David Goodis

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for records held by the Ontario Provincial Police, specifically referencing the Criminal Investigation Department, Biker Squad, and Investigation Support Bureau.

The Ministry refused to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records pursuant to section 14(3) of the Act.

On appeal, the adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records, if they existed, would qualify for exemption under the law enforcement provisions, and that disclosing the mere existence of such records would convey information that could compromise the effectiveness of a law enforcement activity.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to police records relating to sexual assault allegations against her deceased husband.

The appellant argued she was entitled to the records as the executrix of his estate under section 66(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the request did not relate to the administration of the estate, as the records contained no financial information.

The adjudicator further held that the records contained the personal information of the alleged victims and witnesses, and their disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b) because they were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

A newspaper reporter appealed the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk's decision to deny access to records regarding the restructuring of police services.

The Region claimed exemptions under sections 7(1) (advice or recommendations), 12 (solicitor-client privilege), and 14 (personal privacy) of the applicable freedom of information legislation.

The adjudicator found that portions of the records were exempt under section 7(1) as they contained advice or recommendations, and that several records were exempt under section 12 as they were subject to solicitor-client communication privilege.

The adjudicator also found that certain records contained personal information exempt under section 14.

The adjudicator considered the public interest override under section 16 but concluded that the public interest in disclosure did not clearly outweigh the purpose of the exemptions.

The Region was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the records.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Natural Resources for records relating to the settlement of litigation involving a named individual, the Village of Grand Bend, and the province.

The Ministry denied access to numerous records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, solicitor-client privilege, third party information, and personal privacy.

The adjudicator refused to allow the Ministry to raise a late discretionary exemption claim.

Upon reviewing the records, the adjudicator upheld the application of the exemptions to some records but ordered the disclosure of others, finding that the public interest override did not apply.

The appellant submitted a written request for his personal file regarding his candidacy for a police constable position to the human resources department of the Toronto Police Services Board.

The Police declined to process it as a formal access request under the Act, arguing it was submitted to the wrong department and that the records were excluded as employment-related under section 52.

The adjudicator found that the appellant had validly initiated an access request under the Act by submitting it to an employee of the institution and offering the fee.

The Police were ordered to issue a formal decision letter in accordance with Part I of the Act, which would allow the appellant to appeal any section 52 exclusion claim.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Corporation of the County of Prince Edward denying access to records showing contributors to municipal politicians during the last election.

The County claimed the information was exempt under the personal privacy provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the disclosure of names, addresses, and contribution amounts for individuals who contributed over $100 was expressly authorized by the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, and therefore not exempt.

However, information regarding individuals who contributed $100 or less was not required to be filed under the MEA and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The County was ordered to disclose the information for contributors over $100.