Asfaw Seife

The appellant submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for notes made by panellists of a Health Disciplines Review Board hearing and a Ministry employee.

The Ministry informed the appellant that the notes had been destroyed after the review concluded.

The appellant appealed, maintaining the records existed.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed affidavits from the panellists and an explanatory note, concluding that the Ministry's search was reasonable and the records had been destroyed in accordance with established procedures.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to eleven pages of records relating to a dismissed criminal charge.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13(1), 19, and 49(a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that section 19 applied to two records prepared by Crown counsel for use in existing litigation, and section 49(b) applied to two occurrence reports as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy.

However, the remaining records did not qualify for exemption under sections 13(1) or 19.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose four records and its decision to withhold the others was upheld.

The requester appealed the Kirkland Lake-Timiskaming Roman Catholic Separate School Board's decision to deny access to a record detailing the Ministry of Education's contribution toward transition costs for the amalgamation of two school boards.

The Board claimed exemptions under sections 9(1)(b), 10(1)(a) and (c), and 11(c) and (d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board failed to establish that the information was received or supplied in confidence, and failed to demonstrate a direct link between disclosure and any alleged harm to its economic or financial interests.

The Board was ordered to disclose the record in its entirety.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board for records relating to a charge laid against him.

After receiving partial access, the appellant appealed, arguing that additional responsive records, specifically certain police officers' notebook entries, existed.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the searches conducted by the Police, including additional searches prompted by the appeal, and concluded that the Police had made a reasonable effort to identify responsive records as required by section 17(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester appealed the Guelph Police Services Board's decision to deny access to internal police memoranda pertaining to the requester's employment.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the requester's personal information but qualified for exemption under section 8(2)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as reports prepared in the course of law enforcement.

The Police's exercise of discretion to withhold the records under section 38(a) was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to specific pricing information and evaluation charts related to a successful bid for supplying photocopiers.

The Ministry and the affected person claimed the records were exempt under sections 17(1)(a) and (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer applied the three-part test for section 17(1) and found that the records contained technical and commercial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the affected person's competitive position.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant made freedom of information requests to the Ministry of Health for the names and addresses of attendees at Medical Information/Computer Forums.

The Ministry disclosed names but severed addresses, claiming they were personal residential addresses of health care providers.

The appellant appealed the severances and the fees charged for severing the records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the addresses constituted personal information under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and that their disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1).

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the fees charged as reasonable and calculated in accordance with section 57(1) of the Act.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to two letters under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The records consisted of a resignation letter and a letter summarizing events leading to a termination of employment, both written by third parties.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information supplied in confidence.

The Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected persons' privacy and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access under section 21 of the Act.

The requester appealed the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board's decision not to process freedom of information requests submitted by fax.

The Police argued that a fax does not satisfy the requirement under section 17(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that a request be 'in writing'.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Act does not restrict the method of transmission or require an original signature, and ordered the Police to process the requests.

The requester appealed the decision of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board to deny access to portions of over 9000 pages of records relating to investigations of the requester.

The Inquiry Officer found that wiretap application records fall outside the scope of the Act due to federal legislative paramountcy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision to withhold the majority of the records under various exemptions, including unjustified invasion of personal privacy, law enforcement exemptions, and information received in confidence from other governments.

However, the Police were ordered to disclose 78 pages that did not qualify for any of the claimed exemptions.

The City of Toronto received a freedom of information request for records relating to a demolished building.

The City decided to disclose invoices and letters provided by the demolition company.

The company appealed, arguing the records were exempt under sections 10(1)(a) and (c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as commercial information supplied in confidence.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence that the information was supplied to the City in confidence, either explicitly or implicitly.

The City was ordered to disclose the records to the requester.

The requester sought access to information regarding an investigation into a pension plan.

The Ministry of Finance refused to confirm or deny the existence of the records under section 14(3) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while the records qualified for the law enforcement exemption under sections 14(1)(a) and (b), the Ministry could not rely on section 14(3) to refuse to confirm or deny their existence because the fact of the investigation had already been disclosed to the requester.

However, the Ministry's decision to withhold the records under section 49(a) was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records relating to an investigation of a pension plan, pursuant to section 14(3) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the records, if they existed, would qualify for the law enforcement exemptions under sections 14(1)(a) and (b), the Ministry could not rely on section 14(3) because confirming their existence would not communicate exempt information, especially since the investigation was already public knowledge.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision not to disclose the records under section 49(a), as they contained personal information and qualified for exemption.

A requester sought access to a landfill gas utilization proposal submitted by a company to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

The Municipality decided to disclose severed parts of the record.

The company appealed, arguing the remaining information was exempt under section 10(1)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as commercial information.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the appeal, finding that the information remaining at issue did not reveal commercial information or any other type of information listed in section 10(1), and ordered the Municipality to disclose the severed record.

The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a landfill gas utilization proposal submitted by the appellant.

The Municipality decided to disclose severed parts of the record.

The appellant objected, arguing the unsevered parts were exempt under section 10(1)(a) as commercial information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the remaining information did not qualify as commercial information or any other type listed in section 10(1), and ordered the Municipality to disclose the severed record to the requester.

The appellant requested information relating to promotions and job re-classifications in the Design Services Branch of the Management Board Secretariat.

The Secretariat issued a fee estimate of $2,115.00 for 70.5 hours of search time and refused to waive the fee on the basis of financial hardship.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate and the refusal to waive the fee.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Secretariat's decisions, finding the fee estimate reasonable given the complexity of the search and concluding the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence of financial hardship to warrant a fee waiver.

The appellant sought access to records containing the names and details of sexual harassment complaints made against him while he held a maintenance contract with the Management Board Secretariat.

The Secretariat denied access under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of the complainants' personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information but concluded that withholding the identities of the complainants and the substance of the complaints from the respondent in a sexual harassment investigation was not justified.

The Secretariat was ordered to disclose the records to the appellant, with addresses and telephone numbers severed.

A rural citizens' group requested records relating to a landfill site Certificate of Approval from the Ministry of Environment and Energy.

The Ministry issued a fee estimate of $437.20.

The requester sought a fee waiver on the grounds of financial hardship under s. 57(4)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry refused the waiver, and the requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the requester's bank balance at the time of the request was sufficient to cover the costs, and therefore payment would not cause financial hardship.

The appellant requested access to the names and addresses of attendees and invitees of a Ministry of Health forum.

The Ministry disclosed the names but withheld some addresses under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld addresses were residential or mailing addresses of physicians, which qualified as personal information.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access.

The appellant, an ambulance attendant, requested access to a written complaint made against him and his partner.

The Ministry of Health granted partial access, severing personal information under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the severances.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the severed information was personal information relating to individuals other than the appellant and upheld the exemption, but ordered the disclosure of the date and one paragraph that did not contain personal information.