When a bylaw complaint FOI request includes photos of my property, which MFIPPA exemption applies?

For bylaw complaint files where the record contains both the requester's own personal information (their property, conduct, or dispute) and a complainant's or neighbour's personal information, the correct exemption is section 38(b) of MFIPPA, the discretionary personal privacy exemption. This was confirmed in IPC Order MO-4786 (City of Vaughan, March 31, 2026), where the adjudicator upheld withholding photos submitted with a bylaw complaint. Section 38(b) requires a discretionary weighing, not a flat refusal. If your FOI coordinator defaults to section 14(1) on mixed-personal-information files, that is the wrong tool and can itself be appealable.

Can we still rely on a culminating incident to prove just cause for dismissal?

Yes, but the final incident must be proved with admissible evidence, not hearsay. In Williamson v. Brandt Tractor Inc., 2026 ONCA 272, the Court of Appeal declined to find just cause where the culminating customer complaint was not backed by admissible evidence, and a complaint on file alone did not carry the day. If you are terminating for cause based on a pattern capped by a final incident, review how managers document resident, customer, or internal complaints that might later be relied on as the last straw. Work history is not enough without a proven final incident.

Ontario Municipal Compliance Roundup: Wrongful Dismissal, Bylaw Complaint Privacy, and What to Watch This Week

Q: Does relocating an employee over 100 km without notice count as constructive dismissal?

It can, depending on the facts. In Dunlop v. Interspec Systems Ltd., 2026 ONSC 2112, the court held that a unilateral relocation of over 100 km without notice amounted to constructive dismissal on those facts, even though no formal termination occurred. The court also added human rights damages for age discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code and found a directing officer personally liable on a common-employer and oppression analysis. This is not a categorical rule for every relocation, but it shows that significant unilateral changes to location, reporting lines, or core duties can trigger a constructive dismissal claim — especially where older workers are disproportionately affected and personal liability for participating managers is in play. Review your relocation and reorganization protocols against that risk.

This week produced a useful mix of rulings for small municipalities. Three wrongful dismissal decisions tighten how employers document just cause and handle relocation or role changes. The IPC issued one directly municipal order confirming how to handle bylaw complaint photos when a record contains both the requester’s and a third party’s personal information. The HRTO deferred a human rights application to grievance arbitration where overlapping facts and human rights issues raised a risk of inconsistent findings — a pattern to watch when those conditions are present. And the weekly AMO Watchfile flagged election-year planning materials rather than any new legal obligation. Below is what happened, what it means on the ground, and where to read each source.

Privacy and FOI

The only directly municipal IPC order this week is MO-4786 (City of Vaughan, March 31, 2026). A resident asked for records related to a bylaw complaint made about her own property, including the photos that came in with the complaint. The City withheld parts of the record under section 38(b) of MFIPPA — the discretionary personal privacy exemption that applies when a record contains the requester’s own personal information mixed together with someone else’s. The adjudicator upheld the City’s decision on these facts, finding disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of the complainant’s privacy.

What this means. The distinction between section 38(b) and the mandatory section 14(1) exemption matters a lot in bylaw files. When a record is about the requester (their property, their conduct, their dispute) but also identifies a complainant or neighbour, the correct lens is section 38(b), which requires a discretionary weighing rather than a flat refusal. If your FOI coordinator is defaulting to 14(1) on these files, you are using the wrong tool — and that can be appealable on its own. Worth a quick look at your bylaw-complaint FOI template.

Four additional IPC orders came down in the provincial (FIPPA) space and are useful reference points even though they do not bind municipalities. PO-4809 found that aggregate Ontario Drug Benefit funding data was not “supplied in confidence” by third parties and therefore did not qualify for the section 17(1) third-party information exemption. PO-4806 upheld withholding of draft guidance and a calculator under section 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and section 19 (solicitor-client privilege). PO-4808 dealt with police records mixing the requester’s personal information with others’, confirming severing obligations where section 49(b) applies. PO-4807 rejected a third party’s section 17(1) claim on emission incident videos for lack of evidence of harm.

What this means. Two transferable lessons: third-party confidentiality claims fail without actual evidence of competitive harm, and mixed-record severing is a line-by-line exercise, not an all-or-nothing call.

Court Decisions — Wrongful Dismissal

Three Ontario decisions worth HR’s attention.

Williamson v. Brandt Tractor Inc., 2026 ONCA 272 addresses culminating-incident just cause and mitigation. The Court of Appeal declined to find just cause where the “culminating” customer complaint was not backed by admissible evidence — hearsay alone did not carry the day. On mitigation, the court confirmed that earnings from a lower-paying role during the notice period are deductible from damages, consistent with the majority in Brake v. PJ-M2R Restaurant.

What this means. If you are terminating for cause based on a pattern capped by a final incident, the final incident needs to be proved with admissible evidence, not just a complaint on file. Review how your managers document resident, customer, or internal complaints that might later be relied on as “the last straw.”

Dunlop v. Interspec Systems Ltd., 2026 ONSC 2112 held that a unilateral relocation of over 100 km without notice amounted to constructive dismissal. The court added human rights damages for age discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code and found a directing officer personally liable on a common-employer and oppression analysis.

What this means. Significant unilateral changes to location, reporting lines, or core duties can trigger a constructive dismissal claim — even where a formal termination never happens. And personal liability for managers or officers who participate in discriminatory conduct is a live risk, not a theoretical one. Worth reviewing relocation and reorganization protocols, especially where older workers are disproportionately affected.

Kachra v. OPSEU Pension Trust, 2026 ONSC 2092 granted leave to examine a non-party under Rule 31.10 in a wrongful dismissal file, despite an NDA between the employer and the witness. The court treated the employer’s refusal to waive the NDA as an effective refusal to produce relevant information.

What this means. NDAs do not reliably shield a pattern of internal complaints from discovery in later litigation. If your records retention practice buries or separates harassment and bullying complaints, assume they may still be producible. Make sure complaint files are documented, retrievable, and defensible.

Human Rights

Gouveia v. Peel (District School Board), 2026 HRTO 536 deferred a human rights application under section 45 of the Code, on the basis that ongoing union grievances raised the same facts and human rights issues. The Tribunal reaffirmed, citing Parry Sound, that arbitrators have authority to apply Code protections as part of the collective agreement.

What this means. For unionized municipal workforces, expect overlapping human rights issues to be routed through arbitration rather than running in parallel at the Tribunal. Confirm your labour counsel and grievance machinery are set up to address Code issues directly at the arbitration stage — not just contract interpretation.

Labour and Employment

Canfix Repairs v. Rono, 2026 CanLII 34184 (ON LRB) awarded 48 weeks of lost wages (net of EI and other offsets) plus 14 weeks for loss of value of the job, in an ESA reprisal case under section 104(1). Reinstatement was declined given the circumstances.

What this means. The fact pattern (a small private shop with a violent termination) is atypical for municipal HR, but the legal principles are not. Mitigation onus sits with the employer, and ESA reprisal remedies are interpreted generously. Manager training should reinforce documented, non-retaliatory grounds for every termination decision.

Municipal Policy

The AMO Watchfile (April 16, 2026) is largely supportive content this week. AMO Board election nominations open April 21, candidate workshops are scheduled, and the MMAH has published 2026 Election Guides for voters, candidates, and third-party advertisers. A “Preventing Escalated Behaviours” workshop is also on offer. No new legal obligations or compliance deadlines.

What this means. Pull the MMAH Election Guides into your 2026 election administration binder now, while the calendar is still forgiving. The escalated-behaviours workshop is optional but pairs well with OHSA workplace violence and harassment refreshers.

Action Items

Update your bylaw-complaint FOI template to default to section 38(b) analysis, not section 14(1), for mixed-personal-information records.
Audit termination documentation practices — admissible evidence, not hearsay, for culminating-incident cases.
Review relocation, reorganization, and role-change protocols for constructive dismissal exposure, with attention to age-distribution effects.
Confirm harassment and bullying complaint records are documented and retrievable, regardless of any NDA.
Brief labour counsel on Gouveia — expect s.45 deferrals where a grievance is live.
Download the MMAH 2026 Election Guides and flag the AMO workshops worth attending.