Asfaw Seife

The appellant requested a fee waiver for an access to information request due to financial hardship.

The Municipality reduced the fee from $107.50 to $76.50 but refused to waive the remainder.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Municipality's decision, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that payment of the reduced fee would cause financial hardship and that the Municipality's decision was fair and equitable.

The requester, acting as solicitor for Arthur Township, appealed the Ministry of Municipal Affairs' decision to deny access to the names and addresses of individuals who signed a petition requesting an inquiry into the Township's administration.

The Ministry claimed the information was exempt under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the record contained personal information, its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, noting the public nature of petitions.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant requested access to records concerning two homicide investigations that contained their personal information.

The Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board denied access to a portion of a supplementary report, citing law enforcement exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information and that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal the identity of a confidential source in a law enforcement matter under section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police's exercise of discretion under section 38(a) to withhold the information was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

The requester appealed the City of Toronto's fee estimate for a freedom of information request seeking records of a fire at her residence between 1968 and 1981.

The City could not locate the records because its manual index was organized by date, not address, and the requester could not provide a specific date.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner reviewed the City's search efforts, which included checking computer databases and manual indices for the relevant years.

The Commissioner found that the City had conducted a reasonable search for the responsive records under section 17(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry of Environment and Energy received a freedom of information request for records submitted by a pulp mill company pursuant to an environmental Control Order.

The Ministry decided to disclose the records, and the company appealed, arguing the records were exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as their disclosure could prejudice its competitive position or result in undue loss.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the appeal, finding that while the records contained technical information supplied in confidence, the company failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence that disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in the alleged harms.

The requester, a solicitor for a city that was the respondent in a human rights complaint, appealed the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to deny access to an investigation file under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the denial of access, finding that the records related to an ongoing investigation and their disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter under section 14(1)(b) of the Act.

The appellant requested records from the Township of Mariposa relating to specific council meetings.

The Township provided a fee estimate of $390.00 for search and preparation time, which the appellant appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Township failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate its fee estimate, noting that the estimate of three hours per councillor was not reasonable and improperly combined search and preparation time.

The Township was ordered to process the request without charging a fee.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Halton Board of Education for five years of detailed expense accounts, including receipts and invoices, for five named individuals.

The Board issued a fee estimate of $10,677.60 and denied the appellant's request for a fee waiver.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the records should be available free of charge under section 207(4) of the Education Act as 'current accounts', and alternatively, that the fee should be waived due to financial hardship.

The Inquiry Officer found that the requested records were not 'current accounts' and that the fee provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applied.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's decision not to waive the fee, finding it would not be fair and equitable given the voluminous nature of the request, the appellant's refusal to narrow the scope, and the significant burden it would place on the Board.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Health for personal and general records relating to the Consumer-Survivor Development Initiative and various mental health organizations.

The Ministry granted partial access, severing some information as the personal information of others, and stated no further records existed.

The appellant appealed, questioning the severances and the adequacy of the search.

The Inquiry Officer found the severed information was outside the scope of the request as it related to other individuals.

The Officer also concluded the Ministry's search was reasonable, but ordered the disclosure of a progress report and meeting notes that the Ministry located during the appeal process.

The requester appealed the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board's decision to deny access to portions of a police investigation file regarding a suspicious death.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and upheld the Police's decision to deny access.

The appellant requested copies of an audit report regarding the operations of the Toronto Board of Education.

The Board claimed the record did not exist and failed to locate it.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board did not conduct a reasonable search, as it failed to consult the accounting firm mentioned in the request and its solicitors misunderstood the scope of the request.

The Board was ordered to conduct a further search.

The requester appealed the Town of Parkhill's decision to deny access to an employee attendance record showing the vacation and sick days taken by the Town Clerk.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained the personal information of the Town Clerk under section 2(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer further held that the mandatory exemption under section 14(1) applied, as disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Town's decision was upheld.

The Inquiry Officer issued a Final Order disposing of the outstanding issue from an interim order, which required the Ministry of Health to conduct a further search for responsive records and provide a detailed affidavit.

The Ministry provided an affidavit from the Assistant Director of the Drug Programs Branch, detailing the searches conducted and explaining the non-existence of certain factual information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records and concluded that the search was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $934.40 issued by the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission for processing a freedom of information request for pension policy agreements and reports.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the fee estimate under section 45(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The search fee and a portion of the preparation fee were disallowed due to lack of supporting evidence.

The preparation fee for severing personal information was reduced to $0.50 per page, and the photocopying fee was set at $0.20 per page.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to portions of records relating to a specific product.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 14, 19, and 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the withheld records contained personal information of other individuals, qualified as law enforcement reports, and were subject to solicitor-client privilege as they were prepared by Crown counsel for use in litigation.

The requester appealed the City of Brockville's decision to deny access to the results of a physical test and its claim that general knowledge test results were not kept for a firefighter/mechanic job competition.

The Inquiry Officer found that the general knowledge tests had been destroyed prior to the interviews.

The Inquiry Officer also determined that the physical test scores of the successful candidate constituted personal information and that their disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The City's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for records relating to a product known as 'Skratch'.

The Ministry released some records and the appellant appealed, arguing that more responsive records existed.

During mediation, the Ministry conducted further searches but located no additional records.

The sole issue on appeal was whether the Ministry's search was reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Ministry's representations detailing four separate searches and concluded that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested records relating to a product known as 'Skratch' from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

The Ministry advised that no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing the search was inadequate.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Ministry's affidavit detailing the extensive searches conducted and concluded that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate the records.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to an offer of assistance to a law firm in 1974.

The Ministry failed to issue a decision within 30 days, resulting in a deemed refusal appeal.

During the appeal, the Ministry indicated that only one responsive record existed and that a further search would require a fee.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search was reasonable given the broad nature of the request and the age of the records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Health for records relating to cost savings from capping drug manufacturers' price increases.

The Ministry failed to issue a decision within 30 days, resulting in a deemed refusal appeal.

During mediation, the Ministry denied access to a single record, claiming it was a Cabinet Submission.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate it had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records, as required by section 24(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct a further search and provide a detailed affidavit.