Anita Fineberg

The appellant requested access to his personnel file and documentation related to a specific issue from the Nipissing Board of Education under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board granted partial access but denied access to 12 records, claiming exemptions for solicitor-client privilege and protection of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were exempt under solicitor-client privilege, while others were exempt because their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other individuals.

The Board was ordered to disclose two records that did not fall under these exemptions and to make a decision regarding an additional grievance file.

The requester appealed the Nipissing Board of Education's decision to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of additional records responsive to a request for his personnel file and related documentation.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board improperly relied on section 14(5) to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of the records, as confirming their existence would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer confirmed the existence of 33 additional records and reviewed the Board's alternative exemption claims.

Several records were found to be exempt under solicitor-client privilege (section 12) and the personal privacy exemption (section 38(b)), while others were ordered to be disclosed.

The requester appealed the fee charged by the Frontenac County Board of Education for processing a freedom of information request and the Board's claim that no additional records existed.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's fee calculation of $63.60 for search time and photocopies, finding it reasonable and in accordance with the Act.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Board's search for responsive records was reasonable, given the evidence of multiple searches conducted across various files and locations.

The appellant appealed the fee charged and the adequacy of the search conducted by the Frontenac County Board of Education in response to a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records related to the V.I.P. program.

The Inquiry Officer found that the fee of $44.50 was calculated in accordance with the Act and was reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Board's search for responsive records was reasonable in the circumstances.

The Board's decisions were upheld.

The requester, acting on behalf of a limited partnership and its investors, appealed the Ontario Securities Commission's (OSC) decision to deny access to numerous records relating to an OSC investigation into the limited partnership's offering.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the application of various exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer found that many records were properly exempt under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege and Crown counsel privilege), section 14(2)(a) (law enforcement reports), section 21 (unjustified invasion of personal privacy), and section 13(1) (advice or recommendations).

However, the Officer ordered the disclosure of several records that did not meet the criteria for these exemptions.

The Officer deferred a decision on a few records pending notification of affected third parties under section 17.

The Ministry of Health received a freedom of information request for a list of individuals used by the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee to review drug products.

The Ministry denied access to the names and affiliations of the consultants, citing the personal information exemption.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the names and affiliations constituted personal information because their disclosure would reveal that the individuals reviewed particular drug products.

The Inquiry Officer further held that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, as the information was highly sensitive and its release could lead to harassment by drug manufacturers.

The appellant requested access to notes of conversations between Township of Essa employees regarding certain projects and individuals.

The Township denied access under the mandatory personal information exemption in section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected persons' personal privacy.

The Township's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant sought access to records relating to incidents at an OPP detachment involving the appellant, including an Impact Assessment Report and police notebook entries.

The Ministry granted partial access, withholding some information under the personal privacy exemption.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the withheld information was highly sensitive and supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected persons' personal privacy.

The appellant sought access to a management review report regarding the Legal Services Branch of the Pension Commission of Ontario.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to portions of the report, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, plans relating to personnel management, and personal information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the advice and recommendations exemption did not apply because the report fell within the exception for reports on the performance or efficiency of an institution.

The plans exemption also did not apply as the report did not constitute a detailed scheme or design.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold portions of the record containing the personal information of other individuals, finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and that the public interest override did not apply.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the record.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to a letter regarding a property dispute over a fence, claiming exemptions under sections 14 and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record primarily contained information about a property rather than identifiable individuals.

The Officer ordered the City to disclose the record to the appellant, subject to the severance of a few personal identifiers of other individuals.

The City of Toronto received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for an engineer's report on the structural condition of a building.

The City decided to grant access to the report in its entirety.

The owner of the building appealed the decision, arguing that the report was exempt from disclosure under section 10(1) of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the report contained technical information supplied implicitly in confidence, the appellant failed to establish a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure.

The appeal was dismissed and the City was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a management review of the Rent Review Hearings Board.

The Ministry of Housing denied access to portions of the records under the Cabinet records and personal privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Cabinet records exemption did not apply to the terms of reference and related memos, as they did not contain policy options or recommendations submitted to Cabinet.

The Inquiry Officer also found that while most of the interview notes contained personal information subject to the personal privacy exemption, information relating to individuals' professional capacities, the appellant's own personal information, and information for which consent was obtained had to be disclosed.

The requester appealed the decision of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board to deny access to an investigative file relating to an internal affairs investigation of the requester.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information and qualified for the law enforcement exemption under section 8(1)(a), as disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement matter.

The Officer also upheld the application of sections 38(a) and 38(b), finding that disclosure of the remaining audio tape portions would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

A union requested the work assignments of occasional teachers from a school board, including the names of supply teachers.

The school board denied access to the names, citing the personal privacy exemption under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the names constituted personal information and that their disclosure would reveal employment history, triggering a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The union's arguments that disclosure was expressly authorized by the Labour Relations Act or necessary for research purposes were rejected.

The school board's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Social Assistance Review Board denying access to notes taken by a Board member during two hearings.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the notes contained personal information relating to eligibility for social assistance benefits, and their disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner also determined that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as the appellant had already attended the hearings and received the Board's decisions.

The Board's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to documents generated by a police investigation into a fire.

The Guelph Police Services Board denied access to portions of the records, citing exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the severed information constituted personal information and its disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy because it was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The Ministry of Health received a freedom of information request for records relating to electrolysis and physician billing.

The Ministry denied access to portions of a record containing total payments made to physicians for epilation services, citing the personal information exemption.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the severed information, which related to small numbers of physicians in certain specialties, qualified as personal information because there was a reasonable expectation that individuals could be identified.

The Inquiry Officer further found that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Township for records relating to a garbage collection tender, including the successful bidder's performance bond, tender package, and contract.

The Township disclosed the contract but denied access to the remaining records under the third-party information exemption in section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the exemption applied to the letter of credit, unit pricing information, and certain financial arrangements, as they contained commercial/financial information supplied in confidence whose disclosure could prejudice the successful bidder's competitive position.

However, the exemption did not apply to information identifying the insurance company and liability coverage amount.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, and ordered partial disclosure.

A requester sought access to budget files for a day care centre from the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Region denied access to certain records under section 10(1)(a), claiming disclosure could interfere with contractual negotiations or prejudice the affected party's competitive position.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while the records contained financial information, neither the Region nor the affected party provided detailed and convincing evidence that disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged harms.

The records were ordered to be disclosed, subject to the severing of some personal information.

The appellant requested access to records indicating the total cost of legal fees incurred by the Town of Oakville in defending an action brought by the appellant.

The Town denied access, claiming the information was exempt under the solicitor-client privilege exemption in section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the total dollar amount of legal fees does not relate in a tangible and direct way to the seeking, formulating, or provision of legal advice.

The Town was ordered to disclose the record.