Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The appellant requested information from the Ministry of the Attorney General relating to two complaint files in the office of the Police Complaints Commissioner.

The Ministry denied access to certain pages, claiming exemptions for advice and recommendations, law enforcement, invasion of privacy, and discretion to refuse the requester's own information.

The Inquiry Officer declined to consider a late-raised discretionary exemption and found that while a duty report was exempt under the invasion of privacy provision, the remaining records did not qualify for the law enforcement exemptions and must be disclosed.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the City of Ottawa for records relating to a by-law complaint against the appellant's company.

The City provided partial access but withheld the complainant's name and telephone number under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that the by-law enforcement process qualifies as a law enforcement matter and that disclosing the information would reveal the identity of a confidential source under section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

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.

The appellant requested records relating to an Ontario Securities Commission investigation into a real estate development.

The Ministry of Finance, on behalf of the OSC, responded that no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing the search was inadequate.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to provide sufficient evidence of a reasonable search, as it did not detail whether relevant files were located or examined.

The OSC was ordered to conduct a further search and issue a new decision letter.

The appellant, an unsuccessful tenderer, appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to the successful bidder's proposal submission under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry and the successful bidder claimed the record was exempt under section 17(1) as third party information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained technical and commercial information supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the successful bidder's competitive position.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellants submitted a freedom of information request to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board for records relating to an investigation that resulted in the criminal conviction of a police officer.

The Police denied access to several records, citing law enforcement, invasion of privacy, and relations with other governments exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that most records were exempt under the presumed unjustified invasion of privacy for law enforcement investigations.

However, applying the absurd result principle, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of records containing information originally supplied by the appellants themselves.

The CPIC printout was found exempt as information received in confidence from the RCMP.

The appellant requested a copy of a letter of complaint from a fire department employee that may have led to the fire chief's departure.

The City of Orillia refused to confirm or deny the existence of the record under section 14(5) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that confirming or denying the existence of the record would reveal personal information about the former fire chief and constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply.

The appellant requested access to statements taken by the OPP during an investigation into his claim that he was detained at a reserve by members of a First Nation band.

The Ministry disclosed the appellant's own statements but withheld the statements of other individuals under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption of an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 21(3)(b).

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the parts of the records that did not contain the personal information of individuals other than the appellant, while the statements of the band members were withheld.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a workplace harassment investigation conducted by the Ministry of Community and Social Services regarding complaints the appellant made against another employee.

The Ministry granted partial access but withheld certain records under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer considered whether disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 49(b).

The Inquiry Officer found that while the names of the respondent and affected persons, as well as their statements, were generally exempt, the appellant was entitled to an adequate degree of disclosure regarding the allegations and the direct response to the complaint.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the respondent's name where it appeared in certain records, as well as specific portions of the investigation report and the respondent's statement, while the decision to withhold the remaining personal information was upheld.

The Ministry of Health decided to disclose the medical records of two children to their non-custodial father, who had access rights.

The children's mother appealed the decision, arguing that disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that section 20(5) of the Children's Law Reform Act expressly authorizes an access parent to receive information regarding the health of their children.

Therefore, the exception in section 21(1)(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applied, and the records were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant requested access to a Special Investigations Unit (SIU) report regarding the death of a psychiatric patient following police restraint.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the SIU report met the three-part test for exemption under section 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as it was a report prepared in the course of a law enforcement investigation by an agency with the function of enforcing compliance with a law.

The public interest override in section 23 did not apply to section 14 exemptions.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested a police investigation report regarding the death of their sister.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police denied access to the record in its entirety, citing the invasion of privacy exemption under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained the personal information of the deceased and other identifiable individuals, and that it was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

Therefore, the disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Thunder Bay Police Services Board to deny access to portions of a general occurrence report under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police claimed the withheld information, which consisted of names compiled during an investigation into a possible violation of law, was exempt under section 38(b) as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that the information fell under the presumption in section 14(3)(b) and was therefore exempt from disclosure.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to a complaint.

The appellant narrowed the appeal to records in the possession of the Township's solicitor.

The Township claimed these records were not in its custody or under its control.

Applying the test from Order 120 and principles from the Solicitors' Act, the Inquiry Officer found that the records belonged to the solicitor and were not under the Township's control.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Township's search for responsive records was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The complainant, a former employee of an agency funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, alleged that the Ministry improperly disclosed a letter containing her concerns about the agency's operations to the agency's Board of Directors.

The letter, signed by the complainant and others, was subsequently made public, leading to alleged harassment and job loss.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner's investigation concluded that the information in the letter constituted 'personal information' under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Furthermore, the disclosure to the Board without severing the signatories' names was not necessary to address the systemic concerns raised, and therefore was not in compliance with section 42(c) of the Act.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board for records relating to an internal police investigation into the conduct of officers during a murder investigation.

The Police denied access to several records, citing various exemptions including the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and their disclosure was therefore presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant requested information from the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board relating to the investigation of his wife's death.

The Police denied access based on law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant was not his wife's personal representative under section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act because he lacked letters of probate or administration.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the records were exempt under section 38(b) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, since they were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Mental Health Act.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The requester appealed a fee estimate provided by the Lanark County Board of Education under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board argued the appeal was out of time and that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction.

The Inquiry Officer found that ongoing correspondence meant the final decision was not issued until January 30, 1996, making the appeal timely.

On the issue of the appeal filing fee, the Inquiry Officer determined that while a 'review' of a fee estimate is equivalent to an 'appeal' and normally requires a fee, the appellant's right of appeal vested before the new fee regulation came into effect.

Therefore, no fee was required.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to the investigation of her husband's death in a mining accident.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant did not establish she was the personal representative of the deceased's estate.

The law enforcement exemptions did not apply because the police were acting as agents for the Coroner, whose proceedings do not constitute law enforcement.

The invasion of privacy exemption applied to toxicology and autopsy reports, as well as identifying information of third-party witnesses, but the remaining personal information of the deceased was ordered disclosed.

A student complained that a college disclosed their personal information to the student association and an insurance company without consent to administer a student health insurance plan.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information was '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 student could not have reasonably expected the disclosure for this purpose when registering.

The Officer recommended that the college provide revised notices of collection and ensure only necessary information is disclosed.