• Disclosure of an occurrence number assigned to a police investigation file is not covered by this provision. (Order #M-41)

• Information about a police force's firearms and firearms training was not exempt under this provision, where the information was discussed publicly. (Order #P-391)

• This exemption was upheld by the Commission in respect of law enforcement investigation records created as a result of an incident that took place in a correctional facility. (Order #P-657)

• This exemption applied to a Security Plan for the Herd Reduction Program at Rondeau National Park. The techniques contained in the plan deal with diffusing violent situations and the Commission accepted that the effectiveness of the plan would be lost if it was disclosed. (Order #P-745)

• Disclosing information regarding invoice and account numbers of the police cellular phone numbers is not reasonably likely to result in the harm envisioned in this section. (Order #M-552)

• In this case disclosure of records related to an alleged bylaw offence dealing with the operation of a salvage yard was exempt under this provision. (Order #M-560)

• The Commission agreed that the questions issued to applicants for a Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC) should not be given to the requester because the questionnaire, which is authorized pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada, screens applicants and determines if the applicants will be issued a FAC. The granting of a FAC to an unstable individual would endanger the life or physical safety of others. (Order #M-767)

• Disclosure of the number of abortions by hospital or clinic in a specified year could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of those associated with the facilities. (Order #P-1499)

• A contract for personal services between the institution and an individual did not fall under this provision. Disclosure would provide details of the contract including remuneration and responsibilities, but could not reasonably be expected to endanger the physical safety of the individual or others. (Order #P-1545)

• The party with the burden of proof under section 14(1)(e) must provide "detailed and convincing evidence" of a reasonable expectation of harm. This evidence must demonstrate that there is a reasonable basis for believing that endangerment will result from disclosure--that the reasons for resisting disclosure are not frivolous or exaggerated. (Order #PO-1747)

ss.(1)(e) and (l)

• These provisions did not apply to an expense claim provided by an employee that disclosed where he conducted his business lunches. While the employee had been the subject of threats in the past, the locales were sufficiently unpredictable, and did not disclose a pattern. Thus, the information did not warrant the application of this exemption. (Order #M-333)

ss.(1)(f)

• The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the harms envisaged in the law enforcement exemption were satisfied where they "could" reasonably be expected to occur if disclosure was made. In this case, police officers were investigating an allegation of criminal activity said to have occurred in 1976 by staff at the Grandview Training School for Girls in Ontario. Charges were ultimately laid in this matter and the court ruled that disclosure of the records in advance of the trial could reasonably be expected to deprive the accused of the right to a fair trial. In these cases, the right to a fair trial, which is a right enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (s.11), will be the governing principle. The institution's denial of access was upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal. Given this decision, in instances where records are relevant to allegations of criminal wrongdoing, institutions may deny access to the records pending a decision by law enforcement authorities not to proceed to a prosecution. (Ian Wilson, the Archivist of Ontario and the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner, October 29, 1993, Ontario Court of Appeal)

• Disclosure of records to a requester prior to his or her hearing under the Police Services Act was held not to contravene this provision. (Order #M-362)

• The Commission held that disclosure of records related to the murder of a Crown ward would not be exempt under this provision. The records related primarily to the actions of the institution in response to the failure of the Children's Aid Society to report the Crown ward's disappearance to the police. The fact that the trial of four accused allegedly responsible for the death of the Crown ward had yet to take place did not mean that disclosure to the media would deprive the accused of a fair trial. The Commission noted that the institution had not established that the disclosure would impair the accuseds' right to a fair trial. (Orders #P-805, P-806)

• In this case, the Commission found certain records, if released, could reasonably be expected to prejudice the trials of individuals who had been charged or will be charged in the future, and who have not yet appeared before court. In particular, the Commission found that the disclosure of a statement relating to anticipated pleas by some of the accused persons, the victims and some health related concerns could reasonably be expected to deprive one or more of the people subject to the investigation of the right to a fair trial. (Order #P-999)

• In order for this exemption to apply, it is necessary to show the record contains information which will have a bearing on the issue to be decided at trial ie. whether the accused is guilty of the alleged offence. (Order #P-1363)

• Portions of briefing/issue notes not already exempted from disclosure did not fail under this provision because the institution did not persuade the Commission that any civil or criminal proceeding is likely to result from its internal investigation. (Order #P-1324)

• Briefing/issue notes regarding an internal investigation did not fall under this provision because no civil or criminal proceeding is likely to result. (Order #P-1324)

• Relying on the Interpretation Act, the Commission found that a Board of Education is a "person" for the purposes of this provision. However, this provision did not apply regarding the rights of the School Board to a fair hearing involving an appeal under the Education Act of a student's suspension. Under the Education Act, in matters of appeals against student suspensions, a school board is the impartial adjudicator, not a party to the proceedings. The School Board's rights to a fair adjudication are not at issue in such a hearing. Rather the rights of the parties to the appeal of a suspension are at issue, including the rights of the child who was suspended. (Order #M-1098)

ss.(1)(g)

• "Intelligence" is defined as information gathered by a law enforcement agency in a covert manner with respect to ongoing efforts devoted to the detection and prosecution of crime or the prevention of possible violation of law, and is distinct from information that is compiled and identifiable as part of the investigation of a specific occurrence. In this case, the Commission was satisfied that the police were collecting intelligence information in respect of the records requested. The records contained information about individuals other than the target of the investigation. (Orders #M-202, P-650, P-999, P-1305, M-891, P-1305, P-1343)

• An affidavit to obtain a search warrant and a search warrant in respect of a police investigation are not exempt under this provision. (Order #M-146)

• In this case, letters of complaint addressed to an institution did not constitute "law enforcement intelligence information." In order to fall within the exemption, additional representations as to how the disclosure of the letters would be expected to interfere with the gathering of law enforcement intelligence information are required. (Order #P-583)

• A billing statement for police use of cellular telephones is not gathered as contemplated by this provision. (Order #M-519)

• Information on a CPIC (Canadian Police Intelligence Computer) printout revealing computer locations and access codes used by police forces when accessing information on the CPIC system is exempt, because its disclosure could enable an individual to access law enforcement intelligence information on CPIC or interfere with the operation of CPIC. (Order #M-743)

ss.(1)(h)

• This provision provides a discretionary exemption where either the record at issue is itself a record that had been confiscated from a person by a peace officer in accordance with an Act or regulation, or where the disclosure of the record could reasonably be expected to reveal, by permitting the drawing of accurate inferences, the contents of another record which had been confiscated from a person by a peace officer in accordance with an Act or regulation. Where the record was discovered by security staff of a correctional centre during a search of an inmate's property, and was confiscated from the inmate by the superintendent of the correctional facility, this exemption was satisfied. Since superintendents are peace officers under the Ministry of Correctional Services Act, the record is exempt. However, where the record is an Occurrence Report, which simply documents the fact that other records were confiscated but does not describe them in any detail, the exemption does not apply. (Orders #P-421, P-460)

ss.(1)(i)

• Non-disclosure of information concerning the locations where animal research is conducted under this provision is not based on the identity of the requester's organization or its activities, but rather on the principle that disclosure under the Act must be viewed as disclosure to the public generally. If disclosed, this information could be available to all of the individuals or groups who are involved in the animal rights movement, including those who may elect to utilize acts of vandalism and property damage to promote their cause. Published articles concerning violent acts advocated by animal rights groups were sufficient evidence to establish that the disclosure of records containing information about facilities in which animal research was conducted would endanger security. (Orders #P-169, P-252, P-557)

• A request for the floor plans of various government buildings was properly denied under ss.(1)(I). Disclosure of these records could seriously compromise security. (Order #P-217)

• In this case, the records related to an incident that occurred over a year ago. This section was not satisfied in respect of current or future security where the records would reveal the assignment of a particular police officer to an area of a facility in the past. (Order #M-127)

• The Commission did not accept that audit reviews of a computer system, developed to monitor claims and payroll, contained information that was exempt under this provision. The audit reviews did not comment on the function of the system itself and therefore any link between the disclosure of the reports and possible fraud was not reasonable. (Order #P-603)

• Records containing an inventory of microcomputer equipment and maintenance agreements, regarding minicomputer equipment and electronic mail messages and regarding facsimile machines that contain the make, model, serial number and location of the equipment, were not accessible as a result of this exemption. The Commission was satisfied that the security of the computer systems and facsimiles could be infiltrated with the result that the systems could be disrupted. (Order #P-649)

• Names of a research facility along with the type of species and number of animals used can be disclosed. However, information relating to the nature of research erformed or detailed descriptions of procedures and protocols for experiments and sacrifices falls under this provision. (Order #P-1392)

• Records regarding names and Internet addresses for all computer network systems operated by several ministries were exempt under this provision. The items consisted of the data stored on Ontario government computers. The Commission held that this information required protection since much of it is sensitive and deals with personal information of members of the public. The system, established for the protection of this data, is the Ontario government's Internet gateway, which allows outside users access to the public section of the government's network but not the private section. (Order #P-756).
• User names and names of individuals subscribed to each newsgroup falls under this provision. (Order #M-944)

• In this case disclosure of information about the components, layout and programming of the automated systems at pumping stations which are used to control the mechanical equipment and alarm systems could reasonably be expected to cause probable harm. (Order #M-535)

• Building plans submitted by a developer to a municipality for review prior to issuing a building permit under the Building Code which described the doors, areas of stores not accessible to the public, roof access, power supply locations, computer systems, telex and communications satellite, power drops, security systems, electrical switches and fire systems and alarms were exempt. (Order #M-520)

• The operator identification code is one of the keys to the data protection system of the OHIP user registration database. Release of parts of this code could reasonably endanger the security of the system.(Order #P-1078)

• The type of species and number of animals used for research purposes can be disclosed. However, names of the research facilities, information relating to the nature of research performed or detailed descriptions of procedures and protocols for experiments and sacrifices falls under this provision. (Order #P-1537) This decision quashes the precedential value of (Order #P-1392) which ordered release of facility names.

ss.(1)(i) and (l)

• Information related to an alleged computer system transmission failure on a particular date, a listing of frequencies used by the police for data transmission, speed of modems, stop bit and parity, and all information relating to the use of computer services available in police vehicles kept by a police services board, were exempt under these provisions. (Order #M-329)

ss.(1)(j)

• The term "facilitate" means to make easier or less difficult. The exemption applies to records concerning a maximum security institution, including construction plans, drawings for new windows and material to be used in construction such as locks and bars. The records in this regard need not be extremely detailed. (Order #P-187)

• In this case, a handwritten diagram of the search area of a maximum security detention centre was not exempt under this provision. The Commission ruled that the diagram was not sufficiently detailed and that its disclosure could reasonably compromise the security of the facility or facilitate the escape from custody of an inmate of the facility. Mere possibility of harm is not sufficient. (Order #P-597)

ss.(1)(k)

• Release of an in-house telephone directory, revealing names and phone numbers of staff and various departments, which are not normally available to the public, was exempt. It would jeopardize the security of the mental health centres, which are centres for lawful detention. (Order #P-77)

• This exemption was upheld in respect of records created as a result of a law enforcement investigation into an incident that occurred in a correctional facility. The institution stated that the disclosure would reveal policies and procedures in place at the correctional facility, relating to inmate movement, contraband and searches. The information was not generally available to the public for security reasons. (Order #P-657)

ss.(1)(I), (j), (k)

• The site plan of a correctional facility containing the grounds and buildings if disclosed could compromise security and was therefore exempt under these provisions. (Order #P-395)

ss.(1)(j), (k)

• These provisions did not apply to directives or memorandums issued to correctional facilities that outlined the administrative procedures to follow relating to the discovery of contraband, such as who is to be notified and how records ought to be maintained and kept. The records did not deal with procedures to deal with the incident itself. (Order #P-686)

ss.(1)(l)

• The disclosure of codes used by the police, which are used to ensure that information is passed efficiently from one police source to another and that anyone intercepting the message would be unable to determine the content or import of the message, may not be exempt under this provision. The Commission noted that in respect of this particular code, the police had failed to establish a clear and direct linkage between disclosure of the information and the harm alleged in this provision. (Order #M-199). However, where the police did provide sufficient evidence of harm, radio transmission ten codes, patrol zones and patrol car identification numbers, and rules and regulations governing the frequency of prisoner cell checks were exempt. (Order #M-757)

• Police records regarding a chemical formula for manufacturing a well-known narcotic and the construction of explosive devices were held to be exempt under this provision. (Order #M-202)

• In this case, the Commission was not satisfied that the disclosure of records referable to a police radio frequency would be exempt under this provision. (Order #M-267)

• The disclosure of an internal police memorandum dealing with the approach taken by the police concerning the behavior known as "stalking" would not be covered by this exemption. The Commission found that the disclosure of this information, particularly in light of Bill C-126 that created the new offence of criminal harassment, would not result in individuals engaging in this activity. (Order #M-341)

• A message code (sometimes referred to as a "ten-code") used by police officers in their communications with one another was exempt under this provision. The Commission found that disclosure of these codes could place the police officers in potentially dangerous situations or could facilitate the commission of unlawful acts. (Order #M-393)

• The ability of the police to investigate and solve crimes would be adversely affected by the disclosure of the cellular telephone numbers and the names of those who use them, as well as the date, time, originating location and billed time for each call. The police provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there exists a reasonable expectation that the harm envisioned by this section would occur should this information be disclosed. However, the disclosure of the account and invoice numbers could not reasonably be expected to result in the facilitation of the commission of an unlawful act or interference with the control of crime by the police.(Order #M-552)

• Cellular telephones are important police tools in the investigation and prevention of crime. If they become less available due to telephone lines being tied up with calls from the public, the police's ability to prevent and investigate crime could be hampered. In this case, the police supplied sufficient evidence to demonstrate that disclosure of the cellular telephone numbers and the names of those who use them could reasonably be expected to hamper the control of crime.(Order #M-554)

• Codes that are related to the assignment of police officers to ensure that the patrol areas are adequately staffed at all times qualify for this provision.(Order # M-704)

• Access codes for the Canadian Police Intelligence Computer (CPIC) fall under this provision. (Order #M-933)

ss.(2) General

• This provision deals broadly with the confidentiality that necessarily surrounds law enforcement investigations in order that institutions charged with external regulatory activities can carry out their duties. Therefore, an internal investigation into program administration within a correctional facility is not included. (Order #P-98)

• This exemption applies to records containing information regarding the exact location of archaeological sites which, if disclosed, could result in increased number of incidents of looting, thereby facilitating the commission of an unlawful act. (Order #P-885)

• Information in a Police Call Taker Operations Manual such as the types of response units and their call signs and the priorities and classification of certain events are exempt. However, other information in the manual such as the organizational structure of a police communications centre, general rules and regulations, guidelines for taking information, questions to be asked and procedures for dispatching assistance are not exempt. (Order #M-761)

ss.(2)(a) Agency

• Records derived from an internal investigation into the operation of a training school are not covered by this provision. Upon completion of the investigation, the ministry was not in a position to enforce or regulate compliance with the Training Schools Act or any other law. Rather, it determined that the allegations warranted further investigation and forwarded the report to the Crown attorney's office. As a result, the police force and the Crown attorney's office have the regulatory responsibilities envisioned by this section. (Orders #M-315)

• Where, previously, the Superintendent of Insurance had the responsibility of supervising the business of insurance in Ontario and was obliged to see that the Insurance Act and regulations were enforced and obeyed, it was an agency that had the function of enforcing and regulating compliance with a law. (Order #P-304)

• "Agency" includes organizations acting on behalf of or as agents for law enforcement agencies. Therefore, the Investment Dealers Association is an "agency" because the Ontario Securities Commission has informally delegated the investigatory function to it. (Orders #P-30, P-90, P-342)

• Where the Ministry of Correctional Services conducts an investigation into a disturbance at a correctional facility, the resulting report is covered by this provision. (Order #P-250)

• A municipality's Health Department is an agency that has the function of enforcing and regulating compliance with the Health Protection and Promotion Act. Health inspectors have statutory authority to enter premises where a health hazard exists to conduct tests, examinations, investigations and inquiries, and issue written orders to remedy any identified problems. Reports deriving from investigations in this regard are exempt under clause (2)(a). (Order #M-105)

• The Loan and Trust Corporations Act (the LTCA) establishes the Ministry of Finance, through the Minister, the Superintendent of Deposit Institutions and the director, as the agency responsible for the regulation of registered trust and loan companies in Ontario. The Act provides for examinations, audits and inspections of registered corporations and for enforcement. In this case, a private audit firm was formally retained by the ministry. The Commission ruled that this exemption applied even though the records were prepared by an outside consultant. In this case, the ministry had the authority to obtain the private audit and to require the full co-operation of the corporation in the process. (Order #P-480)

• The Toronto Stock Exchange (TSE) acted as the agent for the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) in investigating a complaint made against the requester in this case. The OSC is an agency that has the function of enforcing and regulating compliance with the law and the records prepared by the TSE during the course of such an investigation satisfied the second and third parts of the test in this exemption. (Order #P-548)

• The Public Complaints Commission is an agency that has the mandate to investigate possible infractions of the Police Services Act and it is therefore an agency which has the function of enforcing and regulating compliance with a law. (Order #P-659)

• Investigations under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, undertaken by the institution's Real Estate Regulation Branch, were conducted by an "agency" which has the function of enforcing and regulating compliance with a law within the meaning of this provision. (Orders #P-621, P-670)

• In order to apply, the records must have been prepared by an agency that has the function of enforcing and regulating compliance with a law. The Coroner's Act requires the Chief Coroner to prepare, publish and distribute a code of ethics for the guidance of coroners, but this code is not given the force of law. Therefore, it cannot be said to "enforce or regulate compliance with a law" within the meaning of this provision. (Order #P-1117) Furthermore, investigations by police carried out on behalf of the Coroner under the Coroner's Act do not satisfy this provision. (Order #M-818)

ss.(2)(a) "Report"

General

• In order for a record to qualify for exemption under this provision, the institution must satisfy each part of the following three part test: the record must be a report; and the report must have been prepared in the course of law enforcement, inspections or investigations; and the report must have been prepared by an agency which has the function of enforcing and regulating compliance with a law. (Orders #P-200, P-324, P-1244, P-1418,PO-1708)

• A "report" must consist of a formal statement or account of the results of the collation and consideration of information. Generally speaking, reports would not include mere observations or recordings of fact. (Orders # P-221, P-285, P-304, P-315, P-323, P-324, P-342, P-363, P-390, P-392, P-399, P-403, P-410, M-12, M-15, M-17, M-22, M-52, M-74, M-78, M-84, P-411, P-417, M-105, P-449, M-127, P-467, M-158, P-480, P-492, P-510, M-176, P-548, M-198, M-202, P-598, P-583, M-217, M-214, M-245, M-247, P-659, P-670, P-677, P-701, M-364, M-366, P-770, M-397, M-544, M-560, M-569, P-923, P-932, P-973, M-630, M-649, P-1119, P-1109, P-1108, P-1049, P-1418)

• The test in ss.(2)(a) does not require any evidence that harm would result from the disclosure. If all of the record is determined to be a "report," and is within this provision, it may be exempt in its entirety. It is unnecessary to sever where the whole report falls within the exemption. (Orders #P-30, P-38, P-94, P-124, P-134, P-137, P-200, P-221, P-239, P-250, P-285, M-84)

• Complaint processing reports and internal memoranda are "reports" prepared in the course of law enforcement. (Orders #P-37, P-170, P-315)

• Records containing only factual references and the terms of the engagement of a private audit firm are not "reports." (Order #P-480)

• This provision contemplates a report that is prepared as part of an actual investigation, inspection or law enforcement activity. It would not therefore include a record written in response to a letter. (Orders #P-188, P-304, M-176, P-583)

• A "report" may include a broad range of documents, providing information or opinions that were prepared in the course of law enforcement inspections or investigations. Similarly, a notice of hearing document is not a "report." (Order #P-170)

• An Order to Comply, which is issued to enforce a by-law infraction in respect of a property, is not a report as contemplated by this provision as it does not consist of formal statements or accounts of results from a collation or consideration of information; it is simply a notification that repairs have to be done. (Order #M-15, M-34)

Police "Reports"

(a) The Following Are "Reports"

• In this case the Commission held that a formal statement or account of the results of an investigation prepared by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regarding possible illegal activity was a "report". (Order #P-315)

• In this case, the records of a police investigation into an allegation of assault were "reports" and were exempt in their entirety. The allegation was found to be not credible and consequently it was drafted is such a way as to be a "report" as that term was defined by the Commission. (Order #M-84)

• Records created as a result of an internal investigation of a police force regarding potential charges under the Police Services Act are "reports." They contain summaries of the investigation, findings of fact and conclusions. They were prepared by the special investigations unit, an agency that has the function of enforcing and regulating compliance with the law. This section does not require that a report meet additional criteria such as a reasonable expectation of some harm resulting from the disclosure. (Orders #M-78, M-366, P-770, P-1315)

• Records created as a result of an internal investigation of a police force regarding potential charges under the Police Services Act are "reports", when they contain summaries of the investigation, findings of fact and conclusions. They were prepared by the special investigations unit, an agency that has the function of enforcing and regulating compliance with the law. This section does not require that a report meet additional criteria such as a reasonable expectation of some harm resulting from disclosure. (Orders# M-78, M-366, P-770, P-1315). These findings apply to records of the Police Complaints Commissioner or the Public Complaints Investigation Bureau created under similar circumstances. (Order #M-245, P-1457)

  
  
  
• Ontario Provincial Police records prepared in respect of investigations of crimes committed under the Criminal Code of Canada were "reports" because they contained summaries of the investigations, findings of fact by the investigator, conclusions about the validity of the allegations and recommended courses of action. The investigations were conducted in order to determine whether grounds existed to warrant charges being laid. (Order #P-467)

• An "Occurrence Report" and an "Investigation Report" concerning investigations of allegations of improper conduct made by the appellant against ministry staff while the appellant was an inmate at a correctional facility operated by the ministry, is a "report." (Order #P-399)

• All records contained in the Crown brief and provided to the Crown attorney in a criminal prosecution were held to be exempt as "reports". The Commission ruled that this included witnesses' proposed statements prepared in contemplation of a criminal prosecution. The Commission ruled that the Act does not affect or interfere with the disclosure procedure existing between the Crown and accused person. (Order #P-39, see contra below)

• A "Special Examination Report" prepared by the Ministry of Finance investigation unit with allegations registered against a Trust Company is a report within the meaning of this section because it consists of a formal statement or account of the results of the collation and considerations of information. (Order #P-923)

• A report prepared for the OPP Deputy Commissioner by an OPP officer during the course of an investigation under the Criminal Code and the Narcotics Control Act is a "report" under this subsection. (Order # P-932)

• The "Final Investigative Report" prepared by the Ministry of the Attorney General's Special Investigations Unit (SIU) is a "report" under this section. The SIU enforces and regulates compliance with the Police Services Act. (Order #P-1462).

(b) The Following Are Not "Reports"

• In this instance, the Commission ruled that the contents of a Crown brief in a criminal prosecution were not "reports" because they contained observations or recordings of fact. However, the "Alcohol Influence Test Report" was found to be a "report" under this section because it was a formal statement of the results of the collation and consideration of information. (Order #M-52. This decision represents a departure from Order 39, as above.)

• "General Occurrence Report" and "Supplementary Report," consisting of narratives prepared by police officers recounting their actions in an investigation, are not "reports" as they consist solely of recordings of fact. (Order #M-397, M-682)

• An inspector's notes regarding an investigation of a by-law infraction were not a "report." The Commission noted that the record was a pre-printed form which provided for the recording of the particulars of the complaint. The form was designed as a ongoing record of steps taken by the enforcement staff. The "conclusion" was found to be a final or concluding statement of fact. The Commission stated that the fact that a notation may be indicative of some conclusion by its author related to other facts contained in the document is not enough to render it a "report." (Order #M-217)

• A police occurrence report compiled as part of the criminal investigation process.(Order #M-1141)

Human Rights Commission "Reports"

(a) The Following Are "Reports"

• Records reflecting reconsideration by the Human Rights Commission in respect of holding an inquiry for certain complaints is a "report." (Order #P-253)

• The Ontario Human Rights Commission Case Disposition Sheet is a report as it contains an analysis of information that has been gathered respecting a case. It contains brief background information and staff recommendations as to whether the evidence warrants the appointment of a Board of Inquiry. However, documents reflecting interviews with witnesses, and "records of intake" are not "reports." (Orders #P-449, P-510, P-598)

• "Case Disposition" records, created by the Ontario Human Rights Commission during an investigation, are "reports" under this section. These records contain the background of the complaint, the grounds for the allegation, an analysis of the results of the investigation and staff recommendations. "Records of Intake, Conciliation and Investigation" are not "reports" because they consist solely of a recording of facts relating to the complaint. (Order #P-492)

• An Ontario Human Rights Commission record containing the officer's response to parties' submissions was held to be a report. (Order #P-973)

(b) The Following Are Not "Reports"

• An Ontario Human Rights Commission investigation resulted in the creation of the complainant's handwritten notes, notes of telephone conversations and interviews, the officer's plans regarding the conduct of the investigation and notes taken by the officer during a hearing. These records are not "reports" as the term is used in this section. (Order #P-403)

• A handwritten account of a Human Rights Officer's conversation with a third party during an investigation does not constitute a "report." (Order #P-510)

• A "fact sheet" and "intake report," completed by a human rights officer during the initial stages of an investigation by the Human Rights Commission, contain recordings of fact rather than a formal statement of the results of the investigation. As a result, the records are not "reports" as envisaged by this section. (Orders #P-363, P-417)

• A "case closing statistical data report" is not a "report" under this section. The Commission ruled that the record merely captures the statistics regarding the manner in which a case is resolved, the nature of the settlement and the hours spent working on the file. In addition, notes of interviews with individuals conducted as part of an investigation are not "reports." (Order #P-598)

Other

(a) The Following Are "Reports"

• Investigation reports prepared in the course of investigations under the Truck Transportation Act are "reports" because they summarize the investigations, make findings of fact and draw conclusions about the validity of the complaints. Since the other parts of the test in Order #P-200 were met, the exemption applied. (Order P-390)

• The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, through its Cemeteries Branch, enforces and regulates compliance with the Cemeteries Act. Failure to comply with the Act may result in a prosecution. The exemption in this provision applies because the records generated in an investigation are "reports" that were prepared by an investigator with the Investigations and Enforcement Branch of the ministry, which has the function of enforcing and regulating compliance with the Cemeteries Act. (Order #P-410)

• Memoranda prepared by the Metropolitan Toronto Licensing Commission, in respect of a by-law enforcement investigation, are "reports" under this section. The records analyse the facts that were observed and consist of a formal statement or account of the results of the investigation. (Order #M-158)

• "Case Summaries" prepared by an investigator employed by the Public Complaints Commission is a "report." It contains the conclusions reached in respect of the allegations as well as recommendations to the Police Complaints Commissioner. (Order #P-659)

• Records created by an inspector as a result of an investigation under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act of a real estate broker were "reports." The records included information compiled as part of the investigation as well as inspection reports. For example, general ledger, list of salespersons, trust accounts, term deposits, letters and deposit receipts were considered "reports." (Order #P-670)

• Records created as a result of investigations conducted by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act are "reports". The ministry is an agency with law enforcement responsibilities in this regard and the records are formal accounts of the investigations. (Order #P-701)

• Documents containing investigative results and analysis used to support the Ministry's revocation of a licence constitute "reports" for the purposes of this section. They were prepared as part of the investigation into the business affairs of a collection agency and prepared by the Ministry in the context of its responsibilities to enforce the provisions of the Collection Agencies Act, qualifying them for this exemption. (Order #P-952)

• An occupance report prepared by a bylaw enforcement officer for the bylaw enforcement administration of a municipality was a report within the meaning of this section. (Order #M-560)

• Reports or summary/closing documents of investigation files related to alleged violations of the Bailiffs Act are "reports" under this provision. (Order #P-1109)

(b) The Following Are Not "Reports"

• A Licensing Enforcement Officer's notes in a notebook, in respect of an investigation, are not a "report" because the notes are not a formal statement or account of the results of the Officer's work; they are a series of entries outlining observations with respect to the investigation. (Order #M-17)

• A Weed Inspection Report is a not a "report" under this section. The reports contain chronological outlines of the inspector's activities over the reporting period and provide some detail of the investigations, inspections and enforcement efforts undertaken. The inspector is appointed under the Weed Control Act, which provides him or her with the duty to enforce the Act. Despite this, the report is not prepared as part of individual investigations. The report is an outline of all the inspector's activities and it is prepared for council as part of the employer\employee relationship. (Order #M-176)

• Letters from the Director of Investigative Services to the Chief Investigator of the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) which stated that an investigation had been commenced against an individual were not "reports." The letters did not collate or consider information. Other records prepared during the investigation did qualify as "reports." For example, a memorandum that summarized and commented on the contents of the investigation report and made recommendations about the matter was a "report." (Order #P-548)

• Notes of questions that Ontario Securities Commission investigators wanted to ask, a memo prepared by legal counsel commenting on matters under investigation, handwritten notes concerning issues under investigation and notes taken by the law enforcement agency's counsel at a meeting with an affected party are not "reports" under this subsection. An "analysis" of the investigation that was prepared in the course of the investigation was a "report" under this subsection. (Order #P-583)

• The "Review Officer Final Report," the "Application for Review Services," and notes of meeting dates and positions of representatives of the parties prepared by the Review Officer appointed under the Pay Equity Act are not "reports" as the term is used in this section. The final report is used for statistical purposes and record keeping and does not include more than statements of fact. (Order #P-653)

• While it is possible that a "report" can include appendices or attachments as an integral part of the document, a letter from the Regional Coroner is not integral to the formal accounting of the results of the collation and consideration of information in a Sudden Death Report and therefore this section does not apply to it. (Order #M-544)

• Inspection reports, deficiency notices and other records related to inspections and investigations concerning compliance with the Ontario Building Code Act and the Ontario Building Code do not qualify as "reports" under this provision because they only contain recordings of fact. (Order #M-364, P-1238)

ss.(2)(a)--Internal Investigations that are not "Law Enforcement"

(See as well, s.2 definition of "law enforcement" for more cases in respect of internal investigations.)

• The Office of the Fire Marshall (OFM) is not "an agency which has the function of enforcing and regulating compliance with a law" for the purpose of section 14(2)(a) of the Act. This is because the OFM, notwithstanding its investigative role and close cooperation with the police, does not carry out the function of enforcing or regulating compliance with a law. These functions are carried out by the police. (Orders #PO-1833, PO-1921)
• Where an institution is conducting an internal investigation, and not one that relates to its external regulatory activity, the records are not covered by this exemption. The institution is not in the position to enforce any offence following the investigation. (Re Solicitor General of Ontario et al. and Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner et al., (1993), 102 D.L.R. (4th) 602 (Ont.Div.Ct.))



• Where a record was prepared in the course of a supervisor's internal investigation into the conduct of an officer of the court, it was not an investigation that carried with it the possibility of a "law enforcement" proceeding. As a result, this section does not apply. (Order #P-392)

ss.(2)(b)

• Records concerning an internal investigation into the operation of a training school, and the conduct of certain employees at the training school are not law enforcement records. Since the records do not identify an individual as a "young person" who has been deal with under the Young Offenders Act, the disclosure would not constitute an offence. The Young Offenders Act does not apply since these records are not records referrable to an investigation into an alleged offence committed by a young person. (Order #P-352)

ss.(2)(c)

• In order for a record to be a "law enforcement record," an institution must establish that it has a law enforcement mandate. While the Workers' Compensation Board does have the power to impose penalties or sanctions in certain contexts, it does not in relation to allegations of fraud. Allegations of fraud must be dealt with by the police and prosecuted by the Crown attorney's office. (Order #M-315)

• This provision can not be relied on to withhold the name of the Regional Solicitor where records had been disclosed containing his job title. (Order #M-1036)

• The IPC upheld the institution's decision not to release the name of a staff member who provided legal services on a police matter that involved the requester. The staff member's name was not known to the requester who planned to sue everyone involved in the incident. (Order #M-1036r)

• The mere fact that a party is contemplating civil action does not automatically mean that this provision will apply. (Order #M-1067)

• Records involving the activities of civil volunteers were found not to relate directly to the law enforcement mandate of the police.(Order #M-1162)

• This provision is to protect individuals who have provided information to the police during a law enforcement investigation, or who have authored a record in this context, the nature of which may expose them to civil liability. The Commission did not accept that disclosure of any of the records could reasonably be expected to place a suspect at risk of civil liability. Rather, any potential civil liability stems from the actions of the suspect rather than anything that was said to the police during the investigation. (Order #MO-1192)

ss.(2)(d)

• This provision cannot be used to deny access to a requester who is no longer in custody or under the control or supervision of a correctional authority and is seeking information about himself. The purpose of this provision is to allow an appropriate level of security with respect to the records of individuals in custody or under supervision. (Orders #P-98, P-399, P-460, P-675, P-1332)

• In this case, records that were created almost 10 years ago and which related to investigations that have long since been completed would not interfere with the ministry's ability to carry out its mandate in respect of an individual who is no longer under the supervision and control of the ministry. (Order #P-399)

• Where the records themselves do not describe in any detail how searches for contraband in a jail setting are done, the disclosure of the records would not hinder or compromise effective execution of search warrants, or utilization of search procedures or techniques within correctional facilities. As a result, the records would not be exempt under this provision. (Order #P-460)

• Occurrence reports regarding physical assaults at a detention centre, where personal information was severed, did not relate to a person and thus did not fall under this provision.(Order #P-1391)

• In this case, the Record of Case Supervision did not contain sufficient detail regarding the history, supervision or release of the appellant to qualify for this exemption.(Order #P-1332).In this instance, the information was neither about a person nor sufficiently detailed to qualify under this section for exemption from disclosure. (Order P-1364)

• Occurrence reports regarding physical assaults at a detention centre, where personal information was severed, did not relate to a person and thus did not fall under this provision.(Order #P-1391)

ss.(3)

• Before it may be permitted to exercise its discretion to invoke section 8(3), the Police must provide sufficient evidence to establish that: 1.Disclosure of the records (if they exist) would qualify for exemption under sections 8(1) or (2); and 2.Disclosure of the fact that records exist (or do not exist) would in itself convey information to the requester which could compromise the effectiveness of a law enforcement activity which may exist or may be reasonably contemplated. (Order # MO-1395)