David Goodis

The appellants appealed a decision by the Ministry of Health denying access to an ambulance call report concerning their deceased daughter.

The Ministry claimed the record was exempt under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the record contained medical information subject to the presumed invasion of privacy under section 21(3)(a), and that the remaining information was highly sensitive under section 21(2)(f).

Despite unlisted factors weighing moderately in favour of disclosure, the adjudicator concluded that the privacy interests prevailed and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access.

The appellants requested the name of a driver involved in a motor vehicle incident from the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services.

The Ministry denied access under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the requested information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation into a possible violation of the Highway Traffic Act, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 21(3)(b).

The appellant, a Township Councillor, submitted a freedom of information request to the Township of King for survey records regarding septic tank problems.

The survey was conducted by a sub-consultant retained by a consultant for an environmental assessment study jointly undertaken by the Township and the Regional Municipality of York.

The Township denied access, claiming it did not have custody or control of the records, as the sub-consultant refused to release them citing confidentiality.

The adjudicator found that the Township had control of the records within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, given its statutory mandate, agency relationship with the consultants, and reliance on the records.

The Township was ordered to direct the sub-consultant to provide the records and to issue an access decision.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Board denying access to two pages of a complaint review file concerning a veterinarian.

The Board claimed the records were exempt under the law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the records contained highly sensitive personal information about professional misconduct complaints against various veterinarians, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator also found that the records could not reasonably be severed, and upheld the Board's decision to withhold the records in their entirety.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $118.50 issued by the Town of Amherstburg for processing a freedom of information request for various municipal records, including police budgets and committee minutes.

The adjudicator reviewed the estimated search times for six items and found some to be unreasonable, particularly for records that should be easily retrievable or were located off-site.

The fee estimate was reduced to $83.50.

The appellant requested access to records relating to the Trillium Lakelands District School Board's transportation and walking policies, and requested a fee waiver on the basis that disclosure would benefit public health and safety.

The Board denied the fee waiver and issued a fee estimate of $1,970.00.

On appeal, the adjudicator found that the appellant made a strong case for a fee waiver under section 45(4)(c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as the new school bus policy raised serious safety concerns in the community.

However, the adjudicator found it fair and equitable to waive fees only for records directly relating to the safety issue, and not for overly broad historical records.

The Board was ordered to issue a revised fee estimate for the remaining records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Kitchener for records relating to the pre-qualification of bidders for a new fire department headquarters.

The City denied access to evaluation records held by its architect, claiming they were not in the City's custody or control.

On appeal, the adjudicator applied a purposive approach to the concept of control under section 4(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the architect acted as the City's agent in the pre-qualification process, which was directly connected to the City's statutory function.

Consequently, the records were under the City's control, and the City was ordered to direct the architect to produce them for an access decision.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Mississauga for property inspection reports.

The City denied access to certain reports, claiming they were exempt as law enforcement reports under section 8(2)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the records were mere observations and recordings of fact, not formal 'reports' within the meaning of the exemption.

The Commissioner also found that the records did not contain exempt third party information under section 10(1).

The City was ordered to disclose the records.

The requester appealed the York Catholic District School Board's decision to deny access to portions of a record concerning the pre-qualification of contractors for a school construction project, and its claim that no other responsive records existed.

The adjudicator found that records held by the Board's architect relating to the pre-qualification process were under the Board's 'control' for the purposes of the Act, given the statutory framework and the agency relationship.

The adjudicator also found that the withheld scoring information in the identified record did not qualify for the third-party information exemption because it was generated by the architect rather than 'supplied' by the contractors, and no reasonable expectation of harm was established.

The Board was ordered to disclose the withheld information and to direct the architect to produce additional responsive records for an access decision.

The appellant, a lawyer representing a company, appealed the Regional Municipality of York's decision to deny access to three records relating to an environmental investigation of the company.

The Region claimed the records contained personal information supplied in confidence by identifiable individuals, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the records contained personal information about the individuals who provided the information, not just information about the company.

The adjudicator concluded that the information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Region's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury for a letter from the Town's law firm and an attached settlement agreement.

The Town disclosed the settlement agreement but withheld the letter under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The appellant argued that privilege was lost because the Town incorporated the advice into a municipal resolution and the Town's lawyer disclosed the 'bottom line' of the advice.

The adjudicator found that the letter was a confidential communication subject to solicitor-client privilege and that the minimal disclosure of the advice's conclusion did not constitute a waiver of privilege.

The Town's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to a report prepared by the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council regarding the regulation of naturopathy.

The Ministry of Health denied access, claiming exemptions under sections 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 18(1)(g) (economic interests) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that while the report contained advice or recommendations, it fell within the exception in section 13(2)(k) for reports of a body attached to an institution.

The adjudicator also found that section 18(1)(g) did not apply because no policy decision had yet been reached.

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

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to portions of records relating to a land use permit for a cottage on a road allowance.

The Ministry severed names, signatures, and other identifying information under the personal privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the severed information constituted personal information and that its disclosure would result in an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant sought access to two records (an e-mail and a covering letter) submitted to the Ministry of Community and Social Services by independent adoption facilitators.

The Ministry denied access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing exemptions for danger to health or safety and personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the records contained personal information but that disclosure would not threaten anyone's safety.

The adjudicator also found that, with the exception of small portions of highly sensitive information, disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records with the highly sensitive portions severed.

The appellant appealed the Township's decision regarding a freedom of information request for a petition concerning a property standards complaint.

The Township initially disclosed the text and signatures but withheld addresses and telephone numbers without notifying the affected individuals.

The Township later denied access to the entire record.

The Adjudicator found that the record contained personal information and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as it was compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

The Adjudicator also found the Township breached procedural fairness by failing to notify the affected individuals before its initial disclosure.

The Township's second decision to deny access to the entire record was upheld.

The appellant requested records relating to the drafting of two City of Toronto by-laws.

The City denied access to certain records, claiming exemptions for draft by-laws and solicitor-client privilege.

The adjudicator found that most of the draft by-laws were exempt under section 6(1)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as they had not been considered in a public meeting.

The adjudicator also found that the remaining records, consisting of communications among the City's drafting team, were subject to solicitor-client communication privilege under section 12.

However, the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of one draft by-law that had been considered in a public meeting, finding that the City had expressly waived privilege over it.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Pension Commission of Ontario regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to the drafting of an amendment to Regulation 909 under the Pension Benefits Act, and records identifying individuals who accessed a specific pension plan.

The adjudicator upheld the Commission's fee estimate and found that several records were exempt under solicitor-client communication privilege, as they were confidential communications made for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice.

Portions of other records were found exempt under the cabinet records exemption because they revealed the content of draft regulations.

However, the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of the name and organization of a union representative on a plan viewing form, finding that this information related to the individual's representative capacity and did not qualify as personal information.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate and a 'no responsive records' decision issued by the Ontario Human Rights Commission in response to a request for statistical and policy information regarding the Commission's use of section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The adjudicator found that the Commission's fee estimate for preparing records for disclosure was too high, reducing the time estimate from two minutes to one minute per page, and ordered a revised fee estimate.

The adjudicator upheld the Commission's decision that it had conducted a reasonable search for the requested policy records.

The appellant requested the names of three individuals involved in an incident where her son was struck by a baseball, intending to sue them.

The Durham Regional Police Services Board denied access to a supplementary report containing two of the names, citing exemptions for personal privacy and law enforcement reports.

The adjudicator found that the names, addresses, and dates of birth were exempt under section 38(b) as their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy, having been compiled during an investigation into a possible violation of law.

However, the adjudicator found that the remaining information in the report did not qualify as a law enforcement report under section 8(2)(a) and ordered it disclosed after severing the identifying information.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying full access to records relating to an affected person's application for compensation arising from an alleged sexual assault.

The adjudicator found that the records contained highly sensitive personal information of both the appellant and the affected person.

The adjudicator upheld the Board's decision to withhold most of the information under the personal privacy exemption, but ordered the disclosure of one letter granting a time extension, excluding the affected person's address.

The adjudicator also found that the Board erred by failing to notify the affected person before disclosing portions of the records.