Anita Fineberg

The appellant requested access to the particulars of a settlement between the Village of Morrisburg and a company regarding a sewage system.

The Village denied access, claiming the records were exempt under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and subject to a confidentiality agreement.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information in the settlement records was negotiated, not 'supplied' by the third parties, failing the second part of the section 10(1) test.

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

A requester sought access to the amount of electricity purchased by Ontario Hydro from a non-utility generator at a landfill site.

Ontario Hydro denied access under sections 17(1)(a) and (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing disclosure would reveal confidential commercial information and prejudice the generator's competitive position.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that the information was supplied in confidence and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the affected party's competitive position or result in undue loss.

A requester sought access to background financial information about a senior citizens home from the Ministry of the Attorney General (Office of the Public Trustee).

The home objected to the disclosure of the records, claiming they contained financial information supplied in confidence that could have labour relations implications.

The Ministry decided to release the records, and the home appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records did not meet the three-part test for exemption under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as the information was not supplied in confidence and was provided pursuant to a statutory obligation.

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

The appellant requested access to by-law enforcement inspection reports and notices regarding two residential properties.

The City of Vaughan denied access to portions of the records, claiming exemptions for personal privacy and law enforcement under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that municipal addresses and property repair orders do not constitute personal information.

However, the names and phone numbers of other complainants and residents were exempt as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The City's claim for the law enforcement exemption was dismissed as it failed to provide evidence that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing investigation.

The City was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the records.

The requester appealed Ontario Hydro's decision to deny access to the prices paid by successful bidders for surplus trucks and equipment in two tender transactions.

Hydro claimed exemptions under sections 17(1)(a), 17(1)(c), and 18(1)(c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the bid prices were not supplied in confidence, either explicitly or implicitly, and therefore the section 17 exemptions did not apply.

Furthermore, Hydro failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence that disclosure would prejudice its economic interests or competitive position under section 18(1)(c).

Hydro was ordered to disclose the bid prices.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to a missing person's investigation of himself.

The Police granted partial access and withheld other records under various exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

During mediation and inquiry, additional records were disclosed, and the appellant narrowed his request to specific items, primarily the investigating officer's memorandum book.

The Police provided affidavit evidence that the retired officer's memorandum book could not be located despite an exhaustive search.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police had taken all reasonable steps to locate the responsive records and that the search was reasonable in the circumstances.

The appellant requested access to records detailing expenditures charged against the Discretionary Expense Account of the Director of Education for the Halton Board of Education.

The Board provided a fee estimate of $685.00.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the records were 'current accounts' under the Education Act and should be provided free of charge.

The Inquiry Officer found that the requested records, which included invoices and processed cheques, were not 'current accounts' and therefore the fee provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applied.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the fee estimate, with a minor deduction for travel time, setting the final fee estimate at $670.00.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' response to a freedom of information request, alleging a deemed refusal by seven program areas and an unreasonable search for records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the deemed refusal situation no longer existed because the Ministry subsequently issued decisions for the remaining program areas.

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

The Ministry was ordered to provide the appellant with copies of the four late decision letters.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to investigations about him from 1981 to 1984.

The Waterloo Regional Police Services Board disclosed some records but withheld portions containing the personal information of other individuals, claiming the discretionary exemption under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information qualified as personal information and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the other individuals, upholding the Police's decision to deny access.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for notes taken by an Ontario Municipal Board member during a hearing.

The Ministry denied access, stating the notes were personal and not in the custody or control of the Board, and had subsequently been destroyed.

Applying the factors from Order 120, the Inquiry Officer found that the notes were created for the member's personal use, kept at his home, and not regulated or required by the Board.

The Inquiry Officer concluded the notes were not in the custody or under the control of the Board and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant requested access to rough notes and tests used by an independent psychologist to draft a psychological report for the Regional Municipality of Halton Police Services Board regarding the appellant's suitability for promotion.

The Police denied access, claiming the records were not in their custody or under their control.

The Inquiry Officer applied the factors from Order 120 and found that the records were held by the psychologist, not integrated with Police records, and the Police had no right to possess or dispose of them.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant requested records relating to a claim advanced on behalf of investors in collapsed mortgage brokerage companies.

The Ministry of Finance provided a fee estimate of $1,833.60 for search and preparation time without issuing a final access decision.

The appellant appealed the fee, arguing the records contained his personal information and should be exempt from fees under section 57(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found the records did not contain the appellant's personal information.

The Officer upheld the search fee of $1,833.60 but disallowed preparation fees, and ordered the Ministry to issue a final access decision.

The requester, owner of a chemical company, sought access to records revealing why the Ministry of Environment and Energy dropped charges against his company for shipping waste derived fuel to an unlicensed site.

The Ministry denied access under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records were confidential written communications between a Ministry employee and Crown Counsel directly related to the provision of legal advice concerning the prosecution.

The appellant requested attendance records from the Halton Board of Education under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board provided a fee estimate for search, preparation, and photocopying costs, which the appellant appealed as excessive.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the fee estimate and found that some of the manual search time and photocopying charges were not justified or exceeded the maximum allowable rates.

The fee estimate was reduced to $166.70.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to a proposal submitted by a successful bidder for a child care conversion project.

The Ministry claimed the mandatory exemption for third party commercial information under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the specific business valuation methodology contained in pages 1-25 of the proposal constituted a trade secret supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the affected party's competitive position.

However, the curriculum vitae and professional references in pages 26-29 did not qualify for the exemption and were ordered to be disclosed.

The requester appealed the Town of Gravenhurst's decision to deny access to records concerning a development and an Ontario Municipal Board hearing under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Town claimed the solicitor-client privilege exemption under section 12.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption for a letter from the Town's solicitor but ordered the disclosure of handwritten notes taken by the Town's Planning Director during the hearing, finding they did not meet the requirements for privilege.

The requester appealed a fee estimate of $637.50 for search time related to a freedom of information request for a list of job competitions.

The Management Board Secretariat created a new record from 650 files to respond to the request.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Secretariat provided insufficient evidence to substantiate the fee estimate, as it did not explain how the search time was calculated or whether it included time spent creating the record.

The Secretariat was precluded from charging any fee for processing the request.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Licensing Commission denying access to various records related to an investigation into an alleged illegal taxi brokerage.

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

The Officer upheld the Commission's decision to withhold records under solicitor-client privilege (s. 12), law enforcement exemptions (s. 8(2)(a)), and the protection of personal privacy (ss. 14 and 38(b)).

However, the Officer ordered the disclosure of certain records that did not contain personal information or where personal identifiers could be reasonably severed.

The requester appealed the Metropolitan Licensing Commission's decision to deny access to various records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also found that one record was partially exempt under solicitor-client privilege, but ordered the disclosure of another record that did not meet the criteria for the exemption.

The requester appealed the Halton Board of Education's decision denying access to an auditor's working papers on the basis that no responsive records exist.

The sole issue was whether the papers were in the custody or under the control of the Board.

Applying the factors from Order 120, the Inquiry Officer found that the working papers were the property of the auditor, were not in the Board's possession, and the Board had no authority to regulate their use or disposition.

The appeal was dismissed, as the records were neither in the custody nor under the control of the Board.