Donald Hale

The appellant requested access to information relating to the award of a contract for the operation of a coffee facility in the Richmond Hill Public Library.

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

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Library's decision, finding that the proposal contained 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 appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Finance for assessment information regarding two properties.

The Ministry denied access to the records, citing the confidentiality provision in section 53(1) of the Assessment Act and section 67 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while some information relating to the calculation of assessments was protected by section 53(1), other information required to be on the assessment roll or obtained from the Registry or Land Titles Office was not protected and must be disclosed.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the unprotected portions of the records.

The appellant requested access to a copy of a letter addressed to a City Councillor regarding lease negotiations.

The City of Toronto denied access under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the unsigned letter contained personal information of an identifiable individual, was highly sensitive, and was supplied in confidence.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, and upheld the City's decision to deny access.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision regarding a freedom of information request for a property survey.

The Ministry initially claimed the survey was publicly available, but during mediation, it was determined the publicly available survey was not the one requested.

The Ministry conducted further searches but failed to locate the requested survey.

The Inquiry Officer found the Ministry's search was inadequate given the appellant's clear description of the record and its location, and ordered the Ministry to conduct a further search.

The appellant requested access to her daughter's special services file from the Carleton Roman Catholic School Board.

The Board disclosed the general student file and claimed the confidential psychological file had been disclosed previously in 1993.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional records existed and had not been disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer found the search for the general student file was reasonable, but ordered the Board to issue a formal decision letter regarding the contents of the confidential psychological file to clarify what had been disclosed.

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

The Police charged a fee of $3.68 for photocopying and postage.

The appellant requested a fee waiver, which the Police denied.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer ordered the fee waived, finding that the amount was too small to justify requiring payment and the administrative expense of refusing the waiver outweighed the value of collecting the fee.

The requester appealed the Municipality's decision to deny access to 66 pages of records relating to the requester's operation of a salvage yard.

The Municipality claimed exemptions under solicitor-client privilege, law enforcement, and danger to life or safety.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the records were exempt under solicitor-client privilege, including correspondence and draft pleadings.

Portions of legal accounts were ordered disclosed where they did not reveal the subject matter of legal advice.

Other records were found exempt under the law enforcement and danger to life or safety exemptions.

The appellant requested access to the summary page of telephone bills for all cellular phones used by the Barrie Police Services Board.

The Police disclosed the records but severed the cellular telephone numbers and names of users, claiming exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to hamper the control of crime by tying up emergency communication lines.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board denying access to the actual dollar figure paid to the former police chief upon his resignation.

The Board claimed the information was exempt 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 payment, which included accumulated sick leave credits and the cash-in-lieu value of extended medical and life insurance, qualified as a 'benefit' under section 14(4)(a).

Therefore, its disclosure did not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, and the Board was ordered to disclose the figure.

The appellant requested access to the cellular telephone bills of the London Police Services Board.

The Police disclosed the records with severances and provided a fee estimate.

The appellant appealed the severances and the fee estimate.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision to withhold the cellular telephone numbers, users, and call details under section 8(1)(l) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, finding their disclosure could hamper the control of crime.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of account and invoice numbers, finding they were administrative and did not qualify for law enforcement or safety exemptions.

The fee estimate was upheld.

The appellant sought access to interview answers, scores, and written assignments of other candidates in a job competition under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry of Health denied access under the personal privacy exemption in section 21(1).

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information of identifiable individuals.

As no relevant considerations favoured disclosure, releasing the information of candidates who did not consent would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the information only for the seven candidates who consented, with personal identifiers severed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services' decision to deny access to the office location of an Area Manager in an investigation report regarding a privacy complaint.

The Inquiry Officer found that the office location constituted personal information, as its disclosure would identify the Area Manager and the complainant.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Town of Amherstburg Police Services Board that no records existed responsive to a request for two reports.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police provided sufficient evidence, including affidavits from the Chief of Police and others, demonstrating that one report was delivered orally and the other was never made.

The search for records was deemed reasonable and the Police's decision was upheld.

The appellant, an employee of the Wentworth County Board of Education, appealed the Board's decision regarding his request for access to records concerning his employment.

The sole issue was whether the Board conducted a reasonable search for the requested records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant provided sufficient evidence to suggest additional records might exist, and the Board failed to provide sufficient evidence detailing its search efforts.

The Board was ordered to conduct a further search for the responsive records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Finance's response to a freedom of information request for records relating to the application and forgiveness of Land Transfer Tax for non-residents.

The Ministry disclosed some records and claimed no other responsive records existed.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry provided sufficient evidence, including an affidavit explaining that only the Lieutenant Governor in Council can forgive the tax, to demonstrate that a reasonable search was conducted.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between the Township of Howick and third-party purchasers.

The Township denied access to the Agreement, claiming the third-party information exemption.

On appeal, the request was narrowed to a single clause containing planning and zoning information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the clause contained personal financial information of the purchasers, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The public interest override in section 16 did not apply.

The Township's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Carleton Board of Education's decision to deny access to records concerning the selection of a site for a new elementary school.

The Board claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including the closed meeting exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records, which included minutes of in camera meetings, staff reports, a legal opinion, and site analysis reports, were properly exempt from disclosure under section 6(1)(b) of the Act because they would reveal the substance of deliberations of meetings authorized by statute to be held in the absence of the public.

The Board's decision was upheld.

The requester sought information from the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board regarding complaints about harassing phone calls allegedly made by a named individual.

The Police refused to confirm or deny the existence of the records under section 14(5) of the Act.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that confirming or denying the existence of the records would reveal whether the named individual was the subject of a police investigation, which would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Act.

A reporter requested a transcript of police communication tapes from the Goderich Police Services Board.

The Chief of Police, acting as the head under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, denied access to the record.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Chief of Police had a personal interest in the record, which contained his own conversations, creating a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Chief's decision was declared void, and the matter was remitted to the Police Services Board to issue a new decision on access by an alternate decision-maker.

The appellant, an employee of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, appealed the Municipality's decision to deny access to various employment-related records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Municipality claimed exemptions based on advice or recommendations, solicitor-client privilege, invasion of privacy, and the discretion to refuse a requester's own information.

The Inquiry Officer found that certain records containing investigation recommendations and documents prepared for a human rights complaint were exempt.

However, the Officer ordered the disclosure of other records that did not contain advice, recommendations, or privileged information.