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

MO-2839

Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:00:00 GMT

The appellant sought access to records held by the police relating to an incident which involved a dog attack. The police granted access to most of the responsive record, and denied access to portions of it (including the address and telephone number of an affected party) on the basis of the exemption in section 38(b) (personal privacy) of the Act. This order finds that the record at issue contains the personal information of the appellant and another identified individual. It upholds the application of section 38(b) to the withheld portions of the record.

MO-2840-I

Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:00:00 GMT

The town received a request for all complaint information related to the appellants’ address. The town relied on the mandatory exemption in section 14(1)(invasion of privacy) to withhold portions of two records. The appellants appealed the town’s decision and the town acknowledged that the discretionary exemption in section 38(b)(invasion of privacy) applied instead. This interim order finds that section 38(b) applies, and directs the town to exercise its discretion with respect to the two records under section 38(b).

MO-2841-I

Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:00:00 GMT

The appellant requested access to records that postdated a previous request, but addressed similar subject matter. The Toronto Police Services Board located only one record that was responsive to the appellant’s updated request and relied on section 9(1)(d) (relations with other governments), in conjunction with section 38(a), as well as 38(b) (personal privacy) to deny access to the portion they withheld. The appellant took issue with the reasonableness of the police’s search for responsive records, the manner in which the police processed the request and the application of the exemptions. This interim order finds that the police did not conduct a reasonable search for responsive records and requires them to conduct a further search. The other issues will be addressed after the police provide the results of their search and a federal government agency is notified of the appellant’s request for access to the record that the police identified as responsive to the request.

PO-3160

Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:00:00 GMT

The appellant submitted an access request to the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for information relating to a motor vehicle accident. The ministry granted partial access, denying access to the non-disclosed information pursuant to the discretionary personal privacy exemption in section 49(b). In support of its section 49(b) claim, the city raised the presumptions in sections 21(3)(a) (medical history) and (b) (investigation into violation of law) and the factor in section 21(2)(f) (highly sensitive). The appellant appealed the ministry’s decision to deny access to a witness statement. In this decision, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision to deny access to the witness statement.

MO-2838

Tue, 29 Jan 2013 00:00:00 GMT

The appellant submitted a lengthy, multi-part request to the corporation for records relating to an identified address. The corporation located some responsive records and granted partial access to them, and determined that no records exist for certain parts of the request. The corporation claimed that the mandatory exemption at section 14(1) and the discretionary exemption at section 38(b) (personal privacy) applied to the portions of the records that it withheld. On appealing this decision, the appellant claimed that additional records should exist, thus raising the reasonableness of the corporation’s search as an issue on appeal. The adjudicator finds that certain portions of the records do not contain personal information and orders that these portions be disclosed to the appellant. The adjudicator finds further that the remaining portions of the records do contain personal information and upholds the exemption at section 14(1) for those records that do not contain the appellant’s information and section 38(b) for those records that contain the personal information of both the appellant and other identified individuals. Finally, the adjudicator upholds the corporation’s search for responsive records.

PO-3159-I

Tue, 29 Jan 2013 00:00:00 GMT

The requester sought access to records related to reassessments under the Corporations Tax Act. Following the issuance of Interim Order PO-3130-I, the ministry was instructed to exercise its discretion with respect to two records found subject to the discretionary solicitor-client privilege exemption in section 19. The ministry disclosed all of one record and portions of the second record. This order upholds the ministry’s exercise of discretion with respect to the undisclosed information in the remaining record.

PO-3157

Mon, 28 Jan 2013 00:00:00 GMT

The ministry received a request under the Act for a copy of a funding agreement between the government and a named party (the affected party), and supporting documents. Following notification to the affected party, the ministry granted partial access to the agreement, relying on sections 17(1)(a) and (c) (third party information) to withhold portions of the record. The requester appealed the ministry’s decision. During the inquiry, the ministry issued a revised decision, disclosing additional information previously withheld, with the consent of the affected party. This order finds that section 17(1) applies to some of the information about employees and year-to-year implementation of the project, and the public interest override does not apply to this information. The remaining withheld information, including total project investment and job commitments, is not exempt under section 17(1) and is ordered disclosed.

PO-3158

Mon, 28 Jan 2013 00:00:00 GMT

MO-2834

Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:00:00 GMT

The appellant sought police records related to a February 2007 incident. The records identified and disclosed in part to the appellant did not include a written incident report the appellant believes should exist. The appellant appealed the adequacy of the police’s search, as well as the withholding of certain information under section 38(b). The adjudicator orders disclosure of additional personal information about the appellant, but otherwise upholds the access decision of the police. The adjudicator upholds the search conducted by the police as reasonable.

MO-2835-R

Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:00:00 GMT

This is a reconsideration of Order MO-2823 in which the adjudicator did not uphold the city’s refusal to confirm or deny the existence of records responsive to the appellant’s request on the basis that doing so may constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy pursuant to section 14(5) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator ordered the city to disclose those parts of records responsive to the appellant’s request. In this reconsideration order, the adjudicator concludes that he omitted to address the issue of fees in his original decision and amends a provision of that order to allow the city to issue a fee decision.