Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The appellant, a former employee of the Management Board Secretariat, appealed the Secretariat's decision to deny access to three pages of handwritten notes regarding a workplace complaint made against him.

The Secretariat claimed the records were exempt under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information in the record was "highly sensitive" under section 21(2)(f) and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other individuals.

The Secretariat's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant sought access to records from the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board regarding a widely reported sexual harassment complaint.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information of identifiable individuals.

Because the appellant did not submit representations or establish that disclosure would not be an unjustified invasion of privacy, the mandatory exemption under section 14 applied.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Toronto Board of Education's access decisions regarding a request for his personal information.

The Board claimed various exemptions, including solicitor-client privilege, and argued the request was an abuse of process.

The Inquiry Officer found no abuse of process and determined that while some records held by the Board's lawyers were not under the Board's control, others were.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of certain records and upheld the exemption of others under solicitor-client privilege and personal privacy exemptions.

The appellant appealed the Board's decision to deny access to an early retirement package provided to its former Superintendent of Finance.

The Assistant Commissioner first determined that the records fell within the scope of the Act under section 52(4) as an agreement resulting from employment negotiations.

However, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the Board's decision to deny access, finding that the records contained personal information and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(1) of the Act.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Education and Training's decision that no records existed in response to a request for statistical information relating to the employment of teachers by the Board of Education for the City of Hamilton from 1985 to 1995.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision regarding Letters of Standing, Permanent Letters of Standing, and Probationary and Continuing Education Contracts, finding that the Ministry either could not retrieve the historical data or did not possess the records.

However, the Inquiry Officer found the Ministry's search for Letters of Permission from 1985 to 1988 to be inadequate and ordered a further search.

A requester sought access to a Ministry of Education and Training inspection report regarding a school in France offering Ontario-certified courses.

The Ministry decided to disclose the report in full.

The school appealed, arguing the report was exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third-party information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the report contained observations and impressions about the school's administration, not trade secrets or scientific, technical, commercial, financial, or labour relations information.

As the first part of the three-part test for the section 17(1) exemption was not met, the appeal was dismissed and the Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant appealed a decision by the York Regional Police Services Board denying access to portions of records relating to the drowning death of his brother.

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

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that the records were compiled during a law enforcement investigation, which triggered the presumption of an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Act.

The appellant requested access to background notes prepared by a Ministry of Labour Employment Standards Officer during an investigation of a former employee's claim for termination and severance pay.

The Ministry denied access under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b).

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as the appellant's interest in disclosure was private rather than public.

The appellant requested access to unit prices and category options provided by the successful bidder for a contract to supply bottle bags to the LCBO.

The LCBO denied access to portions of the record under the third party information exemption in section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that the information was commercial, supplied in confidence, and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of the third party.

The public interest override in section 23 did not apply as the appellant's interest was private.

The appellant, a former psychiatric patient, requested access to records from the Health Professions Board regarding complaints against two physicians.

In a reconsideration of Order P-1088, the Inquiry Officer found a jurisdictional error in the previous order's interpretation of section 65(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer determined that copies of clinical records transferred to the Board retain their character as clinical records under the Mental Health Act and are therefore excluded from the scope of the Act.

For the remaining administrative records subject to the Act, the Officer upheld most severances under the invasion of privacy exemption, but ordered the disclosure of one letter from a physician.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of a police investigation file and Crown brief relating to domestic assault charges against him.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the undisclosed personal information of other individuals was exempt under section 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 also found that CPIC transmission access codes were exempt under section 14(1)(l) as their disclosure could facilitate unauthorized access to the CPIC system.

Finally, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the Ministry had conducted a reasonable search for additional records.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to records related to his arrest and conviction for assault with intent to resist arrest.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including relations with other governments and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of certain documents from the Crown Brief but upheld the denial of access to the remaining records, finding that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy or reveal information received in confidence from the RCMP.

The requester appealed a decision by the Thunder Bay Police Services Board denying access to portions of a general occurrence report involving the requester and an affected person.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained the personal information of both the requester and the affected person.

After considering the factors in section 14(2) of the Act, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's privacy due to the sensitive and confidential nature of the information.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant requested copies of 911 calls she made to the police regarding an unwanted guest at her workplace.

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

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the records contained the appellant's own personal information and that denying access to information she provided herself would be an absurd result.

The Commissioner also found that the 911 tapes did not constitute a 'report' under the law enforcement exemption and that there was insufficient evidence to show disclosure would expose anyone to civil liability.

The police were ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant, an association representing certain employees of Ontario Hydro, appealed Hydro's decision to deny access to financial impact studies and analyses related to potential privatization scenarios.

Hydro claimed exemptions under sections 18(1)(c) and (e) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were exempt under section 18(1)(c) because their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice Hydro's economic interests and competitive position in potential future asset sales.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as the public interest in disclosure did not clearly outweigh the purpose of the exemption.

The appellant, a journalist writing a book, appealed the Ontario Insurance Commission's decision to deny access to records relating to negotiations between two insurance companies.

The Inquiry Officer found that portions of the records were exempt under section 15(b) as information received in confidence from another government agency (OSFI), and under section 13(1) as advice or recommendations.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as the public interest was not compelling enough to outweigh the exemptions.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of some background information not covered by the exemptions.

The Commission's search for records was deemed reasonable.

The appellant requested access to records relating to their complaints about a named individual's alleged building code and by-law violations.

The City of Timmins denied access to four records under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that the records contained the affected person's personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption in section 14(3)(b).

The Commissioner also found that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, as the appellant had already been provided with sufficient information regarding the City's response to the complaints.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board regarding a request for records of investigations into the appellant's involvement in street gangs or organized crime between 1980 and 1982.

Following an interim order, the Police conducted a further search and provided representations, including applicable retention schedules showing the records would have been destroyed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the steps taken by the Police to search for the records were reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant requested copies of proposals submitted in response to a Request for Proposals for Collision Reporting Centre Facilities.

The Police disclosed some records but denied access to others under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing third-party interests.

The successful bidder objected to disclosure, claiming the records contained trade secrets and commercial information supplied in confidence.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the records contained commercial information supplied in confidence, the successful bidder failed to demonstrate that disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in the harms outlined in section 10(1).

The Police were ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Goderich Police Services Board to deny access to a transcript of a telephone conversation between the appellant and the former Chief of Police.

The Police claimed the record was exempt from disclosure under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the transcript contained only the personal information of the former Chief, which was highly sensitive, and that its disclosure could unfairly damage his reputation.

The decision to deny access was upheld.