Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The appellant requested access to records relating to the purchase and operation of the Glanmore Hastings County Museum under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Museum provided a fee estimate of $1,610 for search time and photocopying.

The appellant requested a fee waiver on the basis of financial hardship, which the Museum denied.

The appellant appealed the denial.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Museum's decision, finding that while payment would cause financial hardship, waiving the fee would shift an unreasonable burden of the cost to the Museum.

The Museum had already provided 950 pages free of charge and attempted to work with the appellant to narrow the request.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Peterborough for fire department records relating to a specific address.

The City advised that the responsive records had been previously disclosed and declined to disclose them a second time.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant did not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that additional undisclosed records existed and that the City's search efforts were reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to portions of an investigation report regarding workplace discrimination complaints.

The Ministry claimed the undisclosed information was exempt under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the undisclosed paragraphs contained the personal information of the appellant and another identifiable individual.

Balancing the appellant's right of access against the privacy interests of the other individual, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The requesters appealed the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to records relating to investigations into allegations of fraud and elder abuse at a residential care facility.

The Police claimed the law enforcement exemption, arguing that although the original investigations were closed, a coroner's investigation into deaths at the facility resulted in the reopening of the police investigations.

The Inquiry Officer found that while a coroner's investigation itself does not qualify as a law enforcement matter, the police's authority to reinvestigate Criminal Code allegations does.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement matter and upheld the decision to deny access.

A requester sought access to two Hepatitis-B tender documents awarded in 1994.

The Ministry of Health decided to disclose the first page of the tender documents, which included the successful bid prices.

The successful company appealed, arguing the information was exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as confidential commercial information.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that because the total bid prices had already been publicized on the Open Bidding Service, there could be no reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure.

An insurance adjuster appealed the City of Toronto's decision to partially deny access to a fire department report under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the names of the building superintendent and Fire Marshall investigator, finding that information provided in a professional capacity does not qualify as personal information.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision to withhold the remaining information, concluding that it was highly sensitive personal information and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant, an exotic dancer who sustained an injury at a private event held at a facility owned by the Town of Milton, requested the name and address of the individual who rented the facility in order to pursue a civil claim.

The Town denied access under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that disclosure of the applicant's name was necessary for a fair determination of the appellant's rights under section 14(2)(d), outweighing privacy interests, but upheld the decision to withhold the address.

The requester appealed the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's decision to deny access to portions of her supervisory file under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Municipality claimed exemptions for invasion of privacy and danger to the mental or physical health of the requester.

The Inquiry Officer refused to consider additional discretionary exemptions raised late in the appeals process.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Municipality's decision to deny access to records containing the personal information of other individuals and medical information that could prejudice the requester's mental health, but ordered the disclosure of the remaining records.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $76.50 provided by the Township for the preparation and photocopying of 45 pages of records responsive to a freedom of information request.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Township provided sufficient evidence to establish that the estimated fee of $67.50 for preparation time and $0.20 per page for photocopies was calculated in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and its regulations.

The Township's decision to charge the fee was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to the accommodation and telecommunications services provided to a high-profile inmate.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were exempt under section 14(2)(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they contained detailed information about the inmate's history and supervision.

The remaining records were found to be exempt under section 21(1) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services' decision to deny access to records relating to the accommodation and telecommunications services provided to a high-profile inmate.

The records consisted of three Ministry Issue Notes.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained detailed information relating to the steps taken by correctional authorities regarding the supervision of an inmate, and were therefore exempt from disclosure under section 14(2)(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as correctional records.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision denying access to a 1962 Patent Inspection Report for a cottage lot on the basis that the record did not exist.

The sole issue was whether the Ministry's search for the record was reasonable.

The Ministry provided an affidavit detailing its search of the Bracebridge Area office and the Crown Land Registry, including microfiched files.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search was reasonable in the circumstances and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, a former employee of a service provider for the Ontario Lottery Corporation (OLC), appealed the OLC's access decision, arguing that additional records pertaining to his dismissal should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the OLC's search for records in the Network Administrator's office and for a specific tape recording was reasonable.

However, the search was found to be unreasonable regarding other potential records, such as written notes of phone conversations with the OLC 'Hotline'.

The OLC was ordered to conduct a further search for these specific records.

The complainant alleged that the Ministry of Finance improperly disclosed personal information about him and his wife.

The complainant's wife, a provincial government employee, used her employer's fax machine to send the complainant's access to information request to the Ministry.

A Ministry counsel subsequently contacted the wife's supervisor to advise that she had inappropriately used the fax machine for personal reasons, revealing the access request.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information disclosed constituted personal information under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer concluded that the disclosure to the supervisor was not for a consistent purpose under section 42(c), as the wife could not have reasonably expected such disclosure in the absence of a specific workplace policy prohibiting personal use of the fax machine.

The Ministry was found to have breached section 42 of the Act and was recommended to educate staff on the limited circumstances permitting disclosure.

The complainant, the mother of an autistic former student, filed a privacy complaint against a public Board of Education regarding anecdotal notes collected by school staff.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether the collection, notice, retention, and accuracy of the personal information complied with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information was personal information and was collected and retained in compliance with the Act, and that reasonable steps were taken to ensure its accuracy.

However, the Board failed to provide proper notice of collection to the complainant.

The Board was recommended to provide notice of collection for its special education programs.

The complainant alleged that the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) breached the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by publishing his name and criminal charges in a community newsletter posted at a local store.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information was personal information and that section 37 did not apply to exclude it from the privacy provisions.

However, the disclosure was permitted under section 42(c) as it was for a consistent purpose, namely notifying the public of law enforcement activities, which the complainant could have reasonably expected.

The appellant requested access to the entire file relating to her deceased son, who had been involved in a Ministry-operated Homeshare program.

The Ministry granted substantial access but denied access to parts of some records, citing the invasion of privacy exemptions under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant did not establish the right to exercise her son's access rights under section 66.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of certain passages containing only the personal information of the appellant and her husband, but upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the remaining information as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of third-party privacy.

The Ministry's search for a missing page was deemed reasonable.

The appellant, the alleged perpetrator of an assault, requested access to records relating to a claim for compensation filed by the affected person with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

The Board denied access under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records contained personal information whose disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy, while others did not.

The Inquiry Officer ordered partial disclosure of the records and found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for her General Welfare Assistance file.

The City of Kingston disclosed some records but refused to confirm or deny the existence of additional records relating to a potential welfare fraud investigation, relying on section 8(3) of the Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that confirming or denying the existence of such records would communicate information that could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter under section 8(1)(a).

The requester sought access to a Special Investigations Unit (SIU) report and witness statements relating to a fatal car accident involving her son following a police pursuit.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to the SIU report under the law enforcement report exemption and withheld most witness statements citing an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the exemption for the SIU report, finding it met the three-part test under section 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner also upheld the privacy exemptions for the witness statements, except for portions of statements from two civilian witnesses who had consented to disclosure, which were ordered to be released.