Donald Hale

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to various records under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Following an interim order directing the Ministry to provide written representations on its exercise of discretion, the Inquiry Officer reviewed the submissions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry exercised its discretion in accordance with established legal principles and upheld the decision to deny access to the records.

A requester sought access to invoices submitted by a company for sewer work performed for the Regional Municipality of Sudbury.

The Municipality decided to grant access to severed versions of the invoices.

The company appealed, arguing the remaining information was exempt under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third party information.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the information was technical and supplied in confidence, only the hourly rates could reasonably be expected to cause competitive harm if disclosed.

The Municipality was ordered to disclose the remaining severed information.

The appellant appealed a decision by Sheridan College denying access to special agreements regarding the continued employment and retirement of two individuals.

The College claimed the records were exempt under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information and that their disclosure would generally result in an unjustified invasion of privacy, as they detailed retirement terms and financial arrangements.

However, portions describing the employment responsibilities of the individuals fell under the exception in section 21(4)(a) and were ordered disclosed.

The public interest override in section 23 was found not to apply.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for records regarding the payment of monies to a named police informant.

The Ministry initially denied access under various exemptions, and later raised additional discretionary exemptions, including section 21(5) (refusal to confirm or deny the existence of a record).

The Inquiry Officer allowed the late raising of the exemptions, finding no significant prejudice to the appellant.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of the records, concluding that confirming their existence would reveal personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, constituting a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant appealed the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville's decision to deny access to 98 records relating to the enactment of certain by-laws and an Official Plan Amendment.

The Town claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for solicitor-client privilege, draft by-laws, closed meetings, and advice or recommendations.

The Inquiry Officer found that several records were exempt under solicitor-client privilege, closed meeting, and advice or recommendations exemptions.

However, the draft by-law exemption did not apply because the drafts had been considered in public meetings.

The Town was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records to the appellant.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Niagara Regional Police Services Board to deny access to records relating to the criminal record of a named individual.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for law enforcement and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The decision of the Police to deny access was upheld.

The appellant, a police officer, requested access to records relating to an investigation by the Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner into complaints made against him.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, and personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer declined to consider discretionary exemptions raised late in the appeals process.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were exempt under the personal privacy and solicitor-client privilege exemptions, but ordered the disclosure of other records that did not qualify as law enforcement reports or where disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The appellant, a police officer, made a freedom of information request for records relating to a criminal investigation he conducted and subsequent complaints made against him.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to numerous records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that some records were exempt under the personal privacy and solicitor-client privilege exemptions, but ordered the disclosure of several records that had already been copied to or supplied by the appellant, as their disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Ministry was ordered to provide further representations on the application of section 49(b) to certain records.

The appellant appealed the Regional Municipality of Peel's decision to deny access to a report prepared by a company, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer first determined that the Commissioner had independent jurisdiction to review the access request despite a related civil action.

The Officer found that solicitor-client privilege was lost when the cross-claim between the Municipality and the company was settled.

However, the Officer upheld the decision to deny access, finding the record was exempt as third party information because its disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the company's competitive position.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to a letter sent to the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee by an affected person.

The Ministry claimed the record was exempt under sections 21 and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained highly sensitive personal information supplied in confidence by the affected person.

Weighing the factors, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the factors favouring privacy protection outweighed those favouring disclosure, and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to the investigation into the sudden death of his son.

The Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police denied access, citing law enforcement and privacy exemptions.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the records were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Criminal Code, and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to an OPP report concerning the re-investigation of her son's death.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The public interest override did not apply, and the Ministry could not waive the mandatory privacy rights of the individuals involved.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

A local media outlet requested access to audit reports regarding the financial affairs of the Peterborough Memorial Centre.

The request was transferred to the Peterborough Community Police Services Board, which denied access under the law enforcement exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that the records qualified for exemption under section 8(1)(b) because their disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement investigation.

The appellant requested records relating to an Ontario Securities Commission investigation into a real estate development.

The Ministry of Finance, on behalf of the OSC, responded that no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing the search was inadequate.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to provide sufficient evidence of a reasonable search, as it did not detail whether relevant files were located or examined.

The OSC was ordered to conduct a further search and issue a new decision letter.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board received a freedom of information request for a contract and tender documents related to Collision Reporting Centres.

The Police decided to disclose portions of the tender documents, and the affected third party company appealed, claiming various exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer held that the third party could not raise discretionary exemptions not claimed by the Police.

Applying the mandatory exemptions, the Inquiry Officer found that certain pages containing technical and commercial information supplied in confidence were exempt under section 10(1), and the date of birth of the company's president was exempt as personal information under section 14(1).

The Police were ordered to disclose the remaining portions of the records.

The appellant, an unsuccessful tenderer, appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to the successful bidder's proposal submission under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry and the successful bidder claimed the record was exempt under section 17(1) as third party information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained technical and commercial information supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the successful bidder's competitive position.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellants submitted a freedom of information request to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board for records relating to an investigation that resulted in the criminal conviction of a police officer.

The Police denied access to several records, citing law enforcement, invasion of privacy, and relations with other governments exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that most records were exempt under the presumed unjustified invasion of privacy for law enforcement investigations.

However, applying the absurd result principle, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of records containing information originally supplied by the appellants themselves.

The CPIC printout was found exempt as information received in confidence from the RCMP.

The Ministry of Health decided to disclose the medical records of two children to their non-custodial father, who had access rights.

The children's mother appealed the decision, arguing that disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that section 20(5) of the Children's Law Reform Act expressly authorizes an access parent to receive information regarding the health of their children.

Therefore, the exception in section 21(1)(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applied, and the records were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant, who was convicted of a young girl's murder, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to parts of a forensic sciences report under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information related to the deceased's medical history and was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumptions against disclosure in sections 21(3)(a) and (b).

The Ministry's decision to deny access under section 49(b) was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to various records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requested records related to the Ministry's management of grievances and a human rights complaint involving the appellant.

The Ministry claimed exemptions based on economic and other interests, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were exempt under sections 18(1)(e), 19, 21, and 49(b) of the Act, while others did not qualify for exemption.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records to the appellant.