David Goodis

The appellant requested access to an itemized list of expenses and claims filed by a named individual from the London Police Services Board.

The Police denied access, claiming the records were exempt under the law enforcement exemption as they related to an ongoing investigation.

The adjudicator found that while the records fell within the scope of the Act as expense accounts, they were exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(a) because their release could reasonably be expected to interfere with ongoing investigations under the Police Services Act and the Criminal Code.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Waterloo Regional Police Services Board denying access to portions of an occurrence report and an officer's notebook relating to a specific incident.

The Police withheld information under the personal privacy exemption and advised that one officer's notebook was lost.

The adjudicator found that the withheld information contained the personal information of an affected person compiled during a law enforcement investigation, and its disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Act.

The adjudicator also found that the Police conducted a reasonable search for records, accepting the sworn affidavit of the officer who lost his notebook.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought access to a police occurrence report regarding an investigation into harassing phone calls.

The Halton Regional Police Service granted partial access, withholding portions containing the personal information of other individuals under the personal privacy exemption in section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the withheld information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and its disclosure was presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The appellant submitted two requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to Trent University's application for infrastructure funding under the SuperBuild Growth Fund program.

The Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities granted partial access, withholding portions of records under the Cabinet records, advice to government, and personal privacy exemptions.

The appellant appealed, challenging the exemptions, the reasonableness of the search, and the fee estimate, and argued that the public interest override applied.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decisions, finding that the search was reasonable, the exemptions were properly applied, the public interest override did not apply, and the fee estimate was reasonable.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Township of Middlesex Centre for records relating to a water and sewage project.

The Township granted partial access, withheld certain tender documents under the third-party information exemption, and charged a fee of $2,973.20.

On appeal, the adjudicator found the Township's search and method of access were reasonable, but significantly reduced the allowable fees, ordering a refund of $2,493.20.

The adjudicator also ordered the disclosure of most of the withheld tender documents, finding that the affected third parties failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence that disclosure would cause competitive harm.

The appellant appealed a decision by the York Regional Police Service denying access to photographs and negatives of two individuals taken during a law enforcement investigation.

The Police claimed the records were exempt under the personal privacy exemption of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the photographs constituted personal information and that the presumption of an unjustified invasion of personal privacy applied because they were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The decision of the Police to withhold the records was upheld.

The appellant requested access to a May 1999 environmental monitoring report regarding a waste disposal site.

The Township denied access, claiming the request was frivolous or vexatious under section 4(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing the report contained errors, was superseded, and the request was made in bad faith to embarrass the Township.

The adjudicator found the Township failed to establish bad faith or that the request was for a purpose other than to obtain access, noting the appellant had a legitimate interest in comparing the original report to subsequent versions.

The Township was ordered to issue an access decision.

The appellant sought access to OPP records relating to a fire board inquiry.

The Ministry denied access to 31 pages under the personal privacy and solicitor-client privilege exemptions, later dropping the privilege claim.

The adjudicator found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, which is presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b) of the Act.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records with the exempt personal information severed.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Toronto Police Services Board for records related to a 1996 criminal charge against him.

After an initial order granting access to certain records, the appellant requested a reconsideration, arguing that the adjudicator failed to address whether the Police conducted a reasonable search for a specific statement from the complainant.

The adjudicator reconsidered the matter and found that the Police's explanation for the absence of an initial signed statement was reasonable and plausible.

The adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, concluding that a reasonable search had been conducted.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Amherstburg Police Services Board seeking the dollar amounts of legal fees incurred in various matters.

The Police granted partial access but withheld portions of legal accounts and reporting letters, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator upheld the decision, finding that legal bills and reporting letters are confidential communications protected by common law solicitor-client communication privilege, and that partial disclosure did not amount to a waiver of privilege.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care's decision to deny access to the names of individuals contracted to review drug submissions, while granting access to the amounts paid to them.

The Ministry claimed the names were exempt under the personal privacy exemption.

The adjudicator found that the names constituted personal information and that their disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of privacy, as the information was highly sensitive and could expose the reviewers to lobbying or harassment.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the names but ordered a reduction in the fee charged for search time.

The appellant insurer made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General for records held by the Office of the Fire Marshal relating to an arson investigation.

The Ministry denied access, claiming exemptions for law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, and personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the law enforcement and privilege exemptions did not apply, as the OFM's investigation was not for the purpose of enforcing a law or for litigation.

However, the adjudicator upheld the exemption for personal information contained in the records, ordering the disclosure of the records with the personal information severed.

The appellant, an unincorporated association, sought access to information relating to employees of the Township of Southgate under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Township denied access, and the association appealed.

A preliminary issue was raised regarding whether an unincorporated association has the capacity to make a request and file an appeal under the Act.

The adjudicator held that the word 'person' in sections 4(1) and 39(1) of the Act should be given a broad and liberal meaning to include unincorporated associations, consistent with the Act's purpose of making government information available to the public.

The preliminary objection was dismissed, and the appeal was allowed to proceed.

The appellant sought access to the employment contract of a named police employee.

The Police granted partial access but withheld the term of the contract, exact salary, and training requirements under the personal privacy exemption in section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator upheld the decision, finding that the withheld information constituted personal information and did not fall within the exceptions in section 14(4)(a), meaning its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Ottawa for records relating to a Heritage Day event.

The City denied access to a two-page internal e-mail memorandum, claiming it was exempt under section 7(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as advice or recommendations.

On appeal, the adjudicator found that the record consisted of factual statements given in response to specific questions and did not contain advice or recommendations.

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

The appellant, Sierra Legal Defence Fund, appealed the Ministry of the Environment's failure to disclose information regarding environmental non-compliance in accordance with an informal agreement.

The appellant alleged political interference caused delays in the release of the records.

The adjudicator found that the Ministry's conduct in failing to meet agreed-upon timelines was inappropriate and contrary to the public interest.

However, due to the difficulty in identifying responsive records and the breakdown of the informal agreement, the adjudicator dismissed the appeal without prejudice to the appellant's right to make new, specific access requests under the Act.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth for itemized legal bills and consultant/lobbyist invoices related to the Red Hill Creek Expressway.

The Region denied access under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Region's decision, finding that the legal accounts and the consultant invoices, which were integrated into the legal services provided by the law firm, were protected by common law solicitor-client communication privilege.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the City of Toronto for a legal opinion regarding a proposed sewer by-law.

The City denied access under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), which had obtained the opinion and shared it with the City, also claimed the record was exempt under section 10(1)(b) as third party information.

The adjudicator found that the City was not the client and could not claim privilege, and that any privilege the WWF had was waived when it shared the opinion with the City.

The adjudicator also found that the requirements for the third party information exemption were not met.

The City was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to certain records relating to the dairy operations and crop production activities of a specified group of individuals and businesses.

The Ministry and the affected person claimed the records were exempt under sections 17(1)(a) and (c) of the Act as third party information.

The adjudicator found that some records containing scientific, technical, and financial information supplied in confidence met the three-part test for exemption, as disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the affected person's competitive position or result in undue loss.

The remaining records did not meet the harms threshold and were ordered disclosed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the police denying access to certain records related to a criminal charge against him.

The police claimed the records were exempt under section 9(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as information received in confidence from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The adjudicator found that because the criminal litigation had concluded, any privilege attached to the records had terminated and there was no continuing expectation of confidentiality.

The police were ordered to disclose the records.