The Toronto Police Service has been ordered to release video footage from the body-worn cameras of three officers involved in a contentious incident, following a ruling from the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. The ruling dismissed police arguments that the footage was exempt from disclosure under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA), ordering the force to provide the video to the appellant.
In the decision, the adjudicator ruled that the footage was an operational record and did not fall under the exemption for labour relations or employment matters, as the police had claimed. The police also argued that releasing the footage could interfere with an officer’s right to a fair trial or impartial hearing, but the adjudicator found there was no evidence to support this assertion.
The request for the video footage came from an individual who was stopped, questioned, and detained by police on their way to class. The individual sought access to the body-worn camera footage under MFIPPA, but the police initially withheld the video, stating it was related to internal disciplinary proceedings and therefore excluded under section 52(3) of the Act, which addresses labour relations and employment matters.
“The video footage from the body-worn cameras is not related to labour relations or employment matters and therefore is not excluded from the Act,” the ruling stated. The adjudicator further concluded that the police had “not established that disclosure of the video footage would deprive another individual of the right to a fair trial or impartial hearing.”
The police’s decision to deny access was challenged by the appellant, who argued that the footage was crucial for understanding what transpired during their interaction with officers. Despite mediation attempts, the issue could not be resolved, leading to a formal inquiry.
Labour relations exemption rejected
During the inquiry, the Toronto Police Services Board claimed that the video footage was collected as part of an ongoing internal disciplinary process. They argued that because the footage was being used in investigations related to officer misconduct, it fell under the labour relations exclusion in section 52(3) of the Act.
However, the adjudicator found that the video footage was originally created as part of the officers’ routine duties, not for disciplinary purposes. She ruled that although the footage might later be used in disciplinary proceedings, it was primarily operational and related to the police’s core mandate of public interaction and law enforcement.
“The exclusion for labour relations or employment matters cannot be applied to operational records like the video footage,” the ruling stated. “To interpret section 52(3) broadly, as the police suggest, would shield public officials from accountability, contrary to the transparency purpose of the Act.”
The adjudicator also rejected the police’s arguments that the footage was exempt from disclosure because it could impact the fairness of ongoing disciplinary hearings under the Police Services Act. She found that the footage was not inherently linked to labour relations or employment matters but rather documented a public interaction that fell within the police’s operational duties.
Right to a fair trial
The police also argued that the footage could not be released because it might prejudice ongoing disciplinary proceedings, invoking section 38(a) of MFIPPA, which deals with an individual’s right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication. They claimed that public release of the footage could affect the officers’ disciplinary hearings and skew public perception.
The adjudicator dismissed these concerns, stating that the police had failed to provide sufficient evidence that releasing the footage would interfere with the officers’ right to a fair hearing. “There is no evidence to suggest that disclosure of the video footage through the Freedom of Information process would impact the impartiality of the decision maker in either a trial or a disciplinary proceeding,” the ruling stated.
The adjudicator noted that the footage was raw, unedited material, and that any claims about the public’s interpretation of the footage were speculative at best. She added that the disciplinary hearings had already concluded the liability phase, with only penalties remaining to be determined.
Partial redaction ordered
While the footage itself was ordered to be disclosed, the adjudicator acknowledged that the video contained personal information about bystanders and individuals who were not involved in the incident. As a result, she ordered the police to redact the personal information of these individuals before releasing the footage.
“The police are to obscure the images of all individuals other than the police officers and the appellant prior to disclosing the video footage,” the ruling stated.
The police have until October 21, 2024, to comply with the order and provide the footage to the appellant.
This ruling represents a significant victory for individuals seeking access to public records under MFIPPA, especially when it comes to body-worn camera footage, which has become an increasingly vital tool for police accountability. The decision also underscores the need for public bodies to provide clear and convincing evidence when claiming that access to information could harm legal proceedings.
Conclusion
The decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario highlights the balance between transparency and protecting fair trial rights. It reinforces the idea that operational records, like body-worn camera footage, should be subject to public access under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, unless there is compelling evidence that disclosure would cause harm.
The police have been given the opportunity to comply with the ruling by redacting personal information before the video’s release. Should they fail to meet the deadline, further legal proceedings could follow.
For more information, see Toronto Police Services Board (Re), 2024 CanLII 90893 (ON IPC).
