Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The appellant sought access to a letter of complaint concerning a named Indian association sent to the Gaming Control Commission.

The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations denied access under various exemptions, including the law enforcement exemption.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the record related to a law enforcement matter and that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal the identity of a confidential source, even with the complainant's name and address removed.

The appellant, a hoist supplier, requested copies of shop drawings, stress calculations, and correspondence related to equipment supplied under a Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) contract.

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

The appellant appealed, arguing a compelling public interest in disclosure due to safety and compliance concerns.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the TTC's decision, finding that the records met the three-part test for exemption and that the appellant failed to demonstrate a compelling public interest that outweighed the purpose of the exemption.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation for the financial statements of the Ontario Underwater Council.

The Ministry denied access to the financial statements under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing third party information exemptions.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Inquiry Officer found that the financial statements constituted financial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the competitive position of the Ontario Underwater Council.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Township of McNab for records relating to complaints about his property.

The Township disclosed some records but the appellant believed more existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Township's search for additional records was reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of Transportation for all information held under his name.

The Ministry granted partial access to records, and the appellant appealed, arguing that the Ministry did not identify all responsive records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant's broad request was not sufficiently specific, but that the Ministry's searches of the specific locations and types of records mentioned in the request were reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested an updated copy of her criminal record from 1981 from the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board.

The Police provided a record, but the appellant appealed, arguing that the record should contain more information, specifically relating to arrests in 1983 and 1984.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search of their MANIX and CPIC systems, which showed the appellant's first entry was in 1987.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation for documentation concerning a named organization.

The Ministry denied access to one record, consisting of interoffice electronic mail memoranda, on the basis of solicitor-client privilege under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record was prepared by and for Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice, and therefore qualified for exemption under Branch 2 of section 19.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

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

The Police claimed no such records existed but located two other occurrence reports, granting partial access and withholding the rest under the personal privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision to withhold the information, finding its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

However, the Officer found the Police's evidence regarding the reasonableness of their search for the gang-related records insufficient and ordered them to conduct a further search.

The appellant requested access to a Ministry of Labour report regarding safety concerns at a petrochemical refinery.

The Ministry denied access to parts of the report under the third-party information exemption in section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the undisclosed technical information was exempt, as its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the corporation's competitive position.

However, two passages explaining past incidents and the investigator's conclusions were ordered disclosed, as they did not qualify for the exemption and their disclosure was supported by the public interest override in section 23.

The appellant requested access to the General Accounts of the Townships of Belmont and Methuen.

The Townships disclosed the accounts but severed information relating to payments made to three individuals and a pension fund contribution, claiming the invasion of privacy exemption under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the pension fund contribution related to an employee benefit and its disclosure was not an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(4)(a).

However, the Inquiry Officer determined that the three individuals were employees, not independent contractors, and the disclosure of their payment amounts was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(f).

The Townships were ordered to disclose the pension fund contribution information but not the payments to the three individuals.

The appellant appealed a decision by the London Police Services Board denying access to a questionnaire used to screen applicants for a Firearms Acquisition Certificate.

The Police claimed the record was exempt under several sections of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including section 8(1)(e) (endanger life or safety).

The Inquiry Officer found that disclosing the questionnaire could allow potential applicants to be coached on the correct answers, defeating the purpose of screening out individuals who might pose a danger.

The decision to deny access was upheld under section 8(1)(e).

The appellant appealed a decision by the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto regarding a freedom of information request for his personal information.

During mediation, the Municipality disclosed all remaining records, leaving only the issue of whether the Municipality's search for additional records, specifically a police report, was reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Municipality provided sufficient evidence of a reasonable search, including affidavits and confirmation from relevant individuals that no such police report existed in the files.

The appeal was dismissed.

The complainant, an employee of the County, alleged that the County breached her privacy by disclosing her suspension letter to union representatives and by collecting her personal financial information.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information was personal information.

The disclosure of the suspension letter to the supervisor and CAO was permitted, but the disclosure to the union representatives and the disclosure of her home address violated the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the collection of financial information, if it occurred, would have been permitted for law enforcement purposes.

The appellant requested access to formula work sheets used to determine the value of school bus contracts.

The Board denied access to portions of the records, claiming exemptions for third party information, valuable government information, and economic interests.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board failed to establish the exemptions under sections 11(a) and 11(c), and failed to meet the third part of the test for third party information under section 10(1).

The Officer also found that while the records contained some personal information, its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy as it disclosed financial details of a contract for personal services under section 14(4)(b).

The Board was ordered to disclose the records.

The requester appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Licensing Commission to deny access to a portion of a business licence application containing another individual's responses to questions about their criminal history.

The Commission claimed the information was exempt 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 information constituted personal information and that none of the factors favouring disclosure applied.

The Commission's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to correspondence received from a member of the public regarding a Township's grant applications.

The Ministry claimed the section 21(1) personal privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were previously the subject of Order P-1134, which upheld the denial of access.

The appellant argued that Order P-1134 was wrongly decided, but the Inquiry Officer disagreed, finding no compelling public interest in disclosure under section 23.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Township of Norfolk for test results on winter sand provided by a supplier.

The Township denied access, claiming the third party information exemption under section 10(1)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the exemption did not apply because the information was generated by a consultant, not supplied in confidence by the third party, and there was no evidence of competitive harm.

The Township was ordered to disclose the record.

The complainant, a former city employee, alleged that the City improperly collected her medical diagnosis on return-to-work forms in violation of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the forms contained personal information.

The collection of information on the 'Fitness Assessment - Return to Work' form was necessary for administering the short-term disability program and complied with the Act.

However, the collection of a medical diagnosis and treatment details on the 'Attending Physician's Statement' was not necessary and violated section 28(2).

The City also failed to provide proper notice of collection under section 29(2).

A complainant alleged that a town disclosed her personal information contrary to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The town's Chief Administrative Officer read the complainant's solicitor's letter aloud during an open committee meeting and distributed copies to the press.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information was personal information and that its disclosure to the press and public during an open session was not in compliance with section 32 of the Act.

The Officer recommended that the town amend the meeting minutes to remove the complainant's identity and take steps to ensure future compliance.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board denying access to an incident report involving the appellant.

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

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 14(3)(b).

As no exceptions applied, the information was exempt from disclosure under section 38(b), and the appeal was dismissed.