Anita Fineberg

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for files in which he was named personally and as a bailiff.

The Ministry granted partial access, withholding records under exemptions for advice and recommendations, law enforcement, invasion of privacy, and solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the appellant's personal information and that the Ministry properly applied the exemptions to most of the withheld records, including those that would reveal confidential sources, constituted law enforcement reports, or were subject to solicitor-client privilege.

However, the Ministry was ordered to disclose portions of certain records that did not qualify for the claimed exemptions and where disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy.

The appellant sought access to records concerning himself from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The Ministry granted partial access, claiming exemptions under sections 17(1), 21(1), 49(b), and 22(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for certain letters and broadcast tapes.

The Inquiry Officer found that the letter did not contain personal information of other individuals, and that the Ministry failed to demonstrate the broadcast tapes were currently publicly available.

The Inquiry Officer also noted that disclosure under the Act does not constitute copyright infringement.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The Ministry of Natural Resources received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for letters sent by the appellant to the Ministry.

The Ministry decided to disclose the letters, and the appellant appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the letters contained the personal information of both the requester and the appellant, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the appellant's personal privacy.

Because the Ministry exercised its discretion to disclose the records under section 49(b) despite the privacy invasion, the Inquiry Officer issued an interim order requiring the Ministry to provide written representations regarding its exercise of discretion.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board for records relating to his hearing, including personal notes of Board members, investigation records, and audio tapes.

The Board denied access to some records and claimed the audio tapes were not in its custody or control.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found the Board had no obligation to create letters from its members about their knowledge of records.

The search for personal notes was deemed reasonable, but the Board was ordered to conduct a further search for investigation records.

The issue of custody or control of the audio tapes was deferred pending the outcome of a related judicial review application.

The appellant appealed Ontario Hydro's response to a freedom of information request for records concerning an Order In Council.

Hydro claimed no responsive records existed in its custody or control.

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

However, the Inquiry Officer found that Hydro failed to comply with section 25(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by not making necessary inquiries to determine if another institution had custody or control of the records, and ordered Hydro to make such inquiries.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to charge a fee for access to records related to his assessment roll number, arguing the request was for his personal information.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the records contained information about property rather than personal information, but waived the $3.80 fee.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold a memorandum under the solicitor-client privilege exemption and found the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to withhold portions of an inspection report on a police service under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed exemptions for security, facilitating an unlawful act, and invasion of privacy.

The Ministry did not provide representations, so the discretionary exemptions under sections 14(1)(i) and (l) were not upheld.

However, the Inquiry Officer found that the remaining withheld information constituted highly sensitive personal information of identifiable police service members.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure of this information would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1) of the Act, and upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold those portions.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation for documentation concerning a named organization.

The Ministry denied access to one record, consisting of interoffice electronic mail memoranda, on the basis of solicitor-client privilege under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record was prepared by and for Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice, and therefore qualified for exemption under Branch 2 of section 19.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the London Police Services Board denying access to a questionnaire used to screen applicants for a Firearms Acquisition Certificate.

The Police claimed the record was exempt under several sections of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including section 8(1)(e) (endanger life or safety).

The Inquiry Officer found that disclosing the questionnaire could allow potential applicants to be coached on the correct answers, defeating the purpose of screening out individuals who might pose a danger.

The decision to deny access was upheld under section 8(1)(e).

The appellant sought access to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board's 'Call Taker Operations Manual' under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police denied access, claiming exemptions for law enforcement matters, investigative techniques, and facilitating the commission of an unlawful act.

The Inquiry Officer found insufficient evidence for the law enforcement exemptions but agreed that disclosing specific operational details, such as response unit types and priorities, could facilitate unlawful acts.

However, the majority of the manual, including general guidelines and organizational structure, did not fall under any exemption and was ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Durham Regional Police Services Board for records relating to assault charges previously laid against him, of which he was acquitted, and his subsequent complaints against the police.

The Police denied access to portions of the records, citing exemptions for law enforcement, invasion of privacy, and facilitating the commission of an unlawful act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the majority of the Police's decision, finding that most of the personal information was compiled during a law enforcement investigation and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Commissioner also upheld the exemption for police codes and patrol zones.

However, the Commissioner ordered the disclosure of certain records that did not qualify as law enforcement reports and information that the appellant had originally provided to the Police.

The Commissioner found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search for the records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for records relating to investigations concerning his apartment building.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, including a rent roll, correspondence from a legal clinic, and rent surveys, citing the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained personal information that was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Rent Control Act.

Consequently, the presumption against disclosure in section 21(3)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applied, and disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant appealed the City of Ottawa's decision to deny access to a statistical report regarding the staffing levels of the fire department's aerial trucks.

The City claimed the record was exempt under section 11(e) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing it contained positions or procedures intended for use in upcoming labour negotiations.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record consisted of raw statistical data and did not contain any pre-determined course of action or plan.

The exemption under section 11(e) was not established, and the City was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant sought access to records relating to the settlement of sexual harassment complaints filed against him and others with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Commission denied access, citing various exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Commission's decision, finding that the records contained personal information of the complainants and others, the disclosure of which would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 49(b).

The public interest override in section 23 did not apply as the appellant's interest was private, not public.

The appellant requested copies of complaints filed against her property and the names of the complainants from the City of York.

The City disclosed the complaint but severed the complainant's name, address, and telephone number, claiming the law enforcement exemption under section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that by-law enforcement investigations qualify as law enforcement and that the complainant had a reasonable expectation of confidentiality.

A requester sought access to two Hepatitis-B tender documents awarded in 1994.

The Ministry of Health decided to disclose the first page of the tender documents, which included the successful bid prices.

The successful company appealed, arguing the information was exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as confidential commercial information.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that because the total bid prices had already been publicized on the Open Bidding Service, there could be no reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure.

The requester sought access to a Special Investigations Unit (SIU) report and witness statements relating to a fatal car accident involving her son following a police pursuit.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to the SIU report under the law enforcement report exemption and withheld most witness statements citing an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the exemption for the SIU report, finding it met the three-part test under section 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner also upheld the privacy exemptions for the witness statements, except for portions of statements from two civilian witnesses who had consented to disclosure, which were ordered to be released.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to the death of her husband.

The Halton Regional Police Services Board denied access, citing exemptions for law enforcement and invasion of privacy.

The appellant argued she was entitled to the records as the administratrix of her husband's estate under section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant failed to demonstrate the request related to the administration of the estate.

The Officer further held that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(1).

The police decision was upheld.

The appellant, a lawyer representing individuals who contracted HIV through the blood supply, requested access to all documents relating to the Multi-Provincial and Territorial Assistance Package (MPTAP).

The Ministry of Health denied access to 842 responsive records, claiming various exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

During the appeal, the number of records at issue was reduced.

The Inquiry Officer refused to allow the Ministry to raise new discretionary exemptions late in the process.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to the majority of the remaining records under exemptions for Cabinet records, advice and recommendations, relations with other governments, third party information, and solicitor-client privilege.

A small number of records were ordered disclosed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board that no records existed responsive to his request for information concerning two investigations in 1982 and 1983.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search of their computerized information bank and Intelligence Services records, and the appellant provided no cogent reasons to substantiate his claim that the requested records existed.

The appeal was dismissed.