Donald Hale

The appellant appealed the Sarnia Police Services Board's decision to deny access to certain information in cellular telephone bills, including phone numbers, account numbers, and the name of the authorized recipient.

The Police claimed exemptions under the law enforcement provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information was administrative in nature and did not qualify for exemption under sections 8(1)(b), (c), (d), or (g).

The Police were ordered to disclose the information.

The appellant appealed the Borough of East York's decision to deny access to records concerning a 1984 fence viewer's award under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Borough relied on the invasion of privacy exemption in section 14.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained only the personal information of an affected person and that no factors weighed in favour of disclosure.

The Borough's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellants appealed the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board's decision denying access to tape recordings of their hearings.

The Board claimed the tapes were not in its custody or control, as they were created by an independent court reporter as backup audio tapes.

The Inquiry Officer found that the court reporter acts as a trustee or repository of the tape recordings created during an engagement with the Board.

The right of control over the records remains with the Board.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Board to obtain the tape recordings and issue an access decision to the appellants.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to deny access to property records and appraisal cards relating to the assessment of three residential properties.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 67(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as the confidentiality provision in section 53(1) of the Assessment Act prevailed.

The Inquiry Officer found that while information acquired by the assessor during property visits was subject to the confidentiality provision, information required to be on the assessment roll or obtained from the Registry or Land Titles Office was not.

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

The requester appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to deny access to property records, appraisal cards, and valuation forms relating to neighbouring properties.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 67(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as the confidentiality provision in section 53(1) of the Assessment Act prevailed.

The Inquiry Officer found that information required to be on the assessment roll or obtained from the Registry or Land Titles Office was not covered by the confidentiality provision and must be disclosed.

However, information acquired during the assessor's visits to the properties detailing the calculation of assessed values was confidential and exempt from disclosure.

The appeal was partially granted.

The appellant appealed the City of Mississauga's fee estimate of $92.20 and its denial of a fee waiver for a freedom of information request regarding a woodlot.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the fee calculation, finding it complied with the Act and regulations for search time and photocopying.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the denial of the fee waiver, concluding that waiving the fee would shift an unreasonable burden of the cost from the appellant to the City.

The requester appealed the LCBO's decision to deny access to records relating to the pricing structure of a specific product sold through LCBO Vintages outlets.

The LCBO claimed exemptions under sections 17(1) and 18(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the unit price and mark-up information was supplied in confidence and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the competitive position of the supplier, thus qualifying for exemption under section 17(1)(a).

The Inquiry Officer also found that the LCBO's search for records relating to its Vintages pricing policy was reasonable.

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

The Ministry received a freedom of information request for a harassment investigation report.

The Ministry decided to grant partial access, withholding the personal information of individuals who did not consent to disclosure.

One of the affected individuals appealed the decision to grant partial access, arguing the report contained inaccurate information that could cause him pecuniary harm, and requested a copy of the report to ensure his information was not disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the severed version of the report proposed for disclosure did not contain any of the appellant's personal information, and therefore its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of his personal privacy.

The requester appealed a decision by the Sudbury Regional Police Services Board to deny access to certain records containing their personal information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police claimed exemptions under section 12 (solicitor-client privilege) and section 38(a) (discretion to refuse requester's own personal information).

The Inquiry Officer found that two records did not qualify for the solicitor-client privilege exemption and ordered their disclosure.

The decision to deny access to the remaining records was upheld as they were either confidential communications between a solicitor and client or prepared by counsel for use in litigation.

The appellant requested access to a report prepared by the City's Public Works Department following a sewer backup that damaged the appellant's home.

The City denied access, claiming the report was exempt under the solicitor-client privilege exemption in section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the report did not meet the first part of the solicitor-client privilege test, it was created for the dominant purpose of anticipated litigation after the appellant put the City on notice of a damage claim.

Therefore, the report was exempt under the litigation privilege branch of section 12, and the City's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Toronto Board of Education's decision regarding a request for access to information relating to an incident at her son's school.

The appellant maintained that additional records responsive to her request should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board made extensive and appropriate efforts to locate responsive records and upheld the Board's decision, concluding that the search was reasonable.

A newspaper reporter appealed the Town of Markham's decision to deny access to invoices and cheques relating to payments made to a Councillor's Assistant.

The Town claimed the records contained personal information and that the Assistant was an employee.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Assistant was an independent contractor, meaning the records revealed details of a contract for personal services under section 14(4)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Town was ordered to disclose the records, with the exception of the Assistant's home address, which remained exempt under section 14(1).

The Ministry requested a reconsideration of Order P-612, which had ordered the disclosure of three occurrence reports related to an incident at a correctional facility.

The Inquiry Officer found jurisdiction to reconsider due to a fundamental defect in the original interpretation of section 21(3)(b) of the Act.

Adopting a broader interpretation of 'compiled' from a subsequent order, the Inquiry Officer determined that the records were compiled as part of a police investigation into a possible violation of law.

Consequently, the disclosure of the records would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1).

The original order was rescinded and the records were held to be exempt from disclosure.

The appellant requested access to correspondence and briefs containing complaints about the principal or teaching staff at a named school.

The Metropolitan Separate School Board denied access under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records did not contain personal information or contained only the appellant's personal information and ordered them disclosed.

The remaining records were found to contain personal information of other individuals, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Board's decision to deny access to those records was upheld.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to records relating to grants made to a coalition and tenders for legal and environmental consulting work.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the application of several exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including third party information, solicitor-client privilege, advice to government, economic interests, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision to withhold certain records under the third party information, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy exemptions, but ordered the disclosure of other records where the exemptions did not apply.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the City had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision regarding a freedom of information request for personal notes taken by four employees during a meeting that resulted in disciplinary action.

The Ministry disclosed a three-page compilation but stated the original notes had been destroyed.

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

The Inquiry Officer found the search reasonable based on an affidavit and representations confirming the destruction of the original notes, and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The requester appealed the Township of Clearview's decision to deny access to legal accounts rendered by a law firm in connection with an expropriation proceeding.

The Township claimed exemptions under section 12 (solicitor-client privilege) and section 8(1)(f) (right to a fair trial) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that portions of the accounts detailing legal strategy and witness information were exempt under the common law solicitor-client privilege branch of section 12.

However, the remaining fee information was not exempt under either branch of section 12 or section 8(1)(f).

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

The appellant appealed the City of Cambridge's decision to deny access to the name of a person who filed a zoning by-law complaint against her.

The City relied on the law enforcement exemption under section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing that disclosure would reveal a confidential source.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that the by-law complaints process relies on confidentiality and that the City properly exercised its discretion under section 38(a) to refuse disclosure of the appellant's personal information where section 8 applies.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Citizenship's decision to deny access to a three-page letter and its attachment under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under sections 21(1) and 49(b) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the attachment, written by the appellant's client's solicitor, would not result in an unjustified invasion of privacy and ordered its disclosure.

However, the main record contained highly sensitive information supplied in confidence, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the author's personal privacy.

The Ministry's decision to deny access to the main record was upheld.

Two individuals appealed the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth's decision to deny access to records regarding an incident at a sewage treatment plant.

The Region claimed exemptions under solicitor-client privilege, information to be published, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that two records were exempt under solicitor-client privilege.

The remaining records were not exempt under the information to be published exemption.

Portions of three records were found to contain highly sensitive personal information and were severed to prevent an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Region was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records and severed portions.