Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The appellant, who had been denied social assistance, requested access to a letter from his former employer to the Town of Dryden's Welfare Administrator regarding his dismissal.

The Town denied access, citing invasion of privacy and evaluative or opinion material exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the record contained only the appellant's personal information, not the former employer's, and that the former employer could not reasonably have assumed their identity would be held in confidence.

The Town was ordered to disclose the record to the appellant.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Finance for assessment information regarding two properties.

The Ministry denied access to the records, citing the confidentiality provision in section 53(1) of the Assessment Act and section 67 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while some information relating to the calculation of assessments was protected by section 53(1), other information required to be on the assessment roll or obtained from the Registry or Land Titles Office was not protected and must be disclosed.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the unprotected portions of the records.

The appellant sought access to records regarding revisions to the Provincial Nuclear Emergency Plan.

The Ministry denied access to certain records, claiming the Cabinet records exemption under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that several records would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations and were properly exempt.

The Assistant Commissioner also determined that the public interest override in section 23 does not apply to the Cabinet records exemption, and that the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to order disclosure under section 11.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the records.

The appellant requested access to a copy of a letter addressed to a City Councillor regarding lease negotiations.

The City of Toronto denied access under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the unsigned letter contained personal information of an identifiable individual, was highly sensitive, and was supplied in confidence.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, and upheld the City's decision to deny access.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to records regarding a business's operation, claiming law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained professional, not personal, information, rendering the privacy exemption inapplicable.

Furthermore, the Police failed to provide sufficient evidence of expected harm to justify the law enforcement exemptions under sections 8(1)(a) and (f), and the records did not qualify as "reports" under section 8(2)(a).

The Police were ordered to disclose the records in their entirety.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision regarding a freedom of information request for a property survey.

The Ministry initially claimed the survey was publicly available, but during mediation, it was determined the publicly available survey was not the one requested.

The Ministry conducted further searches but failed to locate the requested survey.

The Inquiry Officer found the Ministry's search was inadequate given the appellant's clear description of the record and its location, and ordered the Ministry to conduct a further search.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Finance for 1988 market value assessments for certain properties.

The Ministry provided the figures but inserted a disclaimer stating the figures were preliminary and had no legal significance.

The appellant appealed, arguing the disclaimer was not responsive to the request and diminished the evidentiary value of the information.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the disclaimer provided factual context and was responsive to the request, while noting that the legal significance of the figures would be determined by the relevant tribunal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the York Regional Police Services Board denying access to portions of an incident report relating to criminal charges laid against the appellant.

During mediation, the appellant narrowed the request to the name of a switchboard operator and the address of a named individual.

The Police claimed the information was exempt under sections 38(b) and 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information constituted personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law under the Criminal Code.

Consequently, the presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) applied, and the decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested information regarding the cost of a Workers' Compensation Board hearing transcript and a copy of a police report.

The Amherstburg Police Services Board denied access to the transcript cost record, claiming the invasion of privacy exemption under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and stated no other records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record did not contain personal information and ordered its disclosure.

The Officer also found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search for the requested report.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Niagara Regional Police Services Board to deny access to a General Incident Report under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information of both the appellant and an affected person, compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

The Officer upheld the exemption for portions identifying the affected person but ordered the disclosure of the remainder of the record relating to the appellant.

The appellant made two requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to a woodlot managed by the Credit Valley Conservation Authority.

The Authority granted access to some records but stated no other records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing more records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Authority had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records, including staff meetings, computer searches, and reviewing the central file index.

The Authority's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Metropolitan Toronto Police regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to an incident involving the appellant and the transfer of a former Superintendent.

The appellant argued that additional responsive records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police conducted a reasonable search for records relating to the appellant's involvement with the Police, but failed to provide evidence of a search for records regarding the Superintendent's transfer.

The Police were ordered to conduct a further search for the transfer records.

The appellant requested access to a complaint made against her under the Day Nurseries Act.

The Ministry disclosed the record but withheld one sentence under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld sentence did not contain personal information because there was no reasonable expectation that the anonymous complainant could be identified from the information.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the sentence.

A reporter requested access to all government files related to a collection agency whose licence was revoked following an investigation by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

The Ministry granted partial access, claiming various exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the application of exemptions for solicitor-client privilege, law enforcement, advice and recommendations, third-party information, and personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of exemptions to several records, ordered the disclosure of others, and found that the public interest override did not apply.

The appellant requested access to her daughter's special services file from the Carleton Roman Catholic School Board.

The Board disclosed the general student file and claimed the confidential psychological file had been disclosed previously in 1993.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional records existed and had not been disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer found the search for the general student file was reasonable, but ordered the Board to issue a formal decision letter regarding the contents of the confidential psychological file to clarify what had been disclosed.

The requesters appealed a deemed refusal by the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services to provide access to records relating to a fire investigation.

The Ministry had extended the time to respond by 90 days due to the voluminous nature of the records (approximately 4,000 pages) but failed to issue a decision by the extended deadline.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Ministry to issue a decision letter within 15 days without further time extensions.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $186.80 for a freedom of information request to the Credit Valley Conservation Authority.

The Inquiry Officer disallowed the $60 search fee and $120 preparation fee, finding that time spent reviewing records for exemptions does not constitute search or preparation time.

The photocopying fee of $6.80 was upheld.

The appellant's request for a fee waiver based on financial hardship and public health and safety was denied.

The appellant, acting on behalf of her daughter, appealed the Carleton Board of Education's decision to deny access to certain school records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board claimed solicitor-client privilege over several documents prepared in response to a human rights complaint filed by the daughter.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's decision to deny access to these records, finding they were prepared for or by counsel in contemplation of litigation or for legal advice.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Board's search for responsive records was reasonable, though ordered the disclosure of certain records the Board had agreed to release.

The appellant requested statistical reports from the Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police charged a fee of $3.68 for photocopying and postage.

The appellant requested a fee waiver, which the Police denied.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer ordered the fee waived, finding that the amount was too small to justify requiring payment and the administrative expense of refusing the waiver outweighed the value of collecting the fee.

The requester appealed the Municipality's decision to deny access to 66 pages of records relating to the requester's operation of a salvage yard.

The Municipality claimed exemptions under solicitor-client privilege, law enforcement, and danger to life or safety.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the records were exempt under solicitor-client privilege, including correspondence and draft pleadings.

Portions of legal accounts were ordered disclosed where they did not reveal the subject matter of legal advice.

Other records were found exempt under the law enforcement and danger to life or safety exemptions.