Asfaw Seife

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Commissioners of Police denying access to certain records relating to his arrest.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records did not contain personal information and ordered their disclosure.

For records containing the appellant's personal information, the Police claimed they were received in confidence from the RCMP via the CPIC database.

The Inquiry Officer found insufficient evidence that the RCMP supplied the information and ordered its disclosure.

Records containing the personal information of other individuals were withheld under the mandatory privacy exemption.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to deny access to records compiled during an investigation by the Ontario Insurance Commission and the Ontario Securities Commission into the requester's conduct.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the requester's personal information.

However, the majority of the records were exempt from disclosure under section 14(1)(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act because their release would disclose the identity of a confidential source.

Other records were exempt under section 15(b) as information received in confidence from the RCMP, and under section 13(1) as advice or recommendations.

The Ministry's exercise of discretion to refuse disclosure was upheld, except for two pages which were ordered to be disclosed with severances.

The appellant sought access to the name, address, telephone number, date of birth, and business address of a witness to a fatal motor vehicle accident.

The Ministry withheld this information under the personal information exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information qualified as personal information and that its disclosure was presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b), as it was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records regarding OC Transpo's records description, personal information banks directory, and record retention by-law schedules under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

OC Transpo provided several records, but the appellant appealed, believing more current versions of a policy document existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that OC Transpo had conducted several thorough searches and concluded that the search was reasonable in the circumstances, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant requested corrections to a Special Investigation Report prepared by the Ministry of Transportation.

The Ministry deleted the disputed statements from the record.

The appellant appealed, arguing that deletion was not an acceptable method of correction.

The Inquiry Officer found that only two of the requested corrections related to the appellant's personal information.

The Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, concluding that deletion was an appropriate method of correction in the circumstances and complied with section 47(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester appealed a deemed refusal by the Metro Toronto Licensing Commission regarding a request for her personal information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commission later claimed exemptions under sections 12, 14, and 38(a).

The Inquiry Officer found that while some records contained personal information of other individuals, their names could be severed under section 4(2) to allow disclosure.

The Officer also rejected the Commission's claim of solicitor-client privilege under section 12, finding the records were not prepared with the dominant purpose of contemplation of litigation.

The Commission was ordered to disclose the records with necessary severances.

The appellant, an employee of the Metro Toronto Licensing Commission, requested access to documents relating to an allegation of assault she made at her workplace.

The Commission denied access to several records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing exemptions for advice or recommendations, solicitor-client privilege, and personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the exemptions for advice and recommendations and personal privacy for certain records.

However, the Inquiry Officer rejected the solicitor-client privilege exemption, finding the records were not prepared with the dominant purpose of contemplating litigation, and ordered their disclosure.

The requesters appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to deny access to 11 records relating to their complaint about an insurance company's handling of a disability claim.

The Inquiry Officer found that portions of one record contained personal information exempt under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Several records were found to be exempt under section 19 as they were prepared by Crown Counsel for legal advice, and one record was exempt under section 13(1) as it contained advice to government.

However, the Ministry was ordered to disclose severed portions of six issue sheets and the names of insurance companies, as they did not qualify for exemption.

The public interest override in section 23 was found not to apply.

The appellant requested copies of notes and scores from a job re-evaluation committee regarding the position of Council/Committee Secretary.

The City denied access, claiming exemptions under sections 11(c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of harm to its economic or financial interests, and that the records (score sheets and handwritten notes) did not constitute plans, policies, or negotiation positions.

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

A student requested access to a letter written by a police officer to their college complaining about the student's conduct.

The police denied access under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the police made no representations.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information of both the requester and the police officer.

Weighing the privacy interests under section 38(b), the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of the police officer's personal privacy and ordered the record disclosed.

The appellant appealed the College's decision to deny access to an internal memorandum concerning a complaint of unethical conduct against the appellant.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information but its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's privacy.

However, one sentence of the record qualified as advice or recommendations under section 13(1) and was exempt under section 49(a).

The College was ordered to disclose the record with that single sentence severed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Education and Training for documentation regarding communications between school board officials and the Ministry.

The Ministry stated no records existed regarding the communications.

The appellant appealed, arguing the search was inadequate.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Ministry's affidavit detailing its search efforts and concluded that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate the requested records.

The search was found to be reasonable.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Norfolk Board of Education.

The Board issued an interim decision with a fee estimate of $100, later revised to $80, and denied a fee waiver.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate and the interim access decision.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the reasonableness of its fee estimate under section 45(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Board's use of an interim decision was improper, as the estimated search time did not justify delaying a final access decision.

The Board was ordered to issue a final access decision without charging any fees.

The appellants requested access to the qualifications of a teacher's aide hired by the Board.

The Board denied access under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the records contained personal information.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Board's decision, finding that the requested application and resume contained personal information relating to employment and educational history, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's privacy.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to Niagara College for the dollar values of bids submitted for a security services tender.

The College denied access to the bid amounts under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing they were commercial information supplied in confidence.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the College's decision, finding that the three-part test for exemption under section 17(1)(a) was met, as disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the competitive position of the affected bidders.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Environment for records relating to chemical levels in municipal wells.

After narrowing the request to records held at the Ministry's Drinking Water Section in Toronto, the appellant appealed on the basis that additional records should exist.

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

The appellant requested access to the correct answers for interview and written questions from three job competitions in which she was a candidate.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services denied access under sections 18(1)(f) and (g) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the correct answers had already been put into operation and were not part of proposed plans or policies.

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

The requester appealed a decision by the Ministry of Education regarding a fee estimate of $3,040.00 and the denial of a fee waiver for a broad request seeking records related to the integration and segregation of disabled children in the school system.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's fee estimate, finding the calculation of 70 hours of search time and preparation costs to be reasonable given the massive volume of responsive records.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the denial of the fee waiver, concluding that the requester failed to provide evidence of financial hardship and that the dissemination of the records would not benefit public health or safety.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Correctional Services' decision to deny access to portions of his personal and medical files from four correctional centres.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the withheld temporary absence application records were exempt under section 49(e) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they would reveal information supplied in confidence.

Additionally, a confiscated record was properly withheld under section 14(1)(h) as it was seized by a peace officer during a search authorized by the Ministry of Correctional Services Act.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Ottawa Board of Commissioners of Police to sever portions of records responsive to her request for her personal information.

The severed information included the address, telephone number, date of birth, and personal reference number of other individuals identified as suspects in a criminal investigation.

The Inquiry Officer found that the police search for records was reasonable, the severed information qualified as personal information, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the other individuals under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The decision of the Police was upheld.