Anita Fineberg

The appellant requested access to briefing reports and financial plans relating to the intended sale, privatization, and refinancing of the Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited (SkyDome).

SkyDome denied access, claiming exemptions under sections 13(1), 17(1), and 18(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that SkyDome failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that any of the claimed exemptions applied to the records.

Furthermore, the Inquiry Officer concluded that SkyDome did not conduct a reasonable search for responsive records.

SkyDome was ordered to disclose the identified records and conduct a further search.

The appellant requested access to records concerning a septic system complaint and an Environmental Appeal Board hearing from the Simcoe County District Health Unit.

The Health Unit denied access to several records under the law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the law enforcement exemption applied to records related to an ongoing investigation, but not to purely administrative records or those already filed as public exhibits.

The personal privacy exemption was upheld for a record containing third-party personal information.

The appellant requested access to police records regarding an assault investigation against them.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board granted partial access, denying parts under sections 8, 14, and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that pages 4, 5, and 11 could be severed to remove personal identifiers, ordering their disclosure.

However, the Officer upheld the Police's decision to withhold page 3 under section 38(b), as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy.

The appellant requested access to information related to her reclassification from the Belleville Police Services Board.

The Police denied access to a three-page letter from a lawyer, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the letter was subject to common law solicitor-client privilege, the Police had implicitly waived this privilege by placing the letter in the appellant's personnel file and allowing her to view it during the course of her duties.

The Police were ordered to disclose the record to the appellant.

The appellant requested access to invoices paid by the Toronto Board of Education to an accounting firm for forensic and investigative audits.

The Board denied access to 19 records, claiming exemptions for law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, and third-party commercial information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the internal investigations did not qualify as law enforcement matters.

The invoices were not protected by solicitor-client privilege as they were not communications for legal advice or prepared for litigation.

The third-party commercial information exemption did not apply as there was insufficient evidence of harm.

The Board was ordered to disclose the records with personal identifiers severed.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access to records concerning an Ontario Provincial Police investigation.

The requester appealed the decision.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Crown brief and duplicate copies of witness statements were exempt from disclosure under the solicitor-client privilege exemption in section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the remaining records contained personal information that was exempt from disclosure under section 21, and that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to a report relating to the investigation of her complaint of sexual harassment by a co-worker.

The Ministry granted partial access, claiming exemptions under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, supported by sections 21(2)(f) and (h).

The Inquiry Officer found that while the record contained personal information, the appellant was entitled to portions of the report that directly addressed her complaint, as complete confidentiality cannot be guaranteed in workplace harassment investigations.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose specific highlighted portions of the record.

The appellant requested access to the blood/alcohol reading of a named individual, the identity of the analyst, and the time of the reading from the Marathon Police Services Board.

The Police denied access to the information under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the analyst's name was not personal information and ordered its disclosure.

However, the blood sample results were found to be the personal information of the affected person, compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision to deny access to the results, finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply.

The appellant, representing the sons of a deceased individual, requested access to the full police investigation report respecting the death of the deceased.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the sons were not the 'personal representative' of the deceased under section 54(a) of the Act and that the request did not relate to the administration of the estate.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision to deny access, concluding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under sections 14 and 38(b) of the Act, and that the Police's search for records was reasonable.

The appellant requested access to portions of a letter written by an affected person in response to a Notice of Intended Discipline from the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

The Board denied access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information of the appellant, the affected person, and another individual.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure of the information would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's personal privacy under section 49(b), as the information was highly sensitive and its disclosure would cause excessive personal distress.

The appellant requested access to two letters from the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services.

The Ministry disclosed one letter in full and partially withheld the other under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the decision and also claimed the Ministry's search was inadequate.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information was personal information and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, a police officer, requested access to records relating to a complaint investigation against him for alleged assault.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to 79 pages under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information of individuals other than the appellant, compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b) and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access under section 49(b).

The appellant requested access to cash register receipts for 16 purchases charged to the Township's Visa account by the Reeve under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Township provided two receipts and stated the others were never in its possession.

The appellant appealed, arguing more receipts should exist.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed affidavits from Township staff and the Reeve detailing the search efforts and concluded that the Township had taken all reasonable steps to locate the records.

The search was deemed reasonable in the circumstances.

The City of Toronto received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records mentioning the requester.

The City decided to disclose certain records after notifying a third-party company, which objected and appealed the decision.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant failed to establish that disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause the harms specified in section 10(1) of the Act.

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

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Housing's decision to deny access to portions of records containing his personal information, claiming exemptions under sections 49(b), (c), and (d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained only the appellant's personal information, meaning section 49(b) did not apply.

The Ministry failed to establish that the information was supplied in confidence under section 49(c), and failed to establish a clear linkage between disclosure and prejudice to health under section 49(d).

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records and provide a copy of its retention schedule, though its search for records was deemed reasonable.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a job competition at Toronto Hydro under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Hydro denied access to the employment applications, interview packages, and selection matrix forms of other candidates, citing the mandatory exemption for personal information.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision to withhold the applications and interview packages, finding their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

However, the Officer ordered the disclosure of the selection matrix forms with the names of the other candidates severed.

The appellant requested access to the details of an internal investigation from the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services.

The Ministry denied access to portions of a memorandum under the personal information exemption in section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the severed portions contained the personal information of identifiable individuals other than the appellant.

In the absence of evidence that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access.

Two requesters appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to the 'version codes' associated with the health numbers of three named individuals.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 18(1)(c) and (d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing disclosure would prejudice its economic interests by facilitating fraudulent OHIP claims.

The Inquiry Officer found that version codes do not constitute 'personal information' under section 2(1) of the Act.

Furthermore, the Ministry failed to establish a clear and direct linkage between the disclosure of the version codes and the alleged economic harm.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the requested information.

The appellant requested access to records relating to an Ontario Securities Commission investigation into a loan made by a company to a controlling shareholder.

The Ministry of Finance denied access to the records, citing various exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the application of exemptions for personal privacy, third-party commercial information, law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, and advice to government.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of certain records that did not qualify for exemption, while upholding the Ministry's decision to withhold the remaining records.

The appellant's argument for a public interest override was dismissed.

The requester appealed a decision by the Stratford Police Services Board denying access to the criminal record of another individual.

The Inquiry Officer found that the requested record contained the personal information of the affected person.

The Officer further determined that the information was highly sensitive and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's personal privacy under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The decision of the Police was upheld.