Anita Fineberg

The requester appealed the decision of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to grant only partial access to a legal opinion regarding an erosion control problem.

The Authority withheld portions of the opinion under the solicitor-client privilege and economic interests exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld portions contained the requester's personal information and were prepared by counsel in contemplation of litigation.

Therefore, the Authority properly exercised its discretion to deny access under section 38(a) read with section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Authority's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to her deceased father.

The Police denied access under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The appellant argued she was entitled to access as the personal representative of the estate under section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the appellant was the personal representative, the request did not relate to the administration of the estate, as the records were sought for a commercial documentary film rather than winding up the estate.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of pages 1-6, finding the deceased's privacy interest had diminished over time, but upheld the exemption for pages 7-15, which contained personal information compiled during law enforcement investigations.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to withhold certain records relating to the garnishment of his wages by the Family Support Plan.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to records containing the personal information of other individuals, finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of a memorandum from F.S.P. counsel to staff, finding that it did not contain legal advice and therefore did not qualify for solicitor-client privilege.

The appellant requested access to minutes and by-laws of the Temagami Non-Profit Housing Corporation from the Township of Temagami.

The Township transferred the request to the Housing Corporation, which claimed it was not an institution subject to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that because the municipality had the authority to approve the election or appointment of the Housing Corporation's directors, the directors were appointed or chosen under the authority of the municipal council.

Therefore, under section 2(3) of the Act, the Housing Corporation was deemed to be part of the municipal corporation and subject to the Act.

The Township was ordered to make an access decision.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Corporation of the City of York for records pertaining to his company.

The City granted access to records located in the City Clerk's office.

The appellant appealed, arguing that more records existed.

During mediation, the City provided an Affidavit of Search detailing the searches conducted.

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

The appellant requested access to a police investigation report concerning an incident involving the Chair of the Police Services Board.

The Police disclosed portions of the report but withheld others under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

During the appeal, the Police and the affected person attempted to raise additional discretionary exemptions late in the process, which the Inquiry Officer refused to consider due to lack of extenuating circumstances.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information did not contain the personal information of the affected person, as it related to her official duties.

However, three passages containing the personal information of the report's author and another individual were found to be exempt under section 38(b) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Police were ordered to disclose the remainder of the report.

The requester appealed the Halton District Health Council's decision to withhold certain records relating to her removal from her position, claiming the records contained personal information and that further responsive records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information related to the Council members' business or employment capacity and did not constitute personal information, ordering its disclosure.

The Inquiry Officer also found that while the Council's search for some records was reasonable, its failure to search for the Chair's notes and in camera minutes was unreasonable, and ordered a further search.

The appellant requested access to all information pertaining to any investigations conducted by the Halton Regional Police Services Board into the operation of computer bulletin board services.

The Police refused to confirm or deny the existence of the records under section 8(3) of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the records, if they existed, would qualify for exemption under section 8(1), the Police failed to establish that disclosing the mere existence or non-existence of the records would communicate exempt information.

The Inquiry Officer ordered that section 8(3) did not apply and disclosed that no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Thunder Bay Police Services Board denying access to records related to an investigation of an incident in which the appellant was allegedly involved.

The Police claimed exemptions based on invasion of privacy, confiscated records, facilitating the commission of an unlawful act, and law enforcement.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision to withhold personal information of other individuals under the invasion of privacy exemption.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of police codes, finding that the Police failed to establish that their disclosure would facilitate an unlawful act or that the records qualified as law enforcement reports.

The appellant requested access to materials relating to a Ministry job competition in which she was an unsuccessful candidate.

The Ministry denied access to the interview screening test questions, correct answers, and the appellant's answers, relying on exemptions for economic interests and proposed plans under sections 18(1)(c), (f), and (g) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to establish the required harms or that the records constituted 'proposed' plans not yet put into operation.

The exemptions did not apply, and the Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellants appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to records relating to a job competition in which they were unsuccessful candidates.

The records at issue included interview and examination questions, correct answers, and the appellants' own answers and scores.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 18(1)(c), (f), and (g) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to establish the requirements for any of the claimed exemptions, noting that the job competition materials had already been put into operation and were not 'proposed' plans.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records to the appellants.

The appellants, who were unsuccessful candidates in a job competition, requested access to all materials relating to the competition.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services denied access to the interview questions, correct answers, and the appellants' own answers and scores, relying on the economic and other interests exemptions under sections 18(1)(c), (f), and (g) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to establish a clear and direct linkage between disclosure and harm to its economic interests, and that the records did not qualify as plans not yet put into operation or proposed plans.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Ottawa Police Services Board to deny access to portions of general occurrence reports containing his personal information.

The Police relied on exemptions for invasion of privacy and facilitating the commission of an unlawful act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that the withheld information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Police properly withheld a police message code and had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision that records relating to her job competition application and Workforce Profile did not exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had conducted a reasonable search for the job competition records, which had been destroyed in accordance with the retention schedule.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the Ministry to conduct a further search for the Workforce Profile, as the Ministry had previously referred to it in human rights proceedings.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of his employment records and occurrence reports under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's application of the invasion of privacy exemption under section 49(b) for the withheld information, which contained personal and medical history of other individuals.

However, the Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to conduct a reasonable search for additional occurrence reports and ordered it to conduct a further search after consulting with the requester.

The appellant requested access to their probation and parole file from the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services.

The Ministry disclosed most of the file but withheld certain handwritten notes and a page regarding a parole variation under section 49(e) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming they were confidential correctional records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information constituted personal information and a correctional record, and that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal information supplied in confidence.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to Draft #1 of the Security Plan for the Herd Reduction Program at Rondeau Provincial Park.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 14(1)(a), (c), and (e) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that disclosure of the Plan could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement officers or other persons, as the Plan contained techniques to diffuse violent situations.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld under section 14(1)(e).

The requester appealed the Ministry's deemed refusal to provide access to an investigation report and supporting documents.

The Ministry failed to respond within the 30-day statutory period and did not request a time extension.

Although the Ministry subsequently issued partial decisions, it failed to provide a final decision on the remaining records.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Ministry to issue a decision on the outstanding records within 15 days without recourse to a time extension.

The appellant requested copies of receipts for beverages and food purchased by Halton Police members.

The Regional Municipality of Halton provided a fee estimate of $630 but did not issue a decision on whether access would be granted.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Municipality failed to issue a proper access decision before providing a fee estimate.

The Officer ordered the Municipality to issue a final access decision, upheld $120 for search time, allowed photocopying costs, but disallowed charges for preparation time and unsupported search time.

The appellant requested a copy of a proposal submitted to the Ministry of Education and Training by a named Federation respecting the right to licence hair stylists.

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 found that while the proposal contained commercial information, it was not supplied to the Ministry in confidence.

As the three-part test for the exemption was not met, the Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.