Anita Fineberg

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.

The appellant requested access to a complaint made against her under the Day Nurseries Act.

The Ministry disclosed the record but withheld one sentence under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld sentence did not contain personal information because there was no reasonable expectation that the anonymous complainant could be identified from the information.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the sentence.

A reporter requested access to all government files related to a collection agency whose licence was revoked following an investigation by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

The Ministry granted partial access, claiming various exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the application of exemptions for solicitor-client privilege, law enforcement, advice and recommendations, third-party information, and personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of exemptions to several records, ordered the disclosure of others, and found that the public interest override did not apply.

The appellant, acting on behalf of her daughter, appealed the Carleton Board of Education's decision to deny access to certain school records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board claimed solicitor-client privilege over several documents prepared in response to a human rights complaint filed by the daughter.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's decision to deny access to these records, finding they were prepared for or by counsel in contemplation of litigation or for legal advice.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Board's search for responsive records was reasonable, though ordered the disclosure of certain records the Board had agreed to release.

The appellant, a reporter, appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to records relating to franchising in Ontario and a dispute involving a specific franchisor.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 12(1), 13(1), 15, 17(1), and 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Cabinet records exemption did not apply, as the matters were not currently before or proposed to be brought before Cabinet.

The advice or recommendations exemption applied only to portions of the records containing suggested courses of action.

The intergovernmental relations exemption applied to information received in confidence from the Alberta Securities Commission.

The third party commercial information exemption applied to confidential commercial information where disclosure could cause harm.

The personal privacy exemption applied to personal financial information.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override did not apply to the exempted records.

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

The requester appealed the Ontario Lottery Corporation's decision to deny access to three market research studies regarding the Sport Select lottery.

The OLC claimed the records were exempt under sections 18(1)(a) and 18(1)(c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were exempt under section 18(1)(c) because their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the OLC's competitive position in the gaming market.

The OLC's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Citizenship's decision to issue a single fee estimate for eight separate freedom of information requests.

The Inquiry Officer found that it was appropriate to combine six of the requests due to their overlapping subject matter and search areas.

However, the Ministry was ordered to provide a separate fee estimate for the remaining two requests, which related to a completely different subject matter.

The Ministry was also directed to provide the appellant with the equivalent of the initial two hours of free search time for each of the eight requests.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $9,960 provided by the North York Board of Education in response to a request for trustee expense records and an alphabetical cheque register.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board failed to provide sufficient information to justify its fee calculations for manual search time, preparation time, and photocopying time.

The fee estimate was substantially reduced, allowing the Board to charge only $2,520 for photocopying the cheque register pages.

The requester appealed a fee estimate of $398 provided by the Metropolitan Toronto School Board for processing a request for its accounts payable cheque register.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner reviewed the Board's calculations for search and preparation time under section 45(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's estimate for locating the records and for 'interruption time' was excessive and not permitted under the Act.

The fee estimate was reduced to $285, comprising $120 for search time and $165 for preparation time.

The appellant, a Ministry employee who was suspended following an incident, requested access to records concerning an investigation by a Children's Aid Society and the Ministry.

The Ministry denied access to the Ministry investigation records under the law enforcement exemption in section 14(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and claimed no records existed regarding the C.A.S. investigation.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search for the C.A.S. records was unreasonable and ordered a further search.

The Inquiry Officer also held that the law enforcement exemption does not apply to internal disciplinary matters, and ordered the disclosure of the Ministry investigation records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to a complaint letter and portions of an investigation report regarding workplace harassment allegations against her.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that portions of the complaint letter directly addressing the substance of the complaint should be disclosed to the appellant, as the general principle in harassment investigations requires the respondent to be advised of the accusations.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to sever portions of the investigation report and the remainder of the complaint letter, finding their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $1,552 provided by the Board of Education for the Borough of East York for processing a freedom of information request for an Accounts Payable Cheque Register.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Board's calculation of photocopying and preparation costs under section 45(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found the Board's revised fee estimate of $1,512 to be reasonable and upheld it, noting the Board had worked constructively with the appellant to minimize costs.

The requester appealed the Township of Bentinck's decision to deny access to various records related to a property development, including correspondence and building plans.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the solicitor-client privilege exemption to the correspondence.

The Inquiry Officer also found that most of the building plans were exempt from disclosure under the third party information and security exemptions, with the exception of one plan which was ordered disclosed.

The Township's search for records was found to be reasonable.

The appellant appealed the decision of Sheridan College of Applied Arts and Technology to deny access to records relating to a human rights complaint and grievance.

The College claimed exemptions under sections 19 (solicitor-client privilege) and 21 (invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that disclosure of personal information of other individuals in certain records would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 49(b).

The Inquiry Officer also found that most of the records qualified for exemption under section 19 and section 49(a) as they were subject to solicitor-client privilege or prepared for litigation, but ordered the disclosure of one record and portions of legal accounts that did not relate to the seeking or giving of legal advice.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to the 1992 increase in probate fees.

The Ministry relied on the Cabinet records and advice and recommendations exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the Cabinet records exemption to the Treasury Board submission and its attachment.

The Inquiry Officer also found that portions of a briefing note qualified for the advice and recommendations exemption, but ordered the disclosure of the remaining records, finding no compelling public interest to override the exemptions.

The appellant, an employee of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, appealed the Ministry's claim that no records existed in response to his request for files held under his name by specific managers.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search was not entirely reasonable, as it failed to demonstrate that searches were conducted by the Superintendent of the detention centre or that notes from a specific meeting held by the Human Resources Manager were sought.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct additional searches for these records.

The appellant appealed the Toronto Transit Commission's decision to withhold unit prices contained in two successful tender bids for quality assessment testing services.

The TTC claimed the third party information exemption under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the unit prices constituted commercial and financial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the competitive position of the affected parties.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, as the public interest was satisfied by the disclosure of the total tender prices.

The TTC's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Ministry of Finance for records relating to the valuation of similar real properties for assessment purposes.

The Ministry denied access to some records on the basis that they were publicly available under section 22(a) of the Act, and stated that no records existed for another part of the request because the specific comparable properties had not been identified.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the policy and procedural manuals were publicly available and that the Ministry had not yet created a list of comparables for the pending assessment appeal, meaning no responsive records existed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to Thunder Bay Hydro for records relating to a workplace harassment investigation conducted by an external lawyer.

Hydro denied access, claiming it did not have custody or control of the lawyer's investigation notes.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner applied the 10-factor test for custody and control, finding that the lawyer was retained as an independent investigator, not in a solicitor-client relationship, and created the notes for his own benefit.

The Commissioner upheld Hydro's decision that the records were not in its custody or control under section 4(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant submitted six requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of Community and Social Services for records relating to funding provided to the Grandview Survivors Support Group.

The Ministry denied access to the located records, claiming multiple exemptions including advice or recommendations, law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, and economic interests.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's representations were largely general and failed to establish the application of most exemptions to the entirety of the records.

The Officer ordered the disclosure of the majority of the records, subject to severances for personal information, specific advice or recommendations, law enforcement matters, solicitor-client privilege, and Cabinet records.

The Officer also found the Ministry's search for records responsive to two requests unreasonable and ordered it to make inquiries with other institutions, particularly the Ministry of the Attorney General.