Donald Hale

The requester appealed the Nipissing Board of Education's decision to deny access to four records from his grievance file under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board claimed exemptions for solicitor-client privilege, closed meetings, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that one record was exempt under the solicitor-client privilege exemption and another under the closed meeting exemption.

The remaining two records did not qualify for the solicitor-client privilege exemption and were ordered to be disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer also confirmed his delegated authority to issue the order.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Housing for various records relating to his appeal before the Rent Review Hearings Board.

The Ministry granted partial access, denied access to some records citing personal privacy, and claimed other records did not exist or were not in its custody or control.

The appellant appealed these decisions and the fee estimate.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's search efforts and its determination that a Board member's personal notes were not in its custody or control.

The Officer also upheld the application of the personal privacy exemption to the Board member's attendance record.

Finally, the Officer reduced the fee estimate to $18.80, as the Ministry cannot charge for pages containing the appellant's own personal information.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Housing's decision to deny access to records relating to his complaint of workplace discrimination and harassment against his employer.

The Ministry relied on the invasion of privacy exemptions under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records contained the personal information of the requester and other individuals, and that disclosure of certain highly sensitive information provided in confidence would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of the records, but ordered the disclosure of other records and portions of records that did not qualify for the exemption.

The requester appealed the Metropolitan Licensing Commission's decision to deny access to the names, addresses, and licence details of taxi licence holders.

The Inquiry Officer found that information relating to corporate and partnership licence holders did not constitute personal information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and ordered its disclosure.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Commission's decision to deny access to the information of natural person licence holders, finding that it constituted personal information and its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

A trade union representing sheet metal workers requested access to the names, addresses, and certification details of sheet metal workers and apprentices from the Ministry of Education and Training.

The Ministry denied access under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the requested records contained personal information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the appellant failed to demonstrate a compelling public interest in disclosure under section 23 of the Act.

The requester appealed the City of Nanticoke's decision to transfer a freedom of information request to the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk, arguing the City had custody or control of the requested zoning and licensing records.

The sole issue on appeal was whether the City's search for responsive records was adequate.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City's search was reasonable, noting that the records were likely transferred to the Regional Municipality when it assumed planning functions.

The City's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board's decision to deny access to tape recordings of their hearing.

The Board claimed it lacked the technological means to reproduce the recordings under section 30 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and also claimed exemptions under sections 20, 49(b), and 49(d).

The Inquiry Officer found that it was reasonably practicable to reproduce the recordings and that the claimed exemptions did not apply, ordering the Board to disclose the recordings in their entirety.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to an investigation involving the appellant, in the context of an ongoing matrimonial dispute.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information of both the appellant and other identifiable individuals, compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision to deny access under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Mississauga for records relating to the management of a woodlot and a tree survey, specifically seeking records held by the former Commissioner of Community Services.

The City provided the tree survey but claimed no other records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing more records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City's evidence, consisting of an affidavit stating the former Commissioner said he held no records, was insufficient to demonstrate a reasonable search was conducted.

The City was ordered to conduct a further search.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Citizenship's decision to deny access to records relating to grant applications by Franco-Ontarian organizations.

The Inquiry Officer found that certain budget and fund-raising information was exempt from disclosure under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as it constituted financial and commercial information supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which could prejudice the organizations' competitive positions.

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

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

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to records relating to her employment.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for third party information, danger to health or safety, invasion of privacy, and evaluative or opinion material.

The Inquiry Officer found that none of the claimed exemptions applied to the records at issue.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records to the appellant in their entirety.

A requester sought copies of contracts between the Management Board of Cabinet and a telecommunications company.

The Board decided to disclose the contracts in full.

The telecommunications company appealed, claiming the third party information exemption under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the appeal, finding that the company failed to establish that the information in the negotiated contracts was 'supplied' to the institution, as required by the second part of the exemption test.

A former inmate appealed a decision of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services regarding a freedom of information request for his medical records, specifically claiming that X-rays should exist.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner reviewed the Ministry's representations and concluded that the Ministry's search for responsive records was reasonable.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records from the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board, specifically seeking copies of tape recordings or shorthand notes of his hearing.

The Board claimed it did not have custody or control over the court reporter's shorthand notes.

The Inquiry Officer found that the court reporter acts as a trustee and the Board retains control over the records, as its consent is required to order a transcript.

The Board was ordered to obtain the shorthand notes and issue an access decision to the appellant.

A patient at a psychiatric hospital requested access to tape recordings of his annual review hearings before the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board.

The Board denied access, claiming it lacked the technological means to copy the tapes, that the tapes were exempt as clinical records, and that disclosure would invade the privacy of others.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the tapes, finding that reproducing cassette tapes is reasonably practicable and that the tapes were created for a non-clinical purpose.

A small portion of one tape containing private conversations of other individuals was severed and exempted under section 49(b).

The requester, a patient at a psychiatric facility, appealed the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board's decision to deny access to 74 records, including tape recordings of his annual review hearings.

The Inquiry Officer found that the tape recordings were not 'clinical records' excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer upheld the application of solicitor-client privilege to several memoranda and the advice or recommendations exemption to one letter.

The Officer ordered the disclosure of the tape recordings, severing only a portion containing another individual's personal information, and directed the Board to provide copies of the tapes as it was reasonably practicable to do so.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to portions of records relating to an investigation into the death of a child at a licensed day care facility.

The Ministry relied on the invasion of privacy exemption under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained personal information, including employment history and information that could unfairly damage an individual's reputation, and that no factors favoured disclosure.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to draft policies and procedures regarding wildlife rehabilitation and game farming.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13(1), 18(1)(b), and 18(1)(g) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the records did not qualify as advice or recommendations under section 13(1), except for specific portions of one record.

The exemption for priority of publication under section 18(1)(b) was upheld for a research document on game farming.

The exemption for proposed policies under section 18(1)(g) was rejected because the Ministry had not yet reached a pending policy decision.

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

The requester appealed the York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board's decision to deny access to records pertaining to an investigation of her sexual harassment complaint.

The Board claimed the records were exempt under the invasion of privacy provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while some information was highly sensitive and supplied in confidence, the portions of the interview notes directly responding to the allegations must be disclosed to the requester.

The Board was ordered to disclose the severable portions of the record.

A requester sought access to Statements of Account for Official Plan Amendments from the Township of Oro-Medonte.

The Township decided to disclose the records.

An affected third party appealed the decision regarding one statement, arguing it was exempt under section 10 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the appeal, finding that the information was generated by the Township and not supplied by the third party, failing the second part of the section 10 test.

Disclosure was ordered.