IPC - Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario | Recent Orders

MO-2880

Fri, 03 May 2013 00:00:00 GMT

The appellant sought access to records relating to the termination of his employment with the city. The city granted access to a number of responsive records and portions of records. It also took the position that all but one of the remaining records, which it claimed to be exempt under section 38(b), were excluded from the Act as a result of section 52(3)3 (employment-related matters). In this order, the city’s decision is upheld with respect to the application of section 52(3)3 to the records for which it is claimed. In addition, that portion of one record containing the personal information of another individual is found to be exempt under the personal privacy exemption in section 38(b).

PO-3195

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:00:00 GMT

The requester sought access to the personal email addresses of people invited to a reception. He also sought an affidavit certifying who created the list of those invited to the reception and the date and the purpose of the list’s creation. This order upholds the university’s decision to not disclose personal email addresses and declines to order the university to provide the requested affidavit.

PO-3196

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:00:00 GMT

The appellant sought access to records relating to the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee’s (PGT) file for a named individual. This individual is now deceased and the appellant is the individual’s niece. The PGT provided partial access to responsive records, denying access to portions of the records pursuant to sections 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 18(1)(a) (economic and other interests), 19(a) and (b) (solicitor-client privilege), 21(1) (personal privacy) and 22(a) (information available to the public). The PGT also took the position that the information withheld under section 21(1) should not be disclosed on compassionate grounds under section 21(4)(d). The appellant appealed. During the mediation stage of the appeal, the PGT confirmed that it was no longer relying on section 18(1)(a). The adjudicator upheld the PGT’s application of section 22(a). He also upheld the application of section 21(1) and concluded that the section 21(4)(d) compassionate grounds exception did not apply to this information. Sections 19(a) and 13(1) were also found to apply in part.

MO-2877-I

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:00:00 GMT

This is the second interim order addressing the Toronto Police Services Board’s response to a request for records related to the decision-making process for determining eligibility for inclusion on the Toronto Police Wall of Honour. The police denied access to portions of the responsive records under sections 9(1)(d) (relations with other governments) and 14(1), with section 14(3)(b) (investigation into possible violation of law) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Interim Order MO-2831-I reviewed the adequacy of the police’s search for records and other matters related to the appeal, including the non-provision of copies of all of the records at issue to this office. Interim Order MO-2831-I ordered the police to conduct further searches and to produce the records at issue to this office, along with a revised index of records. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the exemptions claimed do not apply and orders disclosure of the withheld information, with limited exceptions. The adjudicator also finds that the searches conducted in response to the previous interim order were not reasonable and orders additional searches.

MO-2878

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:00:00 GMT

The city received a request for access to records relating to the city’s involvement with the requester’s property as well as with a particular road, including records held by a named municipal councillor. After issuing a time-extension decision which resulted in this appeal, the city issued a two-part decision. The first part of the decision was a fee estimate for searching for and photocopying certain records; the second part advised the appellant that records of the municipal councillor were not in the custody or control of the city and were, therefore, not subject to the Act. The appellant appealed the city’s decision on a number of grounds including the adequacy of the decision letter, the fee estimate, the custody and control decision, and other matters.

In this decision, the city’s fee estimate and custody and control decisions are upheld, and the other issues raised by the appellant are dismissed.

MO-2879

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:00:00 GMT

The board received a request for details of the specific sources of funds comprising the amount paid to the board by an affected party as part of a restitution order. The board took the position that the record detailing this information falls outside the scope of the Act under sections 52(2.1) (ongoing prosecution) and 52(3)1 (employment-related matters). In the alternative, the board took the position that the record was exempt under section 14(1) (personal privacy) of the Act. The appellant indirectly raised the possible application of section 16 (public interest override). This order determines that the withheld portions of the record are exempt under section 14(1), and that the public interest override does not apply. It also determines that the record is not excluded from the scope of the Act under section 52(3)1.

PO-3193

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:00:00 GMT

An association of postdoctoral fellows sought access to the names and university email addresses for all postdoctoral fellows at the university. The adjudicator finds that the names and email addresses are “personal information” within the meaning of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and the requester has not established that its disclosure would not be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. The public interest override does not apply.

PO-3194

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:00:00 GMT

The appellant is seeking records from Algonquin College relating to a report on human resources that was prepared by a consulting firm in 2007-2008. The college denied access to 16 records and claimed that they are excluded from the scope of the Act under section 65(6). The appellant appealed the college’s decision to deny him access to these records under section 65(6) and also claimed that the college had not conducted a reasonable search for responsive records, particularly for a contract between itself and the consulting firm.

In this order, the adjudicator finds that the 16 records at issue are excluded from the scope of the Act under section 65(6)3. On the issue of whether the college conducted a reasonable search for responsive records, he finds that the contract sought by the appellant would be excluded from the scope of the Act under section 65(6)3. Consequently, no useful purpose would be served in ordering the college to conduct further searches for that record. Moreover, he finds that the college provided ample evidence to show that it conducted a reasonable search for responsive records.

MO-2874

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 00:00:00 GMT

The appellant made a request for access to certain information relating to job postings with the Halton Region Conservation Authority (the HRCA). In response, the HRCA provided the appellant with a fee estimate, which was appealed. During mediation, the fee was substantially reduced, as was the scope of the request. In this decision, the fee estimate is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.

MO-2875

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 00:00:00 GMT

The Toronto Police Services Board received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to information related to a specific incident identified by its occurrence identification number. The police located one responsive record, an occurrence report, and granted partial access to it. The police denied access to portions of the record pursuant to section 38(a) (discretion to disclose a requester’s own personal information), read in conjunction with section 8(1)(l) (law enforcement), and section 38(b) (personal privacy), read in conjunction with the presumption at section 14(3)(b) (investigation into a possible violation of law) of the Act. The appellant appealed the decision to deny access. During mediation, the appellant advised that she was of the view that additional records must exist. As a result, the reasonableness of the police search for responsive records was added as an issue in this appeal. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the police conducted a reasonable search for responsive records. The adjudicator also finds that the exemption at section 38(a) does not apply. Finally, as the adjudicator determined that the record does not contain the personal information of individuals other than the appellant, she finds that section 38(b) cannot apply. The adjudicator orders the police to disclose the occurrence report, in its entirety, to the appellant.