Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

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.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to a sexual assault investigation against him, which resulted in charges that were later withdrawn.

The appellant sought the records for a malicious prosecution lawsuit against his niece and her parents.

The Halton Regional Police Services Board denied access to portions of the records, citing invasion of privacy and law enforcement exemptions.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the denial for most of the records under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the third parties' personal privacy.

However, the Commissioner ordered the disclosure of one passage from a police officer's notebook, finding it was not exempt under the law enforcement exemptions in section 8(2).

The appellant, a former employee of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, appealed the Municipality's decision to deny access to portions of an interdepartmental memorandum under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the undisclosed portions contained advice or recommendations setting out a suggested course of action.

Therefore, the information qualified for exemption under section 7(1) and section 38(a) of the Act.

The Municipality's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to police investigation records concerning a motor vehicle/bicycle accident in which he was severely injured.

The Ministry granted partial access, claiming exemptions under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the remaining records, which included interview reports and the investigating officer's notes.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b).

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant, an employee of the City of Thorold, appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to a letter of complaint and attached documents regarding alleged wrongdoing by public officials.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the attached documents did not contain personal information and ordered their disclosure.

However, the cover letter contained personal information compiled as part of a police investigation, and its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry's decision to withhold the cover letter was upheld.

A teacher employed by the Metropolitan Separate School Board requested access to letters written to the Board regarding an article that referred to her.

The Board granted partial access but severed the names, addresses, and personal identifiers of the authors under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The requester appealed the denial of access to the identifying information.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's decision, finding that disclosure of the personal identifiers would constitute an unjustified invasion of the authors' personal privacy under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as the information was highly sensitive, provided in confidence, and associated with religious beliefs.

The requester appealed the City of Mississauga's decision to deny access to records concerning a proposed lap dancing by-law, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that most of the records qualified for exemption under either Branch 1 (common law privilege) or Branch 2 (prepared by counsel for legal advice) of section 12.

However, one record was ordered disclosed because it had been copied to a third-party police officer, which constituted a waiver of the privilege since no joint interest was established.

The appellant appealed Ontario Hydro's decision to deny access to a document containing recommendations from an internal investigation into a harassment complaint initiated by the appellant.

Ontario Hydro claimed exemptions under sections 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 21 (invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected persons' privacy under section 49(b), as the highly sensitive information pertained primarily to the appellant.

Furthermore, the record did not qualify for the advice or recommendations exemption under section 13(1) because the suggested course of conduct was not sufficiently specific.

Ontario Hydro was ordered to disclose the record in its entirety.

The appellant requested access to information related to a notice of contravention of a City of London by-law.

The City granted partial access but withheld the name, address, and telephone number of the complainant under the law enforcement exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that the withheld information qualified for exemption under section 8(1)(d) as it would disclose the identity of a confidential source in a law enforcement matter, and that the City properly exercised its discretion under section 38(a) to refuse disclosure of the appellant's personal information.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Windsor Police Services Board refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records relating to the appellant's former wife, step-son, and two daughters under section 14(5) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that disclosing the mere existence or non-existence of the requested records would reveal personal information about identifiable individuals' involvement in law enforcement matters.

Balancing the factors, the Assistant Commissioner concluded that such disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and upheld the Police's decision.

A newspaper reporter requested information regarding retirement incentives paid to four senior officials of the Board of Education for the City of Windsor.

The Board denied access, claiming the records were exempt under section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they revealed the substance of deliberations of a closed meeting.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's decision, finding that the meetings were properly held in camera under the Education Act and that disclosure would reveal the substance of the committee's deliberations.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision denying access to the first three characters of the postal codes of individuals who sat on a jury in Metropolitan Toronto during 1994.

The Ministry argued that the records were not subject to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act due to federal paramountcy and the Juries Act.

The Assistant Commissioner determined that the jury rolls were created and administered by the sheriff acting as an officer of the court, under judicial supervision.

Consequently, the Ministry did not have custody or control of the records for the purposes of the Act, and the records fell outside its scope.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to a fire investigation at their place of business.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under the law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the investigation remained ongoing and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter.

The appeal was dismissed and the Ministry's decision to deny access under sections 14(1)(b) and 49(a) was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records held by the City of Toronto's Fire Department relating to a residential address.

The City denied access to a Provincial Offences Act Information and Summons, 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 records were court records forming part of the public record, which favoured disclosure.

The Officer concluded that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and ordered the City to disclose the records.

The appellant appealed the Fire Board's decision regarding two multi-part freedom of information requests.

The Fire Board denied access to two letters under the closed meeting exemption, claimed no records existed for certain parts, and sought clarification for others.

The Inquiry Officer found that the closed meeting exemption did not apply to the letters and ordered their disclosure.

The Officer also found that the Fire Board's search for records was reasonable and that it had met its obligations in seeking clarification from the appellant, who had failed to respond.

The appellant submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Ministry of Finance for the appointment book or similar records for the Ontario Insurance Commission library.

The institution identified a Visitors' Log Book but advised the appellant that his name did not appear in it and no other responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, questioning whether all responsive records had been identified.

The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal, finding that the institution had made a reasonable effort to identify and locate records responsive to the request.

The appellant filed appeals claiming a deemed refusal after the Ministry returned three freedom of information requests as frivolous and vexatious without retaining copies.

The Appeals Officer asked the appellant to re-submit the requests or allow copies to be forwarded to the Ministry so proper decision letters could be issued.

The appellant refused both options.

The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellant had frustrated the appeals process and that allocating further resources was unjustified.

The appellant appealed the City of Oshawa's decision to deny access to various records relating to the passage of zoning by-laws and proposed land development.

The City claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including draft by-laws, closed meetings, advice or recommendations, third party information, economic interests, and solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of exemptions to most of the records, but ordered the disclosure of a few records that did not meet the criteria for the claimed exemptions.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the police for records relating to the 1975 sudden death investigation of his father.

The police denied access, citing exemptions for invasion of privacy and law enforcement records.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation, which is presumed to be an unjustified invasion of privacy if disclosed.

The Commissioner also held that the public interest override did not apply, noting that the legislature explicitly protected the privacy of deceased individuals for thirty years after death.

The appellant requested access to copies of Deputy Returning Officer (DRO) Statements for certain polls in the 1994 municipal elections.

The City of Ottawa denied access, claiming the records were exempt under section 53(2) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act because section 105 of the Municipal Elections Act prohibits inspecting the contents of a ballot box without a judge's order.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the original DRO Statements are kept outside the ballot box and therefore do not fall within the scope of section 105.

The City was ordered to disclose the records.