Asfaw Seife

The appellant requested access to personal information held by the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

The Municipality denied access to six records, claiming exemption under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

During mediation, one record was released.

The Inquiry Officer found that the remaining five records contained personal information but were exempt from disclosure under sections 12 and 38(a) because they were prepared for counsel in contemplation of or for use in litigation related to a grievance proceeding.

The Municipality's decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to two internal memoranda regarding an investigation of alleged irregularities at a cemetery.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records met the three-part test for the law enforcement exemption, as they were reports prepared in the course of an investigation by an agency enforcing the Cemeteries Act.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The Ministry of Housing received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to unit prices of successful bidders for a janitorial supplies contract.

The Ministry denied access to the unit prices under sections 17(1)(a) and (c) of the Act.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the unit price information was commercial information supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the competitive position of the affected persons.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to the name of the individual who filed a by-law complaint against them with the City of Etobicoke.

The City denied access to the complainant's identity under section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that the by-law enforcement process qualifies as law enforcement and that the release of the record would disclose the identity of a confidential source of information.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for purchase orders relating to computer hardware and software at an adult computer training centre.

The Board provided some purchase orders, but the appellant appealed, arguing that additional records should exist.

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

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Thunder Bay Police Services Board denying access to portions of records relating to an investigation of an alleged assault on his mother.

The Police claimed the severed information, consisting of names of hospital personnel, was exempt as personal information under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the names related to the individuals' professional responsibilities and did not qualify as personal information.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search for a missing supplementary report.

The Police were ordered to disclose the severed information.

The appellant requested a copy of a consultant's report relating to the Township's staffing systems under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Township denied access, claiming the section 11(f) exemption for plans relating to the management of personnel.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Township failed to discharge its burden of proof, as it provided no evidence or arguments to support its claim.

Upon reviewing the record, the Inquiry Officer determined it was a consultant's report providing advice, not a detailed plan or scheme.

The Township was ordered to disclose the non-personal information portions of the record.

The appellant requested access to allegations or representations made by individuals opposing his leasing of government-owned land.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the record containing the personal information of an affected person who had complained to the Ministry.

The Inquiry Officer found that the severed information constituted personal information and that its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of the affected person's privacy, as the information was supplied in confidence.

The Ministry's decision to deny access under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was upheld.

The appellant requested copies of correspondence between his M.P.P. and the Ontario Human Rights Commission regarding a complaint against Laurentian University.

The Commission disclosed one letter and stated no further responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing additional records must exist based on the contents of the disclosed letter.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Commission's affidavit detailing its search efforts and concluded that the search for responsive records was reasonable.

The Ministry of Natural Resources received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to a five-year contract for growing tree seedlings.

The Ministry denied access to certain records under the mandatory exemption for third party commercial information in section 17(1)(a).

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while the records contained commercial and financial information, the affected person failed to establish that the information was supplied in confidence or that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice its competitive position.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant requested a building permit for a boat house from the Township of Orillia.

The Township located a renovation permit but advised that the original building permit did not exist.

The appellant appealed, arguing the search was inadequate.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Township had conducted a reasonable search, supported by affidavit evidence detailing searches of computerized systems, physical files, and destruction reports.

The appeal was dismissed.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to portions of a prosecution case file and exhibits from a criminal trial involving the requester.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld records contained personal information and were properly exempt under section 19 (solicitor-client and Crown counsel privilege) and section 49(b) (unjustified invasion of personal privacy of witnesses).

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant, a teacher at Centennial College, requested access to student complaints regarding his teaching performance.

The College disclosed a redacted version of a student's complaint letter but withheld the student's identity under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing the College failed to conduct a reasonable search for other records and that he required the student's identity to seek legal redress.

The Inquiry Officer found that the College's search was reasonable, the withheld information constituted personal information supplied in confidence, and its disclosure would result in an unjustified invasion of the student's personal privacy.

The College's decision was upheld.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Environment for records relating to complaints against a paving and excavating company.

The Ministry granted partial access and assessed a fee of $37.50.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision not to waive the fee, claiming financial hardship and that dissemination of the record would benefit public health.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the appellant failed to provide any evidence to support his claim for a fee waiver under section 57(4) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to records relating to criminal charges against two individuals.

The Police decided to release certain information, and the two individuals appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

As the presumption was not rebutted, the Police were ordered not to disclose the records.

The appellant requested records relating to a 1989 meeting at her residence with two police officers.

The York Regional Police claimed no such records existed.

The appellant appealed, asserting that the officers took notes and used a tape recorder.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed affidavits from both parties and concluded that the Police had conducted a reasonable search for the requested records.

The appellant requested records from the City of Toronto relating to property disputes with an adjoining neighbour.

The City denied access to several pages of correspondence between the City and the neighbour's solicitor, claiming exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information of both the appellant and the neighbour.

Applying the section 38(b) exemption, the Officer determined that records supplied in confidence by the neighbour's solicitor were exempt from disclosure as their release would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

However, administrative records such as meeting notices were ordered disclosed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police to deny access to parts of a record concerning an investigation of allegations of criminal conduct against the appellant.

The Inquiry Officer found that the severed parts of the record contained personal information of both the appellant and an affected person.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure of the information would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's personal privacy under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as the information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The Police's decision to deny access was upheld, though some pages were ordered disclosed as agreed during mediation.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to funding assistance for litigation in 1978.

The Ministry failed to respond within the 30-day time limit, resulting in a deemed refusal under section 29(4) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

During the appeal process, the Ministry conducted a search and determined that no responsive records existed, noting that financial records from that time period would have been destroyed in accordance with retention schedules.

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