Anita Fineberg

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to portions of police records and a 911 tape related to two incidents.

The Police claimed the personal privacy exemption under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption for information provided by third parties, but ordered the disclosure of information originally provided by the appellant, finding that applying the exemption to her own information would lead to an absurd result.

The Police were also ordered to conduct a further search for a statement allegedly made by the appellant's son.

The appellant requested access to records establishing the amount of compensation payable to the Metropolitan Separate School Board by a developer.

The Board denied access to four records, claiming exemptions for closed meetings, solicitor-client privilege, and economic interests.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the exemptions for the closed meeting report and the solicitor-client correspondence regarding settlement negotiations.

However, the Commissioner ordered the disclosure of the dollar amount of the agreement, finding that its disclosure would not prejudice the Board's economic interests, while upholding the exemption for the remaining terms and conditions of the agreement.

The public interest override was found not to apply to the exempted portions.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Durham Regional Police Services Board regarding a request for access to police officers' notebooks.

The Police denied access to portions of the notebooks under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing exemptions for invasion of privacy and facilitating the commission of an unlawful act, and stated that one officer's notebook did not exist.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the exemptions for personal information and police codes, and found the Police's search for the missing notebook was reasonable.

However, the Police were ordered to disclose the times recorded in one of the notebooks.

The requester sought the names and addresses of all charitable institutions licensed by the City of London to sell break-open tickets.

The City compiled a computerized list and charged a fee of $484.00 for the preparation of the record.

The requester appealed the fee amount.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the fee, finding that the charges for preparing the record for disclosure were reasonable and in accordance with section 45 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and section 6 of Regulation 823.

The Township received requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a special auditor's report and an employee's complaint letter regarding the Parks and Recreation Department.

The Township denied access citing invasion of privacy and advice/recommendations exemptions.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the letter and parts of the report contained personal information and were exempt from disclosure.

However, factual portions of the report regarding internal procedures were ordered disclosed as they fell under the mandatory exception for reports on the performance or efficiency of an institution.

The public interest override was found not to apply.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Transportation for records relating to an explicit analysis of a new freeway corridor.

The Ministry initially denied access to a draft analysis and later provided a final report, claiming that no other responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional records should have been located.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records and dismissed the appeal.

The requester sought access to reports or summaries of investigations of bailiffs under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry denied access to eight reports, citing law enforcement and privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records met the three-part test for law enforcement reports under section 14(2)(a) of the Act, as they were prepared by the Ministry in the course of investigating potential violations of the Bailiffs Act.

The public interest override in section 23 was found inapplicable to section 14 exemptions.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs' decision to deny access to records concerning alliances or facilities-sharing arrangements between the Ministry and a named corporation.

The Ministry and the corporation claimed the records were exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third party commercial information supplied in confidence.

The Inquiry Officer found that while correspondence and diagrams were supplied in confidence and exempt, draft agreements negotiated between the parties were not 'supplied' by the third party and must be disclosed.

A journalist appealed the London Police Services Board's decision to deny access to a videotape shown at a Coroner's Inquest regarding an individual who died in police custody.

The Inquiry Officer found that the videotape contained highly sensitive personal information of the deceased and another individual.

The Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply because the police's actions had already been scrutinized through the inquest and a Special Investigations Unit investigation.

The appellant requested access to the name of a person who filed a by-law enforcement complaint about their property.

The Township of Shuniah denied the request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing third-party information and invasion of privacy.

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the record contained the personal information of both the appellant and the complainant.

Applying section 38(b) of the Act, the Inquiry Officer determined that disclosing the complainant's name would constitute an unjustified invasion of their personal privacy.

The Township's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the York Region Board of Education for the names of teachers who did not attend a specific staff meeting.

The Board denied access, claiming the information was personal information and its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the mere fact of non-attendance at a staff meeting does not constitute personal information, as it relates to professional duties and does not reveal personal details when combined with previously released general reasons for absence.

The Board was ordered to disclose the names.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Town of Amherstburg Police Services Board for a copy of a police services inspection report.

The Police transferred the request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, claiming the Ministry had a greater interest in the record.

The appellant appealed the transfer.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the Ministry had a greater interest, the Police did not properly exercise their discretion in transferring the request, as they failed to meet the 15-day statutory deadline and misunderstood the Ministry's policy.

However, because the appellant had already received a decision from the Ministry, no remedial order was made.

The appellant, representing the family of a pedestrian killed in a motor vehicle accident, requested access to the driver's licence records of the elderly driver involved, specifically vision test results and driving examination records.

The Ministry of Transportation denied access to portions of the records, citing the protection of personal privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the withheld information fell under the presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy for medical history and personal evaluations under sections 21(3)(a) and (g) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Applying the Divisional Court's ruling in John Doe, the Commissioner held that these presumptions could not be rebutted by the factors in section 21(2), and the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Belleville for records relating to Nevada lottery tickets sold by two charities.

The City denied access under sections 10(1) (third party information) and 14 (invasion of privacy).

The Inquiry Officer found that the section 10(1) exemption did not apply because there was no evidence the information was supplied in confidence.

However, the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the charities' volunteer officers were found to be personal information exempt under section 14 and were ordered severed before disclosure.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Finance for information regarding the employment history of a named Ministry employee, including appointment dates and transfer details.

The Ministry denied access to the record under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the requested information constituted the employee's personal information and fell within the presumption against disclosure for employment history under section 21(3)(d) of the Act.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Education and Training for a contract and funding information related to a union's participation in the jobsOntario program.

The Ministry disclosed parts of the contract but withheld budget estimates and a workplan under the third-party information exemption in section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing more records existed and the exemption was improperly applied.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had fulfilled its duty to clarify the request under section 24(2).

However, the Inquiry Officer concluded that neither the Ministry nor the union established a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure under section 17(1).

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the entire contract.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for a specific affidavit allegedly presented at an Assessment Review Board hearing.

The Ministry claimed the record did not exist.

The appellant appealed, arguing the search was inadequate.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to conduct a reasonable search because it did not contact the specific individuals named in the request who were allegedly involved with the affidavit.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct a further search and contact those individuals.

The appellant appealed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision to deny access to a draft policy paper regarding the debit/credit interest program.

The Board claimed the record was exempt under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as it contained advice and recommendations.

The appellant argued the record was a report on the performance or efficiency of a program, falling under the exception in section 13(2)(f).

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld portions constituted advice and recommendations, and that the draft policy paper lacked the requisite formality to be considered a report under section 13(2)(f).

The Board's decision was upheld.

The requester sought access to the name of the individual who issued a specific press release on behalf of the police services board.

The police claimed no responsive records existed, as the press release was not standard and no log was kept.

The Inquiry Officer found that the police had conducted a reasonable search and upheld their decision.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Haliburton, Kawartha, Pine Ridge District Health Unit denying access to the name of an individual who lodged a complaint against her business.

The Health Unit claimed the information was exempt under the invasion of privacy provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the complainant's name was identifiable as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Food Premises Regulation, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b).

The appeal was dismissed and the Health Unit's decision was upheld.