Donald Hale

The appellant, a former employee of Ontario Hydro, requested access to his employment records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Ontario Hydro denied the request, stating that all responsive records had already been provided to the appellant's counsel during a civil lawsuit.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that Ontario Hydro had conducted a reasonable search by knowledgeable staff in locations where the records might reasonably be located, and upheld the institution's decision.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Sault Ste.

Marie Police Services Board denying access to the names of a duty officer and dispatchers contained in a record related to a Highway Traffic Act charge.

The Police claimed the names were exempt from disclosure as personal information under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the names of the employees alone did not constitute personal information or employment history within the meaning of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police were ordered to disclose the names.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Education and Training for records relating to programs operated by Fanshawe College.

The Ministry determined it did not have custody or control of the records and transferred the request to the College pursuant to section 25(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the transfer.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the College had custody or control of the records and the Ministry was obligated to transfer the request.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Education and Training's decision to transfer parts of a freedom of information request to other institutions and its claim that it did not have custody or control of the remaining requested records.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to transfer parts of the request to the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk and Fanshawe College, finding they had a greater interest in the records.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Ministry did not have custody or control of the records for four parts of the request, but did have custody of records relating to one part, ordering the Ministry to issue a new decision letter for that part.

The appellant requested access to expense account records and salary payments made by the Board to two trustees.

The Board provided a fee estimate of $2,440 and denied a fee waiver.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate and the denial of the fee waiver.

The Inquiry Officer found the Board's search method inefficient and reduced the allowable search time from 78 hours to 25 hours, lowering the search fee to $690.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's decision to deny a fee waiver, finding that a waiver would shift an unreasonable burden of the cost to the institution.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs received a freedom of information request for records concerning the Town of Orangeville's proposal to annex surrounding lands and change its status to a city.

The Ministry denied access to five records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, proposed plans, and solicitor-client privilege.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer upheld the application of solicitor-client privilege to one record and the advice or recommendations exemption to portions of two others.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the remaining records, as the proposed plans exemption did not apply because no policy decision had yet been reached.

The appellant, representing a taxpayer's group, requested access to records provided to three municipal councillors.

The Township provided a fee estimate of $240 for 10 hours of search and preparation time and denied a fee waiver.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found the 10-hour search estimate unreasonable and reduced it to six hours, resulting in a revised fee of $120.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Township's decision to deny the fee waiver, finding it fair and equitable as the appellant provided no evidence to support a waiver.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision regarding a freedom of information request for O.P.P. occurrence reports and officer notebook entries.

During the inquiry, the Ministry released the responsive records it had located, leaving the sole issue of whether a reasonable search was conducted for additional records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search was reasonable, as the requested 911 and telecommunications recordings from 1989 and 1990 had been destroyed pursuant to the Ministry's records retention policy.

The appellant appealed the City of Peterborough's response to a freedom of information request, arguing that additional responsive records should exist and that the records should be disclosed in the public interest due to a health and safety hazard.

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

Furthermore, the Inquiry Officer determined that section 5(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act did not apply to the records sought, and that the Information and Privacy Commissioner lacks the power to make an order under that section.

The City's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to the Ministry of Labour's policies and procedures on prosecutions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Ministry denied access to a 1992 Prosecution Policy, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the document was prepared by Crown counsel, it did not contain a legal opinion and was not prepared for the purpose of providing legal advice.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

The requester, a patient at a mental health centre, appealed the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board's decision to deny access to 74 records relating to his disposition hearings.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of most records, finding that the Board's recommendations constituted decisions falling outside the advice or recommendations exemption, and that clinical records provided to the Board for non-clinical purposes were not excluded from the Act.

The law enforcement exemption was also rejected for inactive investigations.

However, the exemption for publicly available court records was upheld.

The appellant, acting as the Administratrix of a deceased person's estate, appealed a decision by the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board denying access to police records concerning a fatal sailing accident.

The appellant sought the records to determine whether to pursue a wrongful death lawsuit.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant could not rely on section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act because a wrongful death lawsuit does not relate to the administration of the deceased's estate.

Furthermore, the records were compiled during a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b).

The appeal was dismissed and the police decision was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services' decision to withhold 30 pages of records concerning the investigation of two complaints against a named Ontario Provincial Police officer.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under section 14(2)(a) (law enforcement) and section 21(1) (invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer applied the three-part test for the law enforcement exemption and found that the records were reports prepared in the course of a law enforcement investigation by an agency with the function of enforcing the law.

The appeal was dismissed and the Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to the resumes of three Provincial appointees to the Goderich Police Services Board.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the resumes contained employment and educational history, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 21(3)(d).

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of his personnel file and records relating to his 1990 dismissal, claiming additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold certain information under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of other individuals' personal privacy.

However, the Inquiry Officer found the Ministry's search for records relating to the dismissal was unreasonable and ordered a further search of the Grievance Administration and Negotiations Branch.

The appellant sought access to two agreements relating to the North York Performing Arts Centre and notes taken by a City solicitor.

The City denied access, citing several exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the denial of access to the agreements, finding they were exempt under the closed meeting exemption as their disclosure would reveal the substance of in camera deliberations.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the solicitor's notes, concluding they did not qualify for solicitor-client privilege because they were not created in contemplation of litigation.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny a full fee waiver for an access to information request.

The Ministry had reduced the initial $950 fee estimate to $275 based on the appellant's financial hardship.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's partial fee waiver was fair and equitable, noting that the appellant did not constructively work to narrow the scope of the request and that a full waiver would shift an unreasonable burden of cost to the Ministry.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, a former auxiliary officer, requested access to all records in his personnel file, specifically seeking documentation pertaining to his dismissal.

The Barrie Police Services Board provided the records located in his file but claimed no further documents existed regarding his dismissal.

The appellant appealed, arguing additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police's search was not reasonable, as it was unlikely a dismissal would occur without written documentation, and ordered the Police to conduct further searches and provide affidavits detailing the search efforts.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Township of Emily regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to a road allowance dispute.

The appellant challenged the delegated authority of the Clerk Treasurer to make the access decision and argued that further responsive records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Township had rectified the delegation issue during the appeal process.

Furthermore, based on the affidavit evidence provided by the Township detailing the search efforts, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the Township had conducted a reasonable search for the requested records.

The Township's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Education and Training's decision to deny access to records containing the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of certified electricians and registered apprentices.

The Inquiry Officer found that the requested information constituted personal information and that its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

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

The Ministry's decision was upheld.