Donald Hale

The appellant appealed the Fire Board's decision regarding two multi-part freedom of information requests.

The Fire Board denied access to two letters under the closed meeting exemption, claimed no records existed for certain parts, and sought clarification for others.

The Inquiry Officer found that the closed meeting exemption did not apply to the letters and ordered their disclosure.

The Officer also found that the Fire Board's search for records was reasonable and that it had met its obligations in seeking clarification from the appellant, who had failed to respond.

The appellant requested access to records held by the City of Toronto's Fire Department relating to a residential address.

The City denied access to a Provincial Offences Act Information and Summons, claiming the invasion of privacy exemption under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were court records forming part of the public record, which favoured disclosure.

The Officer concluded that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and ordered the City to disclose the records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to a fire investigation at their place of business.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under the law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the investigation remained ongoing and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter.

The appeal was dismissed and the Ministry's decision to deny access under sections 14(1)(b) and 49(a) was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a proposed 'No Loitering' by-law from the City of Oshawa.

The City denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for draft by-laws, solicitor-client privilege, and publicly available information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the draft by-law exemption did not apply to certain records because they were considered in public meetings.

However, the solicitor-client privilege exemption was upheld for legal opinions, confidential communications, and handwritten notes by legal counsel.

The City was ordered to disclose specific draft by-laws and provide information on the location of publicly available records.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $240 provided by the Township of Huron for three requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Township estimated eight hours of search time.

The Inquiry Officer found the eight-hour estimate reasonable due to the complexity and number of requests, but reduced the chargeable time by two hours to account for the free search time mandated by section 45(1)(a) of the Act.

The fee was adjusted to $180 for six hours of chargeable search time, plus photocopy fees.

The appellant requested access to a medical expert's report obtained by an Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) investigator during the investigation of the appellant's human rights complaint.

The OHRC denied access, claiming exemptions for law enforcement and invasion of privacy under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the OHRC failed to demonstrate how disclosure of the record would interfere with an ongoing law enforcement matter or investigation.

Furthermore, the record contained the professional medical opinion of the doctor, not personal information, and therefore did not qualify for the invasion of privacy exemption.

The OHRC was ordered to disclose the record to the appellant.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to draft versions of a report prepared by the City Auditor regarding a property development project.

The City claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the undisclosed portions of the record contained personal evaluations of identifiable individuals, the disclosure of which would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(1).

The Inquiry Officer also held that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, as the public interest in disclosure did not clearly outweigh the privacy protection provisions.

The City was ordered to disclose the record with the exempt personal information severed.

The appellant, an unsuccessful candidate in three job competitions, appealed the Ministry of Transportation's decision to deny access to portions of the competition records, including interview answers, scores, and reference checks of other candidates.

The Inquiry Officer found that some general interview answers did not constitute personal information and ordered their disclosure.

However, the remaining information was found to be the personal information of other candidates, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry's decision to deny access to this information was upheld.

The requester appealed the Township's decision to deny access to records relating to Ontario Home Renewal Program loan applications made by two elected officials.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information subject to the presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, the Inquiry Officer applied the public interest override in section 16, finding a compelling public interest in disclosing two loan application forms to inform the public about the propriety of the elected officials' activities.

The Township was ordered to disclose the two forms.

The appellant sought access to records describing the disciplinary action taken by the Ministry against a named employee, following an investigation into complaints made by the appellant and others.

The Ministry denied access to a two-page letter under the invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the record did not primarily constitute employment history, it contained highly sensitive personal information.

Balancing the privacy and access considerations, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would result in an unjustified invasion of the affected person's personal privacy and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The requester, a shop steward, sought access to a list of bargaining unit employees in the Ministry's Information Systems Branch, including their start dates.

The Ministry disclosed the names, units, classifications, and job titles, but withheld the start dates under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that start dates relate to employment history and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the requester's own start date to him.

The requester appealed a decision by the Management Board Secretariat regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to the sale of the Cawthra Bush lands.

The requester claimed that additional responsive records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Secretariat had provided sufficient evidence, including an affidavit detailing the searches undertaken, to demonstrate that it had made a reasonable effort to identify and locate responsive records.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to a 1975-1976 investigation into allegations of abuse at a group home.

The Cornwall Police Services Board denied access to most records under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the search warrant application did not qualify as a 'report' under the law enforcement exemption.

However, the records were exempt as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, having been compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

Although there was a compelling public interest in examining the child welfare system, it did not clearly outweigh the privacy interests of the named individuals.

The appeal was partially allowed to disclose a few records containing only the appellant's personal information.

The appellant requested records relating to an investigation and subsequent discipline of an OC Transpo operator following an incident with a member of the public.

OC Transpo denied access under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that one record related to labour relations of an interprovincial undertaking and was outside the Act's jurisdiction.

The remaining records contained personal information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The public interest override in section 16 did not apply.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant sought access to records held by the Official Guardian (now the Children's Lawyer) relating to a custody and access proceeding involving his son.

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

The Inquiry Officer found no reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Children's Lawyer and concluded the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the exemptions to many of the records, but ordered the disclosure of several records that did not qualify for exemption.

The appellant requested access to personal information held by the Ministry of the Attorney General relating to a complaint against him filed with the Police Complaints Commissioner.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumed invasion of privacy under section 21(3)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to the exempt portions, found the search for records reasonable, and denied the requests for continuing access and in-person viewing of original records.

A requester sought access to investigation and staff reports concerning a situation at a secondary school that resulted in the firing of several teachers.

The Toronto Board of Education denied access, claiming multiple exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the records were exempt under section 6(1)(b) because their disclosure would reveal the actual substance of the Board's in camera deliberations.

The public interest override in section 16 was found inapplicable to the section 6(1)(b) exemption.

The Board's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested statistical reports from the London Police Services Board under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police charged a fee of $4.40 for photocopying and postage and refused the appellant's request for a fee waiver.

The appellant appealed the refusal.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police failed to give appropriate weight to section 8 of Regulation 517/90, which requires considering whether a fee under $5 is too small to justify requiring payment.

The Officer ordered the Police to waive the fee and disclose the records.

The requester appealed the Public Guardian and Trustee's decision to deny access to a Certificate of Incapacity to Manage Property relating to the requester's son.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the record primarily contained the personal information of the son and that presumptions against disclosure applied.

The record was held to be exempt from disclosure, with the exception of a small portion containing the requester's own contact information.

The appellant requested access to a police incident report involving himself and another individual (the victim) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denied access to the victim's name and address, citing the invasion of privacy exemption under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing he needed the information to commence a civil action against the victim.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that the record was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and therefore disclosure of the victim's personal information constituted a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Act, which could not be rebutted by the appellant's need for the information for a civil suit.