Anita Fineberg

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to three documents under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The City subsequently disclosed one document.

For the remaining two letters, the named individual whose personal information was contained therein consented to their disclosure.

The Inquiry Officer found that no mandatory exemptions applied and ordered the City to disclose the two letters to the appellant.

The appellant requested a computer disk copy of a report on race relations practices from the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

The Municipality denied access under section 15(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing the information was publicly available in printed form.

The Inquiry Officer found that the electronic files constituted a 'record' under the Act.

The Officer upheld the exemption for the electronic information that was identical to the printed report, but ordered the disclosure of footnotes and table references that were only present in the electronic version.

The appellant appealed the Guelph Police Services Board's decision to deny access to records generated during a police investigation of a fire.

The Police relied on the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law (arson), triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The public interest override in section 16 did not apply.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to a separation agreement between the Haldimand-Norfolk Police Services Board and the former Chief of Police under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police denied access, relying on the closed meeting exemption under section 6(1)(b).

The Inquiry Officer found that the agreement was discussed at an in camera meeting authorized by the Police Services Act, and its disclosure would reveal the substance of those deliberations.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision of the Police to withhold the agreement.

The appellants requested access to reports from the Brockville Police Services Board regarding an investigation into allegations of misconduct against a named officer.

The Police denied access, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records met the three-part test for exemption under section 8(2)(a) as reports prepared in the course of a law enforcement investigation.

Furthermore, the institution properly exercised its discretion under section 38(a) to deny the appellants access to their own personal information contained within the exempt reports.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to records relating to her complaint to the Police Complaints Commissioner.

The Police initially denied access claiming they did not have custody, but later granted partial access after the records were returned.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police should have transferred the request under section 18 of the Act when they did not have custody.

On the exemptions, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of records containing only the appellant's personal information, but upheld the denial of access to records containing the personal information of other individuals, finding they were exempt under the presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy for law enforcement investigations.

The appellant sought access to records relating to two job competitions in which he was an unsuccessful candidate, specifically the answers and scores of other candidates.

The Ministry withheld the records under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The appellant narrowed his request to exclude personal identifiers.

The Inquiry Officer found that some portions of the records contained personal information that could identify the candidates and were therefore outside the scope of the appeal.

However, other portions, including scores and certain responses where identifiers were removed, did not constitute personal information and were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellants requested copies of records from the City of Toronto relating to their property.

The City denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for closed meetings, law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, and personal privacy under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision to deny access to certain records under the closed meeting and solicitor-client privilege exemptions, but ordered the disclosure of other records, including some containing personal information, subject to the severance of names and addresses of third parties.

The appellant requested a copy of a named employee's resume from the Town of Ancaster.

The Town disclosed a resume, but the appellant appealed, alleging it was an altered copy and not the true original.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed affidavits from the employee, the Executive Secretary, and the Freedom of Information Co-ordinator, all confirming that the disclosed resume was the only one in the Town's possession.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Town had conducted a reasonable search and upheld the Town's decision.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Renfrew Industrial Commission seeking a list of local businesses assisted by the Commission.

The Commission claimed it was not subject to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Commission's corporate history and letters patent to determine if its members or officers were appointed by the municipal council under section 2(3) of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Commission's members and officers were appointed by its own Board of Directors, not the municipal council.

Consequently, the Commission is not an institution under the Act and the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant, acting through an agent, appealed the decision of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board to deny access to certain police records concerning an investigation into his activities.

The Police relied on exemptions for invasion of privacy and law enforcement.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the privacy exemptions for most records but ordered the disclosure of an internal police memorandum, finding the law enforcement exemption did not apply.

The Inquiry Officer also found the Police's search for records was unreasonable and ordered a further search.

Finally, the Inquiry Officer ordered the Police to correct a factually incorrect entry on the appellant's criminal record printout.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Science Centre's decision to deny access to the bi-monthly attendance reports of five named employees.

The Centre relied on the invasion of privacy exemption under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the reports, which detailed hours worked and leave taken, constituted personal information.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the appellant provided no relevant factors favouring disclosure and that releasing the records would result in an unjustified invasion of the employees' personal privacy.

The Centre's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to portions of a fire inspection report relating to the requester's former premises.

The City relied on the personal privacy exemption under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the withheld information constituted personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Fire Code, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b).

The City's decision was upheld in part, but certain non-personal information was ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant requested records relating to the termination of her employment and the creation of a new job position from the Town of Dryden.

The Town provided some records and denied access to others.

The appellant appealed, arguing that more records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Town had conducted a reasonable search for the requested records, supported by a sworn affidavit detailing the search efforts, and upheld the Town's decision.

The appellant sought access to the gross earnings and severance packages of former distributors of the Ontario Lottery Corporation (OLC).

The OLC denied access, claiming exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the information constituted personal information, the personal identifiers could be severed, rendering the remaining financial data non-personal.

The Officer also rejected the OLC's claims that disclosure would harm third-party interests or prejudice the OLC's economic interests and competitive position.

The OLC was ordered to disclose the severed records.

The appellant requested access to the expense account receipts and credit card statements of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board's Director of Education.

The Board refused disclosure, claiming exemptions for invasion of privacy, danger to life or safety, law enforcement, third party information, valuable government information, and economic interests.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records related to the Director's employment duties and did not constitute personal information.

The Officer also found that the Board failed to establish a clear and direct linkage between disclosure and any of the alleged harms.

The Board was ordered to disclose the records, with certain agreed-upon severances.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's fee estimate of $1,746 and its refusal to waive the fee for a freedom of information request.

The request sought copies of non-court imposed settlements pertaining to breach of confidence or invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the search time estimate as reasonable based on the Ministry's detailed evidence.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the refusal to waive the fee, finding no evidence of financial hardship and concluding that dissemination of the records would not benefit public health or safety.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations relating to a proposal to refuse her registration as a real estate broker.

The Ministry denied access to various records, claiming exemptions for advice to government, solicitor-client privilege, law enforcement, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the records and upheld the Ministry's decision for certain records under the law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy exemptions.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of other records where the exemptions did not apply or where the Ministry failed to provide representations.

In a final order following an interim decision, the Inquiry Officer considered whether the mandatory exemption under section 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applied to certain records containing financial and commercial information.

Notices of inquiry sent to the affected third-party companies were returned as undeliverable.

In the absence of submissions from the companies, the Inquiry Officer found that the third part of the section 17 test—reasonable expectation of harm—was not satisfied.

The Ontario Securities Commission was ordered to disclose the records to the appellant.

The appellant requested access to Ministry of Labour correspondence regarding the interpretation of section 42 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Ministry provided some records and issued a fee estimate for searching 200 additional letters, without making a decision on whether access would be granted to those letters.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to fulfill its obligations under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by issuing a fee estimate without a corresponding access decision.

The Ministry was ordered to issue a final access decision.

The Inquiry Officer also disallowed the Ministry's estimated search and preparation fees due to a lack of supporting evidence, but allowed standard photocopying charges.