Donald Hale

The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation received a freedom of information request for records relating to underwater logging.

The Ministry decided to disclose portions of a record, and a third party appealed, arguing the information was subject to copyright and exempt under sections 17(1) and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that disclosure under the Act does not infringe copyright.

The Adjudicator also held that the personal information in the record did not carry a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the third party failed to establish that the technical information was supplied in confidence.

The appeal was dismissed and the Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Municipality of Bayham for a confidential staff report concerning her property tax arrears, which had been considered during an in-camera municipal council meeting.

The Municipality denied access under section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the adjudicator found that the record contained the appellant's personal information and that its disclosure would reveal the substance of the council's in-camera deliberations.

The adjudicator also determined that the exception in section 6(2)(b) did not apply because the specific deliberations occurred in a closed session from which the appellant was excused.

The Municipality's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant sought access to records compiled by the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) regarding the death of her sister while in police custody.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to most records under the personal privacy and law enforcement exemptions.

The appellant claimed a right of access as the deceased's personal representative under section 66(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found the appellant failed to establish she was the personal representative and that the records did not relate to the administration of the estate.

The Adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding the records were exempt under the personal privacy exemption as they were compiled during a law enforcement investigation, and the public interest override did not apply.

The appellant, an investigator for a life insurance company, submitted a freedom of information request to the Niagara Regional Police Service for a police report concerning the sudden death of a woman.

The Police denied access under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The appellant argued he had authorization from the deceased's sister, acting as administrator of the estate.

The Adjudicator found that the sister did not qualify as a 'personal representative' under section 54(a) of the Act because she had not been formally appointed as an executor or administrator.

Furthermore, the records were compiled during an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b).

The Police's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant made a broad request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Port Colborne for records relating to the farming operations and proposed subdivision of property owned by several affected persons.

The City denied access to numerous records, claiming exemptions for economic interests, solicitor-client privilege, closed meetings, personal privacy, and third-party information.

The adjudicator found that the City waived solicitor-client privilege by disclosing the records during an Ontario Municipal Board proceeding.

The adjudicator upheld the personal privacy exemption for records containing highly sensitive personal information and tax collection data, but ordered the disclosure of the remaining records, finding that the City and affected persons failed to establish the requirements for the other claimed exemptions.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to his payment of alimony and support, and any reporting by the Ministry to credit agencies.

The Ministry granted partial access, and the appellant appealed, arguing that additional records reflecting communications with credit bureaus should exist.

The Adjudicator found that while the Ministry's initial search was inadequate, the records sought no longer exist due to a one-year retention period, and the search undertaken during mediation was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought access to a police occurrence report regarding an alleged sexual assault involving her young son.

The Toronto Police Services Board denied access to portions of the report, citing the invasion of privacy exemption.

The adjudicator found that the withheld portions contained personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption of an unjustified invasion of privacy.

While one affected person consented to the disclosure of her statement, the adjudicator upheld the police's decision to withhold the remaining information, finding no compelling public interest that outweighed the privacy exemption.

The appellant sought access to records relating to the taxation of Gold Loans, hedging transactions, and the calculation of profit under the Mining Tax Act.

The Ministry of Finance denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, intergovernmental relations, third party information, tax return information, and solicitor-client privilege.

The Adjudicator refused to allow the Ministry to raise additional discretionary exemptions late in the process.

Applying the dominant purpose test for litigation privilege, the Adjudicator found that some records were exempt while others were not.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose portions of the records that did not qualify for the claimed exemptions.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Finance for records relating to pay equity funding for the broader public sector.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under the employment-related matters exclusion in section 65(6)3.

The Adjudicator found that because the employees affected by the pay equity funding are employed by broader public sector employers and not the government, there is no employment relationship.

Consequently, the records do not relate to labour relations or employment-related matters within the meaning of the exclusion.

The Ministry was ordered to issue an access decision.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Toronto Police Services Board for all records relating to himself.

The Police disclosed some records but the appellant appealed, arguing that additional records should exist regarding specific occurrences.

The Adjudicator found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search of their databases and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant requested access to a police occurrence report regarding the sudden death of her son.

The Toronto Police Services Board denied access, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The appellant argued she was entitled to the records as the estate trustee under section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that while the appellant was the personal representative, her request was primarily motivated by a personal desire to understand her son's death rather than the administration of his estate.

The Adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, concluding that the records were exempt from disclosure as their release would constitute an unjustified invasion of the deceased's personal privacy.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care's decision to deny access to a report prepared by the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council (HPRAC) regarding the regulation of acupuncture.

The Ministry claimed the report was exempt under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as it contained advice or recommendations.

The Adjudicator found that while the report contained advice and recommendations, it fell within the mandatory exception in section 13(2)(k) because HPRAC is a council attached to the Ministry established for the purpose of making reports or recommendations.

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

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to various employment, grievance, and workers' compensation records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The City claimed the records were excluded from the Act under the labour relations and employment-related matters exclusion in section 52(3)3.

The adjudicator found that the records related to ongoing grievances, a WSIB claim, and harassment complaints, engaging the City's legal interest.

The adjudicator upheld the City's decision to deny access and found that the City had conducted a reasonable search for the requested records.

The appellant submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of the Environment.

The Ministry granted partial access subject to a fee, which the appellant paid.

When the Ministry failed to disclose the records, the appellant appealed on the basis of a deemed refusal.

The adjudicator found that the Ministry breached its obligations under section 26 of the Act by failing to disclose the records after the fee was paid, and ordered immediate disclosure.

The appellants, parents of a young boy killed in a motor vehicle accident involving an on-duty police officer, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) investigation.

The adjudicator found that some records contained no personal information or only the appellants' personal information and ordered their disclosure.

For records containing third-party personal information, the adjudicator upheld the privacy exemptions under sections 21(1) and 49(b), except where witnesses consented to disclosure or where withholding information already known to the appellants would produce an absurd result.

The adjudicator rejected the application of the law enforcement report exemption to the remaining factual records and found that the public interest override did not apply, as the appellants' interest was purely private.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for copies of proposals submitted in response to a Ministry of Natural Resources Request for Proposals for consulting services, along with the Ministry's evaluation documentation.

The Ministry denied access under the third-party information exemptions in sections 17(1)(a) and (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that pricing information, unique methodologies, and client lists contained in the proposals qualified as commercial information supplied in confidence, and that their disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the affected parties' competitive positions.

However, the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of the names and titles of the consultants, finding no reasonable expectation of harm from their release.

The appellant sought access to police records relating to his arrest and detention, alleging physical and sexual assault by police officers.

The Toronto Police Services Board denied access, citing various exemptions including invasion of privacy.

In an interim order, the adjudicator found the Police failed to properly exercise their discretion under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and ordered them to do so.

The Police subsequently provided representations balancing the appellant's right of access against the privacy interests of other individuals, concluding the balance favoured privacy protection.

The adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, finding the exercise of discretion was proper and in accordance with the Act.

The appellant made a freedom of information request for unapproved municipal council minutes.

The Municipality agreed to disclose the minutes and provided them within 16 days of the council meeting, well within the 30-day limit prescribed by section 19 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing that section 74 of the Municipal Act requires disclosure 'within a reasonable time', which she interpreted as faster than the 30-day limit to allow for public scrutiny before the next council meeting.

The adjudicator dismissed the appeal, finding that the Municipality fully complied with its statutory obligations under section 19 of the Act by responding within 30 days.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board for records relating to a sexual assault investigation involving his wife at a nursing home.

The Police granted partial access but withheld certain information under the personal privacy and law enforcement exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, finding that the withheld information consisted of the personal information of other identifiable individuals compiled during a law enforcement investigation, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of their personal privacy under section 38(b).

The appellant appealed a decision by the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board to deny access to portions of records relating to her 1979 sexual assault complaint.

The Police withheld the information under the invasion of privacy exemptions in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, finding that the withheld information consisted of the personal information of other individuals compiled during a law enforcement investigation, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of their personal privacy under section 38(b) of the Act.