Anita Fineberg

The appellants sought access to records relating to the transfer of the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office from the Ministry of Health to the Advocacy Commission.

The Ministry of Citizenship denied access to 15 records, claiming exemptions including the cabinet records exemption under section 12(1)(e) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were prepared to brief a minister on matters subject to ongoing consultations among ministers, satisfying the prospective element of the exemption.

The appellants' argument that the public interest override in section 23 applied was rejected, as section 23 does not apply to section 12(1).

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Housing's interim access decision, fee estimate, and denial of a fee waiver regarding a request for rent review applications.

The Inquiry Officer found that an interim access decision was inappropriate because the records were not unduly expensive to produce for review, and ordered the Ministry to issue a final access decision.

The fee estimate for photocopies and shipping was upheld, but the charge for employee overtime was disallowed.

The Ministry's denial of a fee waiver was upheld as fair and equitable, given the Ministry's attempts to compromise and the unreasonable burden a waiver would shift to the institution.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission's decision to deny access to portions of a 'Management Function Review' report.

During mediation and inquiry, the Commission agreed to release most of the requested portions, leaving only page 53 at issue.

The Inquiry Officer found that page 53 contained the personal information of an identifiable former employee, specifically an evaluation of their performance.

As the only representations supported the view that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, the Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the section 21 mandatory exemption and ordered the disclosure of the remaining agreed-upon pages.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to grant partial access to archaeological research records, charge a $180 fee, and deny a fee waiver.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third party information exemption did not apply, but upheld the exemption for archaeological site locations as their disclosure could facilitate the unlawful act of looting.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the $180 fee estimate as reasonable and found that the Ministry's refusal to waive the fee was fair and equitable, as a waiver would shift an unreasonable burden to the Ministry.

A brewing company appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to 38 records relating to the beer trade dispute between Canada and the United States.

The Ministry claimed exemptions for Cabinet records, advice or recommendations, relations with other governments, third party information, and solicitor-client privilege.

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

After reviewing the records, the Inquiry Officer upheld the application of exemptions to several records, including those revealing Cabinet deliberations, intergovernmental communications, solicitor-client advice, and confidential third-party commercial information.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of other records that did not meet the tests for the claimed exemptions.

The appellant requested information regarding the funding of Project 80, a municipal corruption squad.

The Ministry denied access to seven records, claiming law enforcement exemptions.

In a previous order, the Inquiry Officer found only portions of the records responsive.

The Divisional Court remitted the matter back for a re-determination of relevancy, requiring representations from the parties.

On re-determination, the Inquiry Officer addressed procedural objections regarding the adequacy of the index and exchange of submissions, finding the process fair.

Applying a test of responsiveness, the Inquiry Officer concluded that only specific portions of Records 2, 4, 6, and 7 containing information reasonably related to funding were responsive to the request, while Records 1, 3, and 5 were not responsive.

The appellant sought access to a proposal submitted by an oil company to the Ministry of Natural Resources for an injectivity test on an oil well.

The Ministry denied access under the third party information exemption in section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained scientific and technical information supplied implicitly in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the company's competitive position.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the appellant failed to demonstrate a compelling public interest in disclosure under section 23 of the Act.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services received a request for a draft report reviewing the operations of a Physical and Sexual Assault Crisis Centre.

The Ministry denied access under the advice and recommendations exemption (s. 13(1)).

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that certain portions of the report contained personal information of an employee and staff salary details, which were exempt under s. 21(1) as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

However, the s. 13(1) exemption did not apply to the remainder of the report, as it consisted of factual material and advice directed to an outside body rather than within the government's deliberative process.

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

The appellant physician sought access to the health card version codes of two patients.

The Ministry of Health denied access, arguing that disclosure would result in an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and could lead to fraudulent claims.

Following a Divisional Court decision quashing an earlier order, the Inquiry Officer reheard the matter.

The Inquiry Officer found that the version codes, in association with health card numbers, constitute personal information.

Furthermore, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure of the version codes could allow access to an individual's medical history, thereby satisfying the presumption of an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to portions of police records related to incidents on August 19 and 20, 1991.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including law enforcement and personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the undisclosed portions of several pages contained personal information of other individuals compiled during a law enforcement investigation, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under sections 14(1) and 38(b).

However, the Police failed to justify the application of the discretionary exemption under section 8(1)(l) for other pages, which were ordered disclosed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny a full fee waiver for a freedom of information request.

The appellant claimed financial hardship.

The Ministry had provided a detailed index, allowing the appellant to narrow the request, and offered the option to view the records in person to reduce costs.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's actions were fair and equitable, and that a complete fee waiver would shift an unreasonable burden of the cost to the Ministry.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant filed an appeal of the Ministry's decision to deny access to records 54 days after the 30-day time limit prescribed by section 50(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry argued the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction due to the late filing.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's decision letter failed to advise the appellant of the 30-day appeal period, rendering it deficient under section 29(1)(b).

Consequently, strict adherence to the time limit would prejudice the appellant.

The Inquiry Officer assumed jurisdiction and ordered the Ministry to forward the records for review.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Guelph Police Services Board for records relating to investigations into computer bulletin board services.

The Police refused to confirm or deny the existence of the records under section 8(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that section 8(3) no longer applied because the investigation had concluded and charges had been laid, making the matter public.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the decision to deny access to the records under section 8(1)(a), as disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement matter before the courts.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision that no records existed responsive to a request for information regarding complaints against an Assault Crisis Centre.

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

The Inquiry Officer found the search unreasonable because the Ministry failed to search the files of the review team members who conducted an operational review of the Centre, or any centralized offices.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct a further search.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to three records related to the drilling of a well, claiming the third party information exemption under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant also appealed the reasonableness of the Ministry's search for inspection and monitoring records.

The Inquiry Officer found that Record 1 met the three-part test for exemption under section 17(1)(b) and was properly withheld.

However, Records 2 and 3 did not meet the test because the information was not supplied to the Ministry by the third party, and were ordered disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the Ministry's search for records as reasonable.

The appellant appealed Ontario Hydro's decision to deny access to three records relating to his human rights complaint, claiming exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the solicitor-client privilege exemption under section 19, read with section 49(a), for all three records.

However, the Inquiry Officer found that Ontario Hydro's search for responsive records was not reasonable and ordered a further search to be conducted.

A newspaper reporter appealed the Barrie Public Library Board's decision to deny access to Minutes of Settlement between the Board and a former employee.

The Board claimed exemptions for third party information, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third party and solicitor-client privilege exemptions did not apply.

While the record contained personal information, the Inquiry Officer concluded that public scrutiny and public confidence considerations favoured disclosure of the settlement terms.

However, the former employee's identifying information and a letter of reference were found to be exempt as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Board was ordered to disclose the severed record.

The appellant, a newspaper reporter, requested access to a Ministry of Community and Social Services investigation report regarding a home for the developmentally handicapped and the conduct of a former employee.

The Ministry denied access under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the report contained personal information, the public interest in subjecting the Ministry's investigatory activities to public scrutiny outweighed the privacy interests of the former employee and two affected persons.

However, the personal information of a third affected person remained exempt.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the report with the exempt information severed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board for records concerning groups or individuals who demonstrate, citing a newspaper quote attributed to the Chief of Police.

The Police refused to confirm or deny the existence of the records under sections 8(3) and 14(5) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police failed to establish that confirming or denying the existence of the records would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy or communicate information exempt under law enforcement provisions.

The Inquiry Officer disclosed that no responsive records exist and ordered the Police to assist the appellant in clarifying his request.

The appellant requested access to environmental audits prepared for the Town of Hanover regarding a property it considered purchasing.

The Town denied access and subsequently returned the audits to the vendor after deciding not to purchase the property.

The vendor objected to disclosure, arguing the Town no longer had custody or control, the appeal was late, and the records were exempt under various provisions including third party information and personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer held that the Town had custody and control at the time of the request, excused the late appeal due to the Town's defective notice, found that a corporation does not have personal privacy rights, and concluded the third party information exemption did not apply because the vendor did not supply the information to the Town.

The Town was ordered to disclose the records.