Donald Hale

The appellant, a school board trustee, appealed the fee estimate of $215 provided by the Board for processing a freedom of information request for the chairperson's expense claims.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner reviewed the estimate under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner upheld the estimated search time of two hours but found the preparation time of four and one-half hours unreasonable, reducing it to two and one-half hours based on a standard of two minutes per page.

The Board was ordered to issue an amended fee estimate of $155.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing received a freedom of information request for records relating to the requesters, who were members of a residential artists co-operative.

The Ministry decided to disclose portions of the minutes of two in camera board meetings.

The co-operative appealed the decision, arguing the records were exempt from disclosure as third party information under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer applied the three-part test for the exemption and found that while the records contained commercial or financial information, the co-operative failed to establish that the information was supplied to the Ministry in confidence.

The appeal was dismissed and the Ministry's decision to disclose the records was upheld.

The appellant sought access to records relating to the death of her husband at a hospital.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services granted partial access to a Coroner's Investigation Report, withholding four lines under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the redactions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information contained the personal information of an affected person and was highly sensitive.

Balancing the appellant's right of access against the privacy interests of the affected person, and noting the appellant had already received substantial disclosure, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board denying access to notes, minutes, or transcripts of a Board hearing.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's search for records was reasonable, as no transcripts or minutes are taken at hearings and the Labour Relations Officer's notes had been discarded.

The Inquiry Officer also determined that any notes taken by Board members during the hearing were not in the custody or under the control of the Board, and therefore not accessible under the Act.

The Board's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to portions of records relating to his stay at a psychiatric facility in 1976 and 1977.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that section 49(d) did not apply, but upheld the application of section 49(b) to most of the undisclosed information, as it contained highly sensitive personal information of the appellant's family members.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of portions of the records that pertained only to the appellant and found that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The appellant requested records from the City of Windsor relating to the construction of an addition to a building and any related by-law variance applications.

The City denied access to numerous records, claiming exemptions for solicitor-client privilege, advice or recommendations, closed meetings, and law enforcement.

The Inquiry Officer found that most records were exempt under solicitor-client privilege as they were prepared in contemplation of litigation following the revocation of a building permit.

Some records were exempt as advice or recommendations, while others were ordered disclosed because they did not meet the criteria for the claimed exemptions.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Education and Training's decision that no records existed in response to a request for statistical information relating to the employment of teachers by the Board of Education for the City of Hamilton from 1985 to 1995.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision regarding Letters of Standing, Permanent Letters of Standing, and Probationary and Continuing Education Contracts, finding that the Ministry either could not retrieve the historical data or did not possess the records.

However, the Inquiry Officer found the Ministry's search for Letters of Permission from 1985 to 1988 to be inadequate and ordered a further search.

A requester sought access to a Ministry of Education and Training inspection report regarding a school in France offering Ontario-certified courses.

The Ministry decided to disclose the report in full.

The school appealed, arguing the report was exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third-party information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the report contained observations and impressions about the school's administration, not trade secrets or scientific, technical, commercial, financial, or labour relations information.

As the first part of the three-part test for the section 17(1) exemption was not met, the appeal was dismissed and the Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant requested access to background notes prepared by a Ministry of Labour Employment Standards Officer during an investigation of a former employee's claim for termination and severance pay.

The Ministry denied access under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b).

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as the appellant's interest in disclosure was private rather than public.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of a police investigation file and Crown brief relating to domestic assault charges against him.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the undisclosed personal information of other individuals was exempt under section 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 also found that CPIC transmission access codes were exempt under section 14(1)(l) as their disclosure could facilitate unauthorized access to the CPIC system.

Finally, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the Ministry had conducted a reasonable search for additional records.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to records related to his arrest and conviction for assault with intent to resist arrest.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including relations with other governments and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of certain documents from the Crown Brief but upheld the denial of access to the remaining records, finding that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy or reveal information received in confidence from the RCMP.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Goderich Police Services Board to deny access to a transcript of a telephone conversation between the appellant and the former Chief of Police.

The Police claimed the record was exempt from disclosure under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the transcript contained only the personal information of the former Chief, which was highly sensitive, and that its disclosure could unfairly damage his reputation.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to their human rights investigation file from the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The OHRC disclosed some records but withheld others under the advice or recommendations, law enforcement, and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the OHRC's decision to deny access to most of the withheld records, finding they contained personal information of other individuals compiled during a law enforcement investigation, or qualified as advice or recommendations.

The Inquiry Officer also found the OHRC's search for records was reasonable, but ordered the disclosure of a few pages that did not contain exempt information.

The appellant, who was convicted of criminal acts against a named individual, submitted a freedom of information request to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for a copy of the victim's statement and claim for compensation.

The Board denied access under sections 21 and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's decision, finding that the record contained sensitive medical and financial information subject to presumptions against disclosure, and that the privacy interests of the affected persons outweighed the appellant's right of access to know the case he had to meet in potential subrogation proceedings.

The appellant, a school board trustee, appealed the Board's fee estimate of $665 for processing a freedom of information request for employee expense claims.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner reviewed the fee estimate under section 45(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner disallowed the fee for search time because the appellant had already been granted in-person access to the records, and reduced the record preparation fee to $1.00 per page.

The Board was ordered to provide an amended fee estimate.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records concerning allegations of wrongdoing by public officials.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records contained personal information compiled during a police investigation, making them exempt from disclosure under the invasion of privacy provisions.

However, the Ministry's claim of solicitor-client privilege was rejected because the records were not prepared with the dominant purpose of contemplating litigation.

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

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to probation officer notes compiled during his 18-month probation period.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including invasion of privacy, danger to safety, and confidential correctional records.

The Inquiry Officer declined to consider a late-raised discretionary exemption.

The Officer found that Records 2, 4, and 5 contained highly sensitive information whose disclosure could expose the primary affected person to harm, upholding their exemption under section 49(b).

However, Records 1 and 3 were ordered disclosed as they did not pose a safety risk, were not highly sensitive, and did not reveal information supplied in confidence.

The appellant, representing a newspaper, appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to a record containing information about compensation paid by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to the families of two murder victims.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the record contained personal information, including medical and income details, the disclosure of which would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under sections 21(3)(a) and (f) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant failed to establish a compelling public interest under section 23 to override the privacy exemption.

The appellant sought access to OHIP records relating to his children under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry of Health denied access under the personal privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant was not a custodial parent under section 66(c) of the Act, nor an access parent under section 20(5) of the Children's Law Reform Act, as his access rights had been suspended by court order.

The records contained the children's medical history, and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(a).

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records containing the names, dates of death, and dollar amounts of estates that escheated to the Crown between 1984 and 1994.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the names of the estates, finding it would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to the dollar values and dates of death under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and found the Ministry's search for records from 1984 to 1988 was reasonable.