Donald Hale

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for records relating to complaints about a specific retail store.

The Ministry conducted a search and informed the appellant that no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that such records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Ministry's affidavit evidence detailing its search efforts and concluded that the Ministry's search was reasonable.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to police officers' notes relating to an investigation involving the appellant and his children.

The Police denied access to 126 pages of records, claiming they were wiretap records subject to the doctrine of federal legislative paramountcy under the Criminal Code.

The Inquiry Officer found that the notes, which related to the installation, maintenance, and dismantling of interception equipment, were not 'wiretap records' within the meaning of the Criminal Code.

Therefore, the doctrine of federal legislative paramountcy did not apply, and the Police were ordered to render a decision regarding access to the records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant requested access to records held by the Regional Coroner relating to the death of his wife in a hospital.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, citing the invasion of privacy exemption.

The appellant appealed, arguing he was entitled to the records as his wife's personal representative to determine whether to initiate a derivative action under the Family Law Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant could act as a personal representative for the purposes of the Act and that the request related to the administration of the estate.

After balancing the privacy interests of the affected persons against the appellant's right of access, the Inquiry Officer ordered the Ministry to disclose the records.

The appellant requested access to any intelligence file in their name that came into existence seven or more years ago.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board refused to confirm or deny the existence of such records under section 8(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that merely confirming or denying the existence of the records would communicate information that qualifies for exemption under the law enforcement provisions of the Act.

The appellant requested access to training report forms for Town firefighters who completed courses on handling hazardous and radioactive waste, specifically seeking their names.

The Town denied access to the names under the personal information exemption and issued a fee estimate of $110, refusing a fee waiver.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information relating to educational history, but ordered the records disclosed with names and signatures severed.

The Inquiry Officer also reduced the fee estimate and ordered a complete fee waiver, finding that disclosure of the severed records would benefit public health and safety by informing the public about emergency preparedness.

A reporter requested access to a transcript of a police communication tape considered by the Goderich Police Services Board.

The Board denied access, claiming solicitor-client privilege and invasion of privacy.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the transcript contained the Chief of Police's personal information and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy, as it could unfairly damage his reputation.

The Inquiry Officer also found no compelling public interest in disclosure that would override the exemption.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant sought access to her own witness statement, the respondent's rebuttal, and the final investigation report concerning a workplace harassment complaint.

The Ministry disclosed the appellant's statement, the rebuttal, and portions of the report relating directly to her complaint, but withheld the remainder under the invasion of privacy exemptions in sections 21 and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of portions relating to three affected persons who consented, but upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to the remaining portions, finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $3,528 and a refusal to grant a fee waiver for a request for records showing deductions from payments to occasional teachers.

The Board argued a new computer program was needed to extract the data.

The appellant later clarified she only needed existing monthly reports.

The Inquiry Officer reduced the fee to $483 for photocopies, search, and preparation time, but upheld the Board's refusal to waive the fee, finding the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of financial hardship.

The appellant, a former occasional teacher, requested statistical information regarding sexual harassment and gender bias complaints from the Board of Education for the City of Hamilton.

The Board advised that no such records were compiled or existed.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's search for the requested records was reasonable and upheld the Board's decision that no responsive records exist.

The requester, counsel to an insurance company, appealed the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to records relating to a murder investigation.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for law enforcement, right to a fair trial, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the majority of the records contained personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation and were exempt from disclosure.

However, weather reports, photographs of weapons, media releases, and press clippings did not qualify for the claimed exemptions and were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Management Board Secretariat for records relating to concerns regarding the ventilation system at a leased building.

The Board initially claimed no records existed, but after mediation and subsequent searches, located and disclosed three records.

The appellant appealed, arguing more records should exist, including a specific letter sent to the former Property Manager.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the letter was received, it may have been misplaced during a transfer of files.

The Officer concluded that the Board's search efforts, supported by affidavits, were reasonable and upheld the Board's decision.

The appellant appealed Ontario Hydro's decision to deny access to a 1994 arbitration decision resolving a dispute between Hydro and a uranium supplier.

Hydro claimed the record was exempt under the third party information and personal information exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer applied the three-part test for third party information under section 17(1) and found that the record contained technical, commercial, and financial information supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the competitive position of the affected party.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed the Town of Whitby's decision to deny access to correspondence relating to the requester's termination of employment.

The Town claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including solicitor-client privilege.

As a preliminary matter, the Town requested costs, which the Inquiry Officer denied, finding no statutory authority for the Commissioner to award costs.

On the merits, the Inquiry Officer found the records were prepared by Town employees for counsel in contemplation of litigation, qualifying for exemption under Branch 2 of the solicitor-client privilege exemption.

The Town's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to a document relating to the funding of a joint police investigation into an alleged child pornography ring.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for law enforcement and the right to a fair trial.

The Inquiry Officer found that portions of the record relating to pending police actions, law enforcement intelligence, and anticipated pleas were exempt from disclosure.

However, information regarding the use of encrypted communications and personnel allocation was ordered disclosed, as it would not reveal confidential investigative techniques.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access to a draft audit report on Queen's Park security services, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations and economic and other interests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requesters appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that while parts of the report contained advice or recommendations, it fell under the mandatory exception for reports on the efficiency of an institution.

The Officer also found the report did not qualify as a plan or proposed plan under the economic interests exemptions.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record in its entirety.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision that it did not have a copy of an Organizational Review Report for the Niagara Region Sexual Assault Centre.

The Ministry claimed it did not require a copy because the Centre did not accept the finalized report.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to provide sufficient evidence of a reasonable search, noting the lack of details regarding the nature, extent, and qualifications of the person who conducted the search.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct a further search in specific program areas and issue a new decision.

The appellant appealed the Town of Collingwood's decision regarding a request for assessment records, building permits, and building inspection reports.

The Town released some records and indicated that others were held by a different municipality due to a reorganization, asserting no further records existed in its custody.

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

The appellant appealed the City of Scarborough's response to a freedom of information request for property standards records, arguing that additional responsive records should exist.

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

Based on affidavits detailing the searches undertaken, the Inquiry Officer found the City's efforts to locate responsive records were reasonable and upheld the City's decision.

The appellant requested information regarding the Township of West Lincoln's involvement in the procurement of land and financial arrangements with Maple Manufacturing.

The Township denied access to several agreements, claiming the third party information exemption under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained commercial and financial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause competitive harm to the affected party.

The Township's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a workplace harassment investigation in which he was the respondent.

The Ministry denied access to 35 records, claiming exemptions for invasion of privacy, third party information, and law enforcement.

The Inquiry Officer found that the law enforcement and third party information exemptions did not apply.

However, the Inquiry Officer held that disclosure of certain portions of the records would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the affected persons.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the portions of the records that directly addressed the subject matter of the complaint, allowing the appellant to respond to the allegations, while withholding the remaining sensitive personal information.