Donald Hale

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to portions of a lease agreement under the third party information exemption in section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the information was commercial, it was the product of negotiations between the City and the third party company, rather than being 'supplied' in confidence.

As the second part of the exemption test was not met, the City was ordered to disclose the severed portions of the lease to the appellant.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to the Enhanced Verification Program and its implementation in Hastings County.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, claiming the advice or recommendations exemption under section 13(1).

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that some records contained advice or recommendations and were properly exempt, while others contained only proposed actions, requests for information, or opinions, and ordered their disclosure.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Archives of Ontario denying access to portions of records relating to the Earlscourt Children's Home under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The records contained evaluations and opinions about the professional competence of former staff members.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information constituted personal information and that its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1) of the Act.

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

The Archives' decision to deny access was upheld, except for one page for which the Archives withdrew its exemption claim.

The appellant appealed the Town of Midland's decision to deny access to the names and start dates of temporary and part-time employees.

The Town argued the requests constituted an abuse of process and claimed exemptions under sections 13 (danger to health and safety) and 14(1) (invasion of privacy) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found no abuse of process and no evidence to support the section 13 exemption.

The Officer ordered the disclosure of the employees' names, finding they fell under the section 14(4)(a) exception, but upheld the exemption for start dates as employment history under section 14(3)(d).

The appellant appealed a decision by the Town of Midland refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records relating to building inspections and bylaw enforcement on certain properties.

The Town argued the appellant's requests constituted an abuse of process and relied on section 14(5) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to refuse to confirm or deny the records' existence.

The Inquiry Officer found no abuse of process and held that section 14(5) did not apply, as confirming the existence of records would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Officer disclosed that no responsive records existed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for legal accounts submitted by a lawyer appointed by the Children's Lawyer to represent his son.

The Ministry denied access to the particulars of the services rendered, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the undisclosed information related directly to the formulating and provision of legal advice and was therefore exempt under section 49(a) and section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override did not apply and that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The requester appealed a decision by the Archives of Ontario denying access to her deceased mother's 1948 medical records from the Ontario Hospital in Cobourg.

The Archives claimed the records were exempt under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (invasion of privacy).

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the personal information of the mother and her family, but not the requester.

As the requester did not provide representations to show that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1)(f), the Inquiry Officer upheld the Archives' decision to deny access.

The requesters appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to handwritten notes taken during an investigation into a bailiff's conduct.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under 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 personal information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Bailiffs Act, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 21(3)(b).

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

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to certain records relating to the implementation of the Province's photo radar operations.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 15, 17(1), and 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the section 15(b) exemption did not apply to the evaluation report provided by a U.K. police force.

The section 17(1) exemption applied to financial data and comparison tables supplied by affected parties with an explicit expectation of confidentiality, as disclosure could harm their competitive position.

The section 19 exemption applied to a written summary of oral legal opinions provided by Ministry counsel.

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

The requester appealed the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to deny access to a two-page record relating to the investigation of their human rights complaint.

The OHRC claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including law enforcement and invasion of privacy.

During the inquiry, the OHRC agreed to disclose the record with the personal identifiers of other individuals severed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the severed information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption of an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b).

The OHRC's decision to deny access to the severed portions under section 49(b) was upheld, and the OHRC was ordered to disclose the remaining portions of the record.

The appellant requested access to complaints made about her property.

The City disclosed the records but severed the names and personal identifiers of the complainants under the law enforcement exemption in section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The City also stated that no records existed for certain months.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that the by-law enforcement process qualified as law enforcement and that the complainants had a reasonable expectation of confidentiality.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the City's search for additional records was reasonable.

The appellant requested records from the City of Niagara Falls relating to a street lighting contract tender.

The City granted partial access but denied access to four documents, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the denial and argued that additional responsive records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City provided insufficient evidence to establish that the records were exempt under section 12 and ordered their disclosure.

Furthermore, the Inquiry Officer found that the City failed to conduct a reasonable search for records, particularly those created prior to the issuance of the tender, and ordered the City to conduct a further search.

The appellant, a union representative, appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to portions of records relating to ambulance service staffing patterns.

The Inquiry Officer found that certain records relating to an incident investigation were not responsive to the request.

Applying the three-part test for third party information under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of one clause but upheld the exemption for the remaining commercial and financial information, finding its disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere significantly with the affected party's contractual relations.

The Ministry's search for records was deemed reasonable.

The appellant requested access to the social services file of her deceased husband from the Town of Kirkland Lake.

The Town denied access, 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 appellant met the criteria to act as the deceased's personal representative under section 54(a) of the Act, as she was contemplating a derivative legal action under the Family Law Act.

Consequently, the appellant was entitled to access the deceased's personal information, and disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Town was ordered to disclose the records, excluding the personal information of the appellant's children.

The requester, a former inmate at the Toronto Jail, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of his jail file.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 49(b) (invasion of privacy) and 49(e) (confidential correction record) of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the undisclosed information in the correctional records was supplied in confidence by other individuals, and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal that confidential information.

Furthermore, the disclosure of other inmates' personal information would constitute an unjustified invasion of their personal privacy, as the information was highly sensitive.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for information relating to the assessment of retail sales tax.

The Ministry of Finance denied access to some records and claimed that no records existed for the portion of the request seeking statistical data on retail sales tax assessments for similar businesses.

The appellant appealed the decision regarding the existence of records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant appealed the Town of Gravenhurst's decision to deny access to certain records relating to a planned development project.

The Town claimed exemptions under section 12 (solicitor-client privilege) and section 14 (invasion of privacy) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were properly exempt under both sections and that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply.

The Town's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Township for records relating to a non-profit housing corporation.

The Township provided a fee estimate but failed to issue a final access decision that complied with section 22 of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Township to issue a proper final access decision, upheld the photocopy portion of the fee estimate, and ordered the Township to revise its preparation fee estimate based on the actual number of pages requiring severances.

The appellant made a multi-part freedom of information request to the City of Cornwall for records relating to a municipal hockey team contract, employee resignations, and budget information.

During mediation, the City disclosed several records and transferred the portion of the request regarding the Chief of Police to the Police Services Board.

The appellant appealed the transfer, the reasonableness of the search for additional contract records, and sought access to the City's representations.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding the transfer was proper under section 18(3) of the Act, the search for records was reasonable, and the appellant had no right to access the City's representations under section 41(13).

The appellant requested records used to generate the estimated market value of their property from the Ministry of Finance.

The Ministry granted access to the identified records, but the appellant appealed, claiming more records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search for responsive records was reasonable and upheld the Ministry's decision.