Anita Fineberg

The appellant requested access to correspondence and product testing information related to highway testing blocks submitted to the Ministry of Transportation by a third party company.

The Ministry denied access to certain records under the third party information exemption (s. 17(1) of the Act).

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that some records contained scientific and technical information supplied in confidence, and their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the company's competitive position.

However, two records were ordered disclosed because they had already been released to the appellant in the United States and were publicly available.

The public interest override (s. 23) did not apply as the appellant's interest was private.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision that no records existed in response to a freedom of information request for assessment records related to international border crossings.

The adjudicator found that records detailing the Ministry's assessment methodology did exist and ordered the Ministry to issue an access decision regarding them.

However, the adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision that no records existed regarding standard assumptions for net income and expenses or comparable properties.

Furthermore, the adjudicator determined that the specific capitalization rates used by the Ministry were protected from disclosure by the confidentiality provision in section 53(1) of the Assessment Act.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to whether he had been declared mentally incompetent or had a power of attorney entered on his behalf without his knowledge.

The Ministry searched the files at the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee and found no responsive records.

The appellant appealed, arguing records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant provided no reasonable basis for his claim that such records should exist and concluded that the Ministry had conducted a reasonable search.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a former employee of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, appealed the Municipality's decision to deny access to portions of his personnel file, Division file, and management notes related to a fraud investigation.

The Municipality claimed exemptions under sections 12, 14, 38(a), and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld records contained the personal information of other individuals, including welfare clients and co-workers, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of their personal privacy under section 38(b).

The Municipality's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for records relating to the government's non-tax revenue strategy and special corporate filing fees.

The Ministry denied access to four records, claiming exemptions for Cabinet records and advice or recommendations.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the Cabinet records exemption to three records, finding they contained policy options or would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the fourth record, finding it contained background factual information and implementation guidelines rather than advice or recommendations within the deliberative process.

The appellant requested access to his unamended birth certificate and any accompanying explanatory notes from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

The Ministry refused to provide a copy of the unamended birth registration, claiming that removing the overlay would risk damaging the original record, and stated no other documents existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that section 48 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applied, as the record contained the appellant's personal information.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Ministry to provide a copy of the birth registration with the overlay removed, as it had been partially removed without damage, and upheld the Ministry's search for accompanying records as reasonable.

A newspaper reporter appealed the Metropolitan Separate School Board's decision to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records relating to allegations of child abuse against a teacher, pursuant to section 14(5) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board improperly relied on section 14(5) and confirmed the existence of the records.

While the records contained highly sensitive personal information, the public interest in subjecting the Board's handling of the allegations to public scrutiny outweighed the privacy interests of the teacher and Board officials.

However, several records were found to be exempt under the closed meeting exemption in section 6(1)(b) of the Act.

The Board was ordered to disclose severed portions of the remaining records.

The requester appealed the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth's decision to deny access to portions of case management summary reports relating to his social assistance claims.

The Municipality claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for law enforcement and unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information contained the personal information of other individuals and confidential sources contacted during an eligibility review investigation.

The decision to withhold the balance of the records was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs for records pertaining to her job performance.

The Ministry disclosed 11 documents, but the appellant appealed, arguing that more records should exist, particularly informal notes kept by her former supervisors.

The Ministry provided affidavit evidence that the informal notes had been destroyed prior to the request after being deemed of no value for human resources purposes.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the Ministry's search for responsive records was reasonable and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records concerning alliances or facilities-sharing arrangements between a named corporation and Ministry laboratories.

The Ministry denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for advice and recommendations, third party information, and economic interests.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Act applies to third party information in the custody of an institution, and that draft agreements are subject to the Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the third party information exemption to certain records but ordered the disclosure of draft agreements, a fee schedule, and other records where the Ministry failed to discharge its burden of proof regarding the claimed exemptions.

The appellant, representing the insurers of a building damaged by fire, requested access to the City of Toronto's fire report.

The City disclosed the report but withheld the names of the tenants in the unit where the fire started, citing the invasion of privacy exemption under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing the names were necessary to pursue a civil action under the Insurance Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the presumptions against disclosure did not apply and that the appellant's need for the information to determine legal rights outweighed the tenants' privacy interests.

The City was ordered to disclose the names.

The appellant requested a Crown Brief and records relating to complaints against a Provincial Court Judge and an Assistant Crown Attorney.

The Ministry denied access to the Crown Brief under solicitor-client privilege and stated no records existed for the complaints.

During mediation, it was revealed the appellant already possessed the Crown Brief.

The Inquiry Officer found the appeal regarding the Crown Brief moot.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the Ministry's decision regarding the complaints, finding its search for records was reasonable.

The appellant, representing an employer, requested access to records concerning the Ministry of Labour's investigation of an Employment Standards Act complaint made by a former employee.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b).

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to the government's Non-Tax Revenue Strategy and its connection to increases in estates fees.

The Ministry denied access to a Treasury Board submission and a spreadsheet analysis, claiming the Cabinet records exemption.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained policy options and recommendations submitted to a committee of Cabinet, and thus qualified for exemption under section 12(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry was also ordered to issue a decision regarding additional responsive records it had located during the appeal process.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to an overpayment in the Overpayment Recovery and Follow-Up System (ORFUS).

The Ministry stated no such records existed as the appellant was currently receiving assistance, and provided an affidavit detailing its search of the appellant's master file.

The Inquiry Officer found the Ministry's search was reasonable and upheld the decision.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to correspondence regarding the Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licence Regulations.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under several sections, including solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer found that all the requested records constituted confidential communications between a solicitor and client directly related to seeking or giving legal advice, and were therefore exempt under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer also held that the public interest override in section 23 does not apply to records exempt under section 19.

The appellant, a reporter, sought access to government files related to a collection agency whose license was revoked.

In a previous order, the Inquiry Officer determined that certain personal information in Record IB85 was exempt from disclosure, but allowed counsel for affected corporate third parties to make submissions on the application of the mandatory third party information exemption under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Counsel failed to provide submissions demonstrating that the commercial information was supplied in confidence or that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause harm.

Consequently, the Inquiry Officer ordered the Ministry to disclose the non-personal information in Record IB85 to the appellant.

Two former employees of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario submitted a freedom of information request for the resumes and job applications of successful head office candidates.

The Board denied access under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The requesters appealed and narrowed their request to the educational background and work experience portions, excluding personal identifiers.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records still contained personal information because the individuals could be identified when combined with staff announcements.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's decision, finding that the presumption against disclosure of employment or educational history applied and could not be rebutted by factors favouring disclosure.

The appellant appealed the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk's decision to deny access to an Order to Comply regarding a zoning by-law violation.

The Region claimed the law enforcement exemption under section 8(1)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing disclosure would interfere with a pending rezoning application.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Region failed to provide sufficient evidence that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with the rezoning process or its by-law enforcement program.

The Region was ordered to disclose the remaining portions of the record.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Community and Social Services for her complete original Family Benefits file.

The Ministry provided responsive records but withheld an investigation file under the law enforcement exemption.

During mediation, the appellant abandoned her request for the investigation file but argued that additional records, including pay cheque stubs, should exist.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Ministry's search efforts, including an affidavit detailing the search of the file room and the assigned worker's files, and concluded that the Ministry's search was reasonable.