Donald Hale

The appellant requested access to records respecting complaints about his dogs from the City of Nepean under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The City granted partial access but withheld the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of two complainants, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information was compiled as part of an investigation into possible by-law violations.

Consequently, its disclosure was presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Act.

The City's decision to deny access under section 38(b) was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records relating to dog attacks at a specified address from the City of Scarborough.

The City granted partial access but withheld the name and telephone number of the dog's owner under the personal privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information qualified as personal information and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the dog owner's personal privacy under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as the information was highly sensitive.

The City's decision was upheld.

A former employee of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services requested access to his personnel file and other records.

The Ministry denied access under section 65(6) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the records were excluded from the Act as they related to labour relations and employment proceedings.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records were used and maintained in relation to ongoing proceedings before the Grievance Settlement Board and the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to a witness statement and supplementary police reports related to a murder investigation in which the appellant was a suspect but later exonerated.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

Under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, disclosure of such information is presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, and this presumption could not be rebutted by the appellant's claim that the information was needed for a fair determination of his rights.

The appellant submitted multiple freedom of information requests to the City of Mississauga, including one for records pertaining to the City's Active and Inactive Indexing Record System (ARIS/IRIS) regarding a specific property.

The City denied access, claiming it was only required under section 25 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to maintain and provide a Classes of Records Directory.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the Directory was not responsive to the request.

The Commissioner identified a specific one-page listing of ARIS/IRIS file holdings as the responsive record and ordered the City to issue a proper access decision regarding that document under section 19 of the Act.

The appellant appealed the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's decision that it could not locate a letter sent to its Social Services Division by the appellant's landlord.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner reviewed the affidavit provided by the Municipality detailing the searches undertaken.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Municipality had taken all reasonable steps to locate the requested record and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant submitted a multi-part freedom of information request to Le Conseil des ecoles francais de la communaute urbaine de Toronto under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The institution identified numerous records but subsequently argued that some were not responsive to the request.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the disputed records individually to determine if they were reasonably related to the request.

The Inquiry Officer found that only four of the disputed records were responsive, while the remainder fell outside the scope of the request and would not be considered in the final order.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for all records relating to him, specifically mentioning police investigative notes.

The Ministry asked for clarification, which the appellant did not provide.

The Ministry searched its occurrence database using the appellant's name but found no records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the request lacked sufficient specificity to allow a broader search and that the Ministry had reasonably fulfilled its duty to assist the appellant in reformulating the request.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a broad request to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board for all records containing his name.

The Police closed the file after the appellant refused to clarify his request.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while the request was not specific enough to locate all potentially responsive records in non-computerized systems, it was sufficiently specific to require the Police to search their current computerized records.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Police had reasonably fulfilled their duty to assist the appellant in reformulating his request.

The Police were ordered to conduct a computerized search and issue an access decision.

The appellant, a real estate broker, appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to an anonymous letter of complaint and its envelope under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under the law enforcement and unjustified invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained the appellant's personal information but qualified for exemption under section 14(1)(d) as its disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal the identity of a confidential source in a law enforcement matter.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

A requester appealed the Ministry of Health's refusal to disclose minutes of the Canadian Blood Agency (CBA) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 15(a) (relations with other governments).

The Inquiry Officer first determined the records were in the Ministry's custody.

The Officer upheld the section 15(a) exemption for the discussion portions of the minutes, finding disclosure could prejudice intergovernmental relations.

However, the carried motions were ordered disclosed, subject to severances under section 17 for third-party commercial information supplied in confidence.

The public interest override under section 23 was not established.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for a 'confidential document' referred to during an Examination for Discovery of a Ministry of Health employee.

The Ministry located one document, which the appellant stated was not the requested record, and subsequently advised that no other responsive documents existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing the document must exist based on the discovery transcript.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to identify and locate the requested record, supported by affidavits detailing the search efforts, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to records relating to a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention investigation in which the appellant was a respondent.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13(1), 19, 21, and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of solicitor-client privilege to one record and found that disclosure of several other records would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the original complaint and a summary prepared by the complainant, finding that their release was necessary to ensure an adequate degree of disclosure to the appellant as a respondent to the complaint.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $1,371.20 issued by the Municipality of the Townships of Sherwood, Jones and Burns for processing a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The request sought various financial and payroll records of the Townships' Recreation Committee.

The Inquiry Officer found the estimated time for searching and preparing the records to be unreasonable given the small volume of responsive records.

The fee estimate was reduced to $486.20.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Halton Regional Police Services Board for records of previous dog attacks at a specific address, following an incident where he was attacked by a dog.

The Police initially claimed exemptions but later advised that no responsive records existed other than the report of the appellant's own incident.

The appellant appealed, challenging the reasonableness of the search.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police's search of their telecommunications system using the provided address was reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $5130 provided by the Ministry of Finance for processing a freedom of information request regarding a trust company.

The Ministry estimated 173 hours of search and preparation time to locate and sever responsive records from 14.5 linear feet of complex files.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the files and upheld the fee estimate as reasonable under section 57(5) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed a decision by Humber College of Applied Arts and Technology denying access to tests, quizzes, and examinations for two courses.

The College claimed the records were exempt under section 18(1)(h) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they contained questions to be used in an examination for an educational purpose.

The Inquiry Officer found that the College intended to incorporate the questions into future examinations and that there was a limited amount of information available for testing materials in the courses.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the College's decision to deny access to the records.

The appellant requested access to videotapes of their own polygraph test conducted by the Durham Regional Police Services Board during a sexual assault investigation.

The Police denied access, claiming exemptions for unjustified invasion of personal privacy and discretion to refuse a requester's own information.

The Inquiry Officer found that denying access to information the appellant provided themselves would lead to an absurd result, and thus the invasion of privacy exemption did not apply.

The Police also failed to specify which exemption they relied upon for their discretionary refusal.

The Police were ordered to disclose the videotapes to the appellant.

The appellants requested access to witness statements and the Crown brief related to a stayed criminal prosecution against their deceased step-father for childhood abuse.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to certain pages, citing law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information of affected persons and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

Furthermore, the records prepared by police for the Crown brief qualified for exemption under the solicitor-client privilege exemption (Branch 2).

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records relating to an agreement for the payment of his legal fees by the Crown after charges of conspiracy to commit murder were stayed.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to 154 pages, claiming solicitor-client privilege and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were protected by solicitor-client privilege, settlement privilege, or the invasion of privacy exemption, while others, such as invoices and release documents, were not exempt and ordered their disclosure.