Anita Fineberg

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for a copy of his deceased father's marriage registration.

The Ministry granted partial access, withholding the personal information of the bride, her parents, the witnesses, and the officiating individual under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing he was entitled to the record as a 'child of the marriage' under the Vital Statistics Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the appellant did not meet the definition of 'child of the marriage' under the Vital Statistics Act, the Divorce Act, or the Family Law Act, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant requested access to a videotape of his statements to the police regarding unsubstantiated child abuse allegations against his daughter's mother and grandparents.

The police denied access under various exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that disclosure of the videotape would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the affected persons under section 38(b) of the Act, given the sensitive nature of the information and the risk of unfair exposure to harm and harassment.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Vaughan for Fire Department inspection reports related to an identified property.

The City denied access, citing the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Provincial Fire Code.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Act and upheld the City's decision.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of approximately $10,000 provided by the Bruce-Grey County Roman Catholic Separate School Board in response to a multi-part request for records relating to architects, contractors, and consultants used by the Board over the past 15 to 30 years.

The Board provided detailed calculations of the search time required to locate the records in its vault, warehouse, microfiche, and office files.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's fee estimate was reasonable given the state of its filing system and the broad scope of the request, and upheld the Board's decision.

The appellant filed 26 appeals from decisions of the City of Mississauga regarding numerous freedom of information requests.

The City refused to process the requests, claiming they were frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant's pattern of conduct, which included filing duplicative requests, appealing when access was granted, and using the process to harass City staff, amounted to an abuse of the right of access.

The appeals were dismissed, and conditions were imposed limiting the appellant to one active request or appeal at a time, up to a maximum of five per year.

The appellant, acting as counsel for corporate applicants seeking registration as gaming suppliers, requested access to their application files held by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

The Ministry denied access to numerous records, citing exemptions for law enforcement, third party information, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records contained information about individuals in their professional capacities and ordered their disclosure.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold investigation reports and other records under the law enforcement and personal information exemptions, finding that the ongoing due diligence investigations constituted a law enforcement matter.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for a tape recording of testimony from a trial under the Dog Owner's Liability Act.

The Ministry denied the request on the basis that court records are not in its custody or control.

The appellant appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the tape recording formed part of the court records and was therefore not in the custody or under the control of the Ministry.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to inspection reports concerning the use of animals in research facilities.

The appellant sought access to the numbers and species of animals used, and the nature of the research performed.

The Ministry and affected parties argued that disclosure would endanger the security of the facilities and the safety of researchers, and that the records contained confidential third-party information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the number and species of animals used were already publicly available through the Canadian Council on Animal Care and ordered their disclosure.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption for information relating to the nature of the research performed, finding that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger life, safety, or security, except for two facilities that consented to disclosure.

Two journalists requested access to dockets listing the names of police officers charged under the Police Services Act.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denied access, claiming the records fell under the labour relations and employment exclusion in section 52(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the dockets were prepared as part of the Police's tribunal function to facilitate open hearings, not in their capacity as an employer.

Therefore, the records did not fall within the section 52(3) exclusion and the Police were ordered to issue a new access decision.

The appellant, a licensed meat plant operator, submitted 55 freedom of information requests to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs for records relating to the meat inspection program and activities during an OPSEU strike.

The Ministry denied access to numerous records, claiming they were excluded from the Act under the labour relations provisions of section 65(6), or exempt under various provisions including solicitor-client privilege, law enforcement, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision for the majority of the records, finding they were properly excluded or exempt, but ordered the disclosure of a small number of records that did not meet the exemption criteria.

The Ministry's search for records was also found to be reasonable.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denying access to a 911 tape relating to a domestic occurrence.

The tape contained the voices of the appellant, his son, and his former wife.

The Ministry argued that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that applying the presumption against disclosure would lead to an absurd result, as the appellant was present during the call and directed his son on what to say.

Balancing the factors, including the appellant's need for the tape to determine his rights and his prior knowledge of the information, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy and ordered the Ministry to release the tape.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board denying access to records related to a complaint of police misconduct.

The Inquiry Officer found that one record was exempt from disclosure as it would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy.

The remaining record, an internal investigation report, was found to be excluded from the scope of the Act under section 52(3)3 because it was collected and prepared in relation to an employment-related matter in which the Police have an interest.

The appellant, acting as the litigation administrator for her deceased husband's estate, requested access to police records concerning his death and an alleged fraud.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denied access, citing an unjustified invasion of the deceased's personal privacy.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the appellant qualified as a 'personal representative' under section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and that her request related to the administration of the estate.

The Police were ordered to disclose the records in their entirety.

The appellant appealed the City of Stoney Creek's decision to deny access to minutes of meetings held by the City Review Committee regarding a proposed landfill site.

The City claimed exemptions under sections 7(1) (advice and recommendations), 11(e) (economic and other interests), and 12 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City could not raise discretionary exemptions late in the process without justification.

The Officer upheld the application of section 7(1) and section 12 to small portions of the records but ordered the disclosure of the majority of the records, finding that section 11(e) did not apply as the relevant negotiations had concluded.

The public interest override in section 16 was found not to apply to the exempt portions.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Toronto for copies of a contract and amending agreements concerning food concessions in parks.

The City initially denied access but later abandoned its reliance on discretionary exemptions.

The third-party company objected to disclosure, arguing the records contained personal information and confidential third-party commercial information.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the records disclosed, finding that the information was either not personal, not supplied in confidence, or not reasonably expected to cause competitive harm or undue loss.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Natural Resources for records relating to the provincial intent to create a public park in the Rouge River Valley.

The Ministry denied access to 41 records, claiming exemptions for Cabinet records and advice/recommendations under sections 12(1) and 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision for the majority of the records, finding that their disclosure would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations or advice and recommendations.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of certain records and portions of records that did not fall within the claimed exemptions.

The Township of Georgian Bay received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a copy of the appellant's building permit application and cottage plans.

The appellant objected to disclosure, claiming the records contained personal information and third-party information supplied in confidence, and that releasing the plans would infringe copyright.

The Inquiry Officer found that disclosure of the building permit application would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

Furthermore, the plans were not supplied in confidence and their disclosure under the Act does not constitute copyright infringement.

The Township's decision to disclose the records was upheld.

The appellant sought access to records relating to a disturbance at the Bluewater Youth Centre and subsequent allegations of mistreatment at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre.

The Ministry denied access, claiming exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and arguing the Young Offenders Act removed the records from the Act's jurisdiction.

The Inquiry Officer found no conflict with the Young Offenders Act as the records at issue did not identify young persons.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the law enforcement exemption for small portions of the records but ordered the disclosure of the remaining factual information, finding it did not qualify as advice or recommendations.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) seeking access to monthly progress reports regarding cost reductions, including future reports.

The LCBO denied access to a specific Status Report, claiming it was exempt as a Cabinet record under section 12(1)(e) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and refused continuing access to future reports.

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the LCBO's decision, finding that the Status Report was prepared to brief a minister regarding matters proposed to be brought before a committee of the Executive Council.

The Commissioner also held that continuing access under section 24(3) did not apply because the reports were not produced in a regular series and the original request for access was denied.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Lottery Corporation (OLC) for the names of the winners of a specific LOTTO 6/49 draw, claiming a verbal agreement to share the prize with one of the winners.

The OLC denied access to the names of the Ontario winners under the invasion of privacy exemption and stated it did not have custody or control of the names of winners from other provinces.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the OLC's decision, finding that disclosure of the Ontario winners' names would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, and that the OLC did not have custody or control of the records from other provincial lottery corporations.