Every month, IPC adjudicators make decisions on access to information appeals and privacy complaints. Here are four recent key decisions:
MO-3376 (City of Hamilton) A city decision to release copies of a successful proposal relating to the city’s purchase of refuse packers, as well as any associated contract and/or purchase orders, was appealed by a third party. We agreed with the city’s decision to release these records because they did not meet the three-part test to qualify for the third-party exemption.
PO-3666 (McMaster University) A request for emails sent to or by an associate professor pertaining to the professor’s appearance in a court proceeding was turned down by the university. At issue was whether the emails were in the university’s custody or control, as the professor was hired by a third party to provide expert testimony in court. We agreed with the university’s decision because the emails did not relate to the university’s mandate and functions or the professor’s work responsibilities and were, as a result, not in the university’s custody or control.
MO-3383 (South Simcoe Police Services Board) The requester asked the police for records relating to an incident in which a dog bit her child. We ordered the police to disclose the dog owner’s name because disclosure of the name by itself is not an unjustified invasion of personal privacy in the circumstances of this appeal; however, we supported the police’s decision to deny access to the dog owner’s address and telephone number.
PO-3671 (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) The requesters were evicted from a building in which they had been living and the eviction was videotaped by the OPP. The ministry originally withheld the video, but was ordered to disclose the video while redacting parts showing other individuals. We also reduced the fee from $290 to a modest $10.
View more recent decisions here.
This post is also available in: French