7(1)(d)(iv)

How the Public Access Counselor has treated 7(1)(d)(iv)

Section 7(1)(d)(iv) covers information that would disclose the identity of a confidential source, complainant, victim or witness, including statements or details that would unavoidably identify that person. It is aimed at protecting sources rather than shielding entire police reports or unrelated factual material from disclosure.

In these decisions, the PAC upheld narrow redactions of names, identifying sentences, witness contact information, and complainant statements where release would reveal who provided the information, even when the requester already knew the identity. It found violations where public bodies withheld entire reports, arrestee statements, or non-identifying details such as a business phone number or treating hospital, or invoked the exemption for a harassment-allegation letter, factual attorney email, or jail footage decided on other grounds.

At a glance: 19 documents from 2013 to 2024(2 binding opinions, 17 determination letters). Most often cited alongside: 7(1)(c) (Personal privacy) (11); 7(1)(b) (Private information) (10); 7(1)(d)(iii) (Would create a substantial likelihood of an unfair trial or hearing) (3); 7(1)(a) (Federal/State-law confidentiality — or public defender case files, for documents issued under the other amendment version) (2); 7(1)(d)(i) (Would interfere with pending/contemplated law-enforcement proceedings) (2).

Recurring issues

• Whether a public body may withhold an entire police report or 9-1-1 recording rather than redacting only source-identifying portions. (Police reports and 9-1-1 recordings in a retail theft and homicide case, A police report withheld by a village, Police records of a past burglary investigation)
• Whether witness or complainant names, contact details, and statements that would reveal who provided the information may be redacted. (Police reports and dashcam footage in a custody dispute, Redacted name and sentence in a police report, Witness statements in a police report)
• Whether non-identifying narrative details such as a business phone number, hospital name, or an arrestee's own statements qualify as confidential source information. (Police reports and complaints about an individual, A police report of a DUI arrest and vehicle impoundment, Police records of a past burglary investigation)
• Whether the exemption applies to records outside a confidential-source context, such as a workplace harassment letter, a factual attorney status email, or jail surveillance footage. (A letter about workplace harassment allegations, Attorneys' emails with factual updates to clients, Jail surveillance video footage)

Practical points

• Withhold or redact only the portions that would identify the complainant, victim, witness, or source, and release the remaining non-exempt portions of police reports.
• A claim under this exemption depends on showing how disclosure of the specific name, sentence, or statement would reveal who furnished the information.
• Allegations that a complaint was false or prior knowledge of the complainant's identity did not defeat protection for statements that would attribute the information to that person.

Summary drafted from the linked decisions and checked against them; read the decisions themselves before relying on it. Not legal advice.