Donald Hale

The appellant requested access to an engineering report prepared for the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville's insurer regarding a flooded property.

The Town denied access, claiming the report was not in its custody or control.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer applied the factors from Order 120 and found that the report was created independently by the Town's insurers, and the Town had no right to obtain, retain, or dispose of it.

The appeal was dismissed as the Town did not have custody or control of the record under section 4(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the City of Mississauga's decision to deny access to portions of a Corporate Report and its appendices under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The records related to a homeowners association's request for reimbursement of expenses incurred opposing a land severance application.

The City relied on the closed meeting exemption under section 6(1)(b).

The Inquiry Officer found that the records would reveal the substance of deliberations of in camera meetings of the City's Planning and Development Committee, which were properly held in the absence of the public under section 55(1) of the Municipal Act.

The exception under section 6(2)(b) did not apply as the subject-matter was not considered in an open meeting.

The City's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to prosecution records concerning his son from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The Ministry indicated the records had been returned to the police and were no longer in its custody.

The appellant appealed, arguing that requiring him to clarify his request violated sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the Charter challenge, finding no clear and compelling argument that the Act's provisions were inconsistent with the Charter.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Ministry had conducted a reasonable search for the records, as it provided evidence that prosecution files are routinely returned to the investigating police force upon conclusion of proceedings.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

A broadcast journalist appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services' decision to deny access to records concerning investigations and complaints relating to two named employees.

The Ministry claimed 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 to deny access to three of the records, finding their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of one investigation report with names and personal identifiers removed, as it was subject to a high degree of public scrutiny.

The appellant requested access to the complete police file concerning their arrest.

The Haldimand-Norfolk Police Services Board denied access, claiming exemptions for law enforcement and the right to a fair trial under sections 8(1)(b) and (f) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police argued that disclosure would interfere with an ongoing Police Services Act investigation into the arresting officer and prejudice the officer's right to a fair trial.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police failed to establish a clear and direct linkage between the disclosure of the records and the alleged harms.

The Police were ordered to disclose the responsive portions of the records to the appellant.

The requester appealed a decision by the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat denying access to an historical report regarding the Wikwemikong First Nation land claim.

The institution claimed the record was exempt under section 15(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as it contained information received in confidence from the federal government.

The Inquiry Officer found that the three-part test for section 15(b) was met, as the report was produced by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and provided to Ontario on a confidential basis for land claim negotiations.

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

The appellant requested a fee waiver for records from the Metropolitan Licensing Commission regarding a construction company.

The Commission reduced the initial $152 fee to $76.

The appellant appealed, arguing financial hardship and public safety benefits under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found insufficient evidence of financial hardship or public safety benefits to justify a full fee waiver.

The Commission's decision not to waive the remaining $76 fee was upheld.

A reporter appealed the Sault Ste.

Marie Police Service's decision to deny access to an internal discipline report concerning a named police officer.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumed unjustified invasion of privacy exemption under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer also determined that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, as the internal discipline matter did not relate to the use of public funds or police relations with the community.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

A requester sought access to the schedule of prices submitted by successful bidders for a medical supplies tender.

The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton decided to grant full access.

One of the successful bidders appealed, arguing the unit pricing information was exempt under the third party information exemption in section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the appeal, finding that while the unit pricing was financial/commercial information supplied to the institution, it was not supplied in confidence.

The tender documents explicitly stated submissions may become public information, and the Region had a long-standing practice of disclosing such information.

The Region was ordered to disclose the records.

The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton received requests for access to the schedule of prices submitted by successful bidders for a medical supplies tender.

The Region decided to grant full access.

One of the successful bidders appealed, arguing the unit pricing information was exempt under the third party information exemption in section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the information was financial/commercial and supplied to the Region, it was not supplied in confidence, as the Region's tender notice indicated submissions could become public and the Region had a long-standing practice of disclosing unit prices.

The appeal was dismissed and the Region was ordered to disclose the record.

The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton received requests for access to the schedule of prices submitted by successful bidders for a medical supplies tender.

The Region decided to grant access.

One of the successful bidders appealed, arguing the information was exempt under the third party information exemption in section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the appeal, finding that while the unit pricing was financial/commercial information supplied to the Region, it was not supplied in confidence, as the Region's tender notice indicated submissions could become public and the Region had a long-standing practice of disclosing such information.

The appellant sought access to the interview scores of other candidates in a job competition in which she was unsuccessful.

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

During mediation, one candidate consented to the release of their scores.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the consenting candidate's scores but upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the remaining scores, finding that they constituted personal evaluations under section 21(3)(g) and their disclosure would result in a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant requested records from the City of Guelph relating to a storm sewer construction project.

The City denied access to 48 documents, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations and third party information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that 12 records contained advice or recommendations and were exempt from disclosure.

However, the City failed to establish that the remaining records were supplied in confidence or that their disclosure would cause harm, so the third party information exemption did not apply.

The City was ordered to disclose the remaining 36 records.

The appellant requested copies of 147 ballots returned to the City of Toronto by residents and property owners regarding a boulevard cafe license application.

The City denied access under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that 136 ballots returned by individuals contained personal information and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

However, 10 ballots returned by business entities did not contain personal information and were ordered to be disclosed, along with the appellant's own ballot.

The appellant requested access to a letter from a child and family services organization to the Ministry of Community and Social Services regarding the status of the appellant's lawsuit against the organization.

The Ministry denied access under sections 17(1)(d) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained only the appellant's personal information and that its disclosure would not unjustifiably invade another's privacy.

The Officer also found that the record did not qualify for exemption under sections 17(1)(a) or (d) as it was not labour relations information and its disclosure could not reasonably be expected to interfere with future negotiations.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant requested access to a report produced from an internal investigation into a workplace incident where she threatened harm to co-workers.

The Ministry of Environment and Energy denied access under various exemptions, including section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained highly sensitive personal information supplied in confidence by affected persons.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected persons' personal privacy and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access.

The requester appealed the Liquor Control Board of Ontario's decision to deny access to records pertaining to a forensic accounting investigation into allegations of improper foreign currency trading by Board staff.

The Board claimed exemptions under sections 13, 17, 19, and 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were exempt under the claimed sections, including third-party commercial information of the accounting firm, solicitor-client privileged communications, and the personal information of the former Treasurer.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of several other records, finding that the exemptions did not apply and that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply to the exempt records.

The appellant requested copies of two termination agreements between the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk and two former employees under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Municipality denied access, relying on the closed meeting exemption under section 6(1)(b) and the invasion of privacy exemption under section 14.

The Inquiry Officer applied the three-part test for section 6(1)(b) and found that the meetings were held in camera, authorized by the Municipal Act, and that disclosure of the agreements would reveal the substance of the deliberations.

The Municipality's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to all information relating to the involvement of a company for which he was acting, which led the Workers' Compensation Board to seek a search and seizure order for the company's employment records.

The Board initially responded that no records existed, but later disclosed several files after the appellant provided additional information.

The appellant appealed, arguing the Board failed to provide all records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board had conducted a reasonable search and disclosed all records relating specifically to the appellant's client, upholding the Board's decision.

The Inquiry Officer issued a Final Order following Interim Order M-310, which had directed the Belleville Police Services Board to reconsider its exercise of discretion under section 38(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

After reviewing the Board's written representations regarding the factors it considered, the Inquiry Officer found nothing improper in the exercise of discretion and upheld the Board's decision.