Donald Hale

The requester appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to portions of his personnel files under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records contained the personal information of other individuals and that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b).

The Officer also found that the City failed to establish that disclosure would seriously threaten the health or safety of individuals under section 13.

The City was ordered to disclose certain records and withhold others.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to deny access to 36 records relating to a named company's compliance with capitalization, bonding, and insurance requirements under the Ontario Securities Act and the Commodity Futures Act.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13 and 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained financial and commercial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the company's competitive position.

The records were held to be exempt under section 17(1), and the Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to a 1989 meeting at the Township of King offices.

The Township provided one page from the Mayor's diary and claimed no other records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing more records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Township provided sufficient affidavit evidence detailing searches by the Clerk, By-law Enforcement, and the Mayor, demonstrating a reasonable effort to locate responsive records.

The Township's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested that the Ministry of Community and Social Services correct a memorandum regarding the start date of her developmental secondment.

The Ministry refused, offering instead to attach a statement of disagreement.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the information was the appellant's personal information, was factually incorrect, and was not merely an opinion.

The Ministry was ordered to attach a memorandum to the record reflecting the corrected start date.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records received from a named individual concerning the requester's client.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that confirming the existence of such records would convey information that would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(5) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The presumed invasion of privacy under section 21(3)(c) applied because the records, if they existed, would relate to eligibility for social service or welfare benefits.

The appellant sought access to records relating to a workplace harassment investigation conducted by the Management Board Secretariat.

The Secretariat withheld portions of the records under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information qualified as highly sensitive personal information supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure could unfairly expose affected persons to harm.

The Secretariat's decision to deny access was upheld.

The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to investigations of a named real estate broker.

The Ministry denied access to 31 responsive records, claiming various exemptions including law enforcement and personal privacy.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that inspection reports and related documents were exempt under section 14(2)(a) as reports prepared in the course of law enforcement.

The remaining records, consisting of correspondence and complaints, were found to contain personal information and were exempt from disclosure under section 21 as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant sought access to records relating to discussions at Belleville Police Services Board meetings regarding his salary and continued employment.

The Board denied access to four records under various exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that Records 3, 5, and 9 qualified for exemption under section 6(1)(b) as they revealed the substance of deliberations of in-camera meetings.

However, Record 4 did not qualify for exemption under sections 6(1)(b), 11(e), or 12, and was ordered disclosed.

Because the Board failed to provide representations on its exercise of discretion under section 38(a) for the exempt records, the Inquiry Officer ordered the Board to reconsider its discretion and provide written representations.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a Police Complaints Commissioner investigation into three police officers.

The Ministry disclosed most records but withheld a four-page case summary under sections 13(1) and 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

During mediation, three pages were disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the remaining page contained personal information and qualified for exemption under section 14(2)(a) as a report prepared in the course of a law enforcement investigation.

The Ministry's exercise of discretion under section 49(a) to refuse disclosure was upheld.

The appellant requested access to his institutional and health care records from a correctional facility.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services disclosed some records but withheld others under various exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that certain records contained personal information of other individuals and were exempt under section 49(b) as an unjustified invasion of privacy.

Other records were found to be exempt under sections 14(1)(e) and 14(1)(k) as their disclosure could endanger physical safety or jeopardize the security of the correctional facility.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose a few specific pages that did not meet the exemption criteria.

The appellant requested access to records relating to the investigation of sexual and workplace harassment complaints she brought under the Ministry of Housing's Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy Directive.

The Ministry denied access under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the records contained personal information, the exemptions under sections 21(2)(f) and (h) only applied to a small portion of the records containing highly sensitive information unrelated to the specific complaints.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the balance of the records to the appellant.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for answers to questions regarding the withdrawal of criminal charges against him.

The Ministry provided some records but the appellant appealed, seeking further details such as police badge numbers and reasons for the withdrawal.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry was not required to create new records to answer questions and had conducted a reasonable search for existing responsive records.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, an employee of the Metropolitan Licensing Commission, appealed a decision denying access to records concerning workplace incidents involving the appellant and a former employee.

The Commission claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including unjustified invasion of personal privacy and advice or recommendations.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information but their disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption for a portion of one record containing advice, but ordered the disclosure of the remaining records.

The requester appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Licensing Commission to deny access to certain records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that all records contained personal information.

The Officer upheld the Commission's decision to deny access to Record 19 (publicly available), Record 65 (highly sensitive personal information), and portions of Records 16 and 41 (advice or recommendations).

The Officer ordered the disclosure of the remaining records, finding that their disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and that they were not exempt under solicitor-client privilege.

The appellant appealed a decision by the York Regional Police Services Board denying access to various police records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b).

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Police conducted a reasonable search for the requested records.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant requested access to an investigator's report relating to a harassment complaint involving the appellant.

The City of Scarborough denied access to two responsive records, claiming exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that while the records contained personal information, disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

However, the 'Recommendations' section of one record qualified for exemption as advice or recommendations.

The City was ordered to disclose the remainder of the records.

The appellant requested access to personal information held by the Simcoe County Board of Education relating to himself and his family.

The Board disclosed most records but withheld portions of one report under the solicitor-client privilege exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld record was prepared for a lawyer's brief in contemplation of litigation and thus qualified for exemption under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer also concluded that the Board's search for additional responsive records was reasonable.

The Board's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to withhold portions of records relating to a workplace harassment complaint under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records contained personal information and qualified for exemption under sections 13(1) and 49(b) of the Act, as their disclosure would reveal advice or recommendations or constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the remaining records to the requester.

The appellant requested access to information supplied to the Ministry of Community and Social Services by two women's shelters regarding an investigation into a service complaint involving his former spouse and child.

The Ministry denied access to the records under the personal privacy exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained highly sensitive personal information of the former spouse and other individuals, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of their personal privacy.

The appellant requested a correction to a decision letter from the Police Complaints Commissioner.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied the request on the basis that the information was not the appellant's personal information.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the passage in question did not contain the appellant's personal information and therefore could not be corrected under section 47(2)(a) of the Act.