Alex Kulynych

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board for all records pertaining to her son.

After multiple searches and a previous order requiring a new search, the appellant appealed again, claiming additional records should exist.

The Adjudicator found that the Board had canvassed appropriate staff, expended reasonable effort, and conducted a reasonable search.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities for records relating to Superbuild funding applications.

The Ministry notified a third party and extended the time to respond, but failed to issue a decision by the extended deadline.

The appellant appealed the deemed refusal.

The adjudicator found that the Ministry failed to comply with the statutory time limits under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and ordered the Ministry to issue a decision letter to the appellant without further time extensions.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission for information relating to an investigation of his MBA program studies and tuition reimbursement.

After viewing his personnel file, the appellant noted that certain documents, including a note regarding a discussion with Revenue Canada, were missing during a subsequent viewing.

The adjudicator found that Toronto Hydro had not taken all reasonable steps to locate the responsive records, as it only searched two areas and did not search other files relating to the appellant after the documents were noted as missing.

Toronto Hydro was ordered to conduct a further search of all files relating to the appellant and issue a new access decision.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Hamilton for records relating to fire prevention activities.

The City extended the time to respond twice, citing the large volume of records.

The appellant appealed the second extension.

The adjudicator found that the City failed to justify the total time required for both extensions, rendering them unreasonable.

However, given the imminent expiry of the second extension, the adjudicator ordered the City to issue an access decision by that date.