Anita Fineberg

The appellant requested access to records relating to a Ministry of Housing job competition in which he was an unsuccessful candidate.

The Ministry disclosed some records but withheld others, citing the mandatory exemption for personal information under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld records contained the personal information of other candidates, the disclosure of which would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable and that it was not reasonably practicable to allow the appellant to examine the original severed records.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose one record with the personal identifiers of other candidates severed.

The appellant submitted two requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to Ontario Hydro for all information relating to himself and his case from the files of various individuals.

Hydro disclosed some records but denied access to others, claiming exemptions under sections 13(1), 18(1)(e), 19, and 49(b).

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the appellant's personal information.

The Officer upheld Hydro's decision to withhold certain records under section 13(1) (advice or recommendations), section 18(1)(e) (negotiating positions), and section 19 (solicitor-client privilege).

The Officer also found that Hydro's search for responsive records was reasonable.

Hydro was ordered to disclose a number of records that did not qualify for the claimed exemptions.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to an alleged assault by a correctional officer.

During mediation and the inquiry, the requester withdrew claims to specific documents after receiving them through civil litigation.

The sole remaining issue was whether the Ministry's search for additional records was reasonable.

Based on sworn affidavits from Ministry employees detailing the search efforts, the Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records and that the search was reasonable.

The Ministry of Housing received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a report prepared in response to a Management Review of the Rent Review Hearings Board.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the record under section 21.

The appellant appealed the denial of access to pages 19 and 20.

The Inquiry Officer found that some of the withheld information constituted the personal information of candidates in job competitions, while information provided by staff in their employment capacity did not.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the personal information of the candidates was exempt from disclosure under section 21(1) as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, and ordered the Ministry to disclose the remaining non-exempt portions of the record.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to all information concerning himself in the custody or control of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

The Municipality provided access to a number of records, but the appellant appealed, claiming additional records were missing from his file.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the affidavit evidence detailing the search efforts and file maintenance procedures of the Municipality.

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

The requester appealed a fee estimate of $340 provided by the Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited (SkyDome) for processing a freedom of information request.

The estimate included charges for manual search time and shipping costs.

The Inquiry Officer found that SkyDome provided no evidence to substantiate its fee estimate or justify the search time and shipping costs.

As a result, the fee estimate was not upheld, and SkyDome was ordered to issue a proper decision letter without charging for search and shipping costs.