of the Act.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records concerning the investigation of a complaint about unlicensed individuals investigating workplace harassment on behalf of the federal government.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 15, 17, and 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third party information exemption (section 17) and the intergovernmental relations exemption (section 15(a)) did not apply.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the application of section 15(b) to two records, as they contained information received in confidence from the federal government during an investigation under the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the remaining records.

A teacher complained that a Police Services Board breached the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by disclosing witness statements to a school board for a disciplinary hearing after the teacher was acquitted of criminal charges.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the witness statements contained the personal information of both the witnesses and the complainant.

While the witnesses' personal information was disclosed with their consent in compliance with section 32(b), the complainant's personal information was disclosed in contravention of section 32, as the disclosure was not required by the Education Act nor was it for a consistent purpose.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to an OPP report concerning the re-investigation of her son's death.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under the invasion of privacy and law enforcement exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The public interest override did not apply, and the Ministry could not waive the mandatory privacy rights of the individuals involved.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, an employee of the City of Hamilton Fire Department, appealed the City's decision to deny access to records relating to a promotional job competition under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were collected and used in relation to employment-related matters in which the City has an interest, specifically to ensure compliance with the Ontario Human Rights Code and the collective agreement.

As a result, the records fell within the exclusionary provision of section 52(3)3 of the Act, removing them from the Commissioner's jurisdiction.

The City's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted three requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) for records relating to his retirement and study grant.

OISE denied access to some records, claiming they were excluded under the labour relations and employment provisions of section 65(6), and claimed no responsive records existed for the remainder.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the withheld records were maintained in relation to the appellant's civil lawsuit against OISE for breach of his employment contract, and thus fell within the section 65(6) exclusion.

While OISE's search for some records was found to be unreasonable, no further search was ordered because OISE had been dissolved and integrated into the University of Toronto, removing the records from the scope of the Act.

A local media outlet requested access to audit reports regarding the financial affairs of the Peterborough Memorial Centre.

The request was transferred to the Peterborough Community Police Services Board, which denied access under the law enforcement exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that the records qualified for exemption under section 8(1)(b) because their disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement investigation.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board received a freedom of information request for a contract and tender documents related to Collision Reporting Centres.

The Police decided to disclose portions of the tender documents, and the affected third party company appealed, claiming various exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer held that the third party could not raise discretionary exemptions not claimed by the Police.

Applying the mandatory exemptions, the Inquiry Officer found that certain pages containing technical and commercial information supplied in confidence were exempt under section 10(1), and the date of birth of the company's president was exempt as personal information under section 14(1).

The Police were ordered to disclose the remaining portions of the records.