Donald Hale

The Ministry of Finance received a freedom of information request for documents filed by the Lawyers Professional Indemnity Company (LPIC).

The Ministry granted partial access, claiming exemptions for third party information and invasion of privacy.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the names of LPIC shareholders acting in their professional capacity were not personal information and ordered their disclosure.

However, the biographical information of LPIC officers and directors was found to be exempt under section 21(1).

Furthermore, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to exempt actuarial reports, reinsurance contracts, and related correspondence under section 17(1), finding that their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice LPIC's competitive position.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation's decision to deny access to certain records relating to the appellant and two affiliated organizations.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for Cabinet records, advice or recommendations, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Cabinet records and advice or recommendations exemptions did not apply, as the records were not prepared to brief a Minister for Executive Council deliberations and did not contain advice or recommendations.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the application of solicitor-client privilege to one record and found that disclosure of portions of other records would constitute an unjustified invasion of a third party's personal privacy.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the remaining records.

The appellant requested access to formula work sheets used to determine the value of school bus contracts.

The Board denied access to portions of the records, claiming exemptions for third party information, valuable government information, and economic interests.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board failed to establish the exemptions under sections 11(a) and 11(c), and failed to meet the third part of the test for third party information under section 10(1).

The Officer also found that while the records contained some personal information, its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy as it disclosed financial details of a contract for personal services under section 14(4)(b).

The Board was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to correspondence received from a member of the public regarding a Township's grant applications.

The Ministry claimed the section 21(1) personal privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were previously the subject of Order P-1134, which upheld the denial of access.

The appellant argued that Order P-1134 was wrongly decided, but the Inquiry Officer disagreed, finding no compelling public interest in disclosure under section 23.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board denying access to an incident report involving the appellant.

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, triggering the presumption of an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b).

As no exceptions applied, the information was exempt from disclosure under section 38(b), and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested access to records relating to severance arrangements for six former employees of the Town of Ancaster.

The Town denied access to certain records, claiming solicitor-client privilege and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer refused to allow the Town to raise new discretionary exemptions late in the process.

The Officer found that only one record was subject to solicitor-client privilege, but that all records contained personal information and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Officer also found that the Town's search for records was reasonable and upheld the decision to deny access.

The appellants appealed the City of Barrie's decision to deny access to records relating to zoning by-law complaints made against them.

The City 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 portions of the records contained information that would reveal a confidential source in a law enforcement matter and were exempt.

Other portions were ordered disclosed as they contained only the appellants' personal information or did not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The appellant, a former employee of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO), appealed the LCBO's decision that no records responsive to her request for personnel records existed.

During mediation, some records were located and disclosed.

The sole issue was whether the LCBO's search for records was reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer found that the LCBO failed to provide sufficient evidence detailing the nature and extent of its search.

The LCBO was ordered to conduct a further search and issue a new access decision.

The appellant requested access to records relating to the purchase and operation of the Glanmore Hastings County Museum under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Museum provided a fee estimate of $1,610 for search time and photocopying.

The appellant requested a fee waiver on the basis of financial hardship, which the Museum denied.

The appellant appealed the denial.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Museum's decision, finding that while payment would cause financial hardship, waiving the fee would shift an unreasonable burden of the cost to the Museum.

The Museum had already provided 950 pages free of charge and attempted to work with the appellant to narrow the request.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Sudbury Regional Police Services Board to deny access to portions of police officers' notes related to an investigation involving the appellant.

The Police claimed exemptions under law enforcement and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that some information related to individuals acting in their employment capacities and was not personal information, ordering its disclosure.

Other information was found to be personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation and was exempt from disclosure.

The law enforcement exemption claim for one page was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to portions of an investigation report regarding workplace discrimination complaints.

The Ministry claimed the undisclosed information was exempt under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the undisclosed paragraphs contained the personal information of the appellant and another identifiable individual.

Balancing the appellant's right of access against the privacy interests of the other individual, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's decision to deny access to portions of her supervisory file under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Municipality claimed exemptions for invasion of privacy and danger to the mental or physical health of the requester.

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

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Municipality's decision to deny access to records containing the personal information of other individuals and medical information that could prejudice the requester's mental health, but ordered the disclosure of the remaining records.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $76.50 provided by the Township for the preparation and photocopying of 45 pages of records responsive to a freedom of information request.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Township provided sufficient evidence to establish that the estimated fee of $67.50 for preparation time and $0.20 per page for photocopies was calculated in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and its regulations.

The Township's decision to charge the fee was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services' decision to deny access to records relating to the accommodation and telecommunications services provided to a high-profile inmate.

The records consisted of three Ministry Issue Notes.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained detailed information relating to the steps taken by correctional authorities regarding the supervision of an inmate, and were therefore exempt from disclosure under section 14(2)(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as correctional records.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to the accommodation and telecommunications services provided to a high-profile inmate.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were exempt under section 14(2)(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they contained detailed information about the inmate's history and supervision.

The remaining records were found to be exempt under section 21(1) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to a CPIC printout containing his personal information.

The Police claimed exemptions under sections 8(1)(a), (c), and (g) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that portions of the record relating to an ongoing investigation and computer access codes were exempt under sections 8(1)(a) and (g).

However, the remaining portions, including information about a past resolved matter and the appellant's personal information, did not qualify for exemption and were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant, an employee of the City of Thorold, appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to a letter of complaint and attached documents regarding alleged wrongdoing by public officials.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the attached documents did not contain personal information and ordered their disclosure.

However, the cover letter contained personal information compiled as part of a police investigation, and its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry's decision to withhold the cover letter was upheld.

The appellant requested access to police investigation records concerning a motor vehicle/bicycle accident in which he was severely injured.

The Ministry granted partial access, claiming exemptions under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the remaining records, which included interview reports and the investigating officer's notes.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were 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 21(3)(b).

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed Ontario Hydro's decision to deny access to a document containing recommendations from an internal investigation into a harassment complaint initiated by the appellant.

Ontario Hydro claimed exemptions under sections 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 21 (invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected persons' privacy under section 49(b), as the highly sensitive information pertained primarily to the appellant.

Furthermore, the record did not qualify for the advice or recommendations exemption under section 13(1) because the suggested course of conduct was not sufficiently specific.

Ontario Hydro was ordered to disclose the record in its entirety.

A newspaper reporter requested information regarding retirement incentives paid to four senior officials of the Board of Education for the City of Windsor.

The Board denied access, claiming the records were exempt under section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they revealed the substance of deliberations of a closed meeting.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's decision, finding that the meetings were properly held in camera under the Education Act and that disclosure would reveal the substance of the committee's deliberations.