Donald Hale

The appellant requested access to three reports concerning a public inquiry, a judicial inquiry, and an audit related to the Literacy Branch of the Ministry of Education and Training.

The Ministry extended the 30-day time limit to respond, citing the need to consult with the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The appellant appealed the time extension.

The Inquiry Officer found that consultations with outside individuals were necessary and could not reasonably be completed within the standard time limit.

The Ministry's decision to extend the time limit was upheld as reasonable.

The requester appealed the City of Scarborough's decision to charge a fee and deny a fee waiver for a freedom of information request.

The requester argued the records contained his personal information and that the specific record he sought was not disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records did not contain the requester's personal information, the fee was properly calculated based on search time, and the requester failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify a fee waiver.

The City's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board for information regarding an investigation of a named entity and a police radio frequency.

The Police refused to confirm or deny the existence of the records under section 8(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the refusal to confirm or deny the existence of the investigation records, finding they would qualify for exemption under sections 8(1)(a) and (b).

However, the Inquiry Officer found that the radio frequency records, if they existed, would not qualify for exemption under section 8(1)(l), and ordered the Police to issue a decision letter regarding that part of the request.

The requester sought a copy of a real estate examination they had written, which was administered by the Ontario Real Estate Association (OREA).

The Ministry denied the request, claiming it did not have custody or control of the record.

The requester appealed.

During the appeal, it was discovered that OREA had destroyed the examination pursuant to its retention schedule, rendering the request moot.

However, the Inquiry Officer determined that the Ministry did exercise control over such records for the purpose of conducting marking reviews under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act.

The appeal was discontinued as the record no longer existed.

The requester appealed the Kingston Police Services Board's decision to deny access to portions of two records relating to a strategic planning process under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that a six-page 'Patrol Audit Report' fell within the exception to the advice or recommendations exemption under section 7(2)(i) and ordered its disclosure.

However, an 18-page record of internal employee suggestions was found to be exempt under section 7(1), and the public interest override in section 16 did not apply.

The Police's decision regarding the 18-page record was upheld.

The requester sought access to records concerning the recommendation and approval process for a telephone system for the Town of Markham's Civic Centre.

The Town denied access under the law enforcement exemptions in sections 8(1)(a) and (b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police confirmed an ongoing criminal investigation related to the records.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Town's decision, finding that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with the law enforcement investigation under section 8(1)(b).

The appellant appealed the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's decision to extend the time limit for responding to a freedom of information request by 30 days.

The request sought work orders for ambulance steering repairs.

The Inquiry Officer found that the request necessitated a complex, time-consuming search through 300 files by an experienced individual, and that meeting the original 30-day limit would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the ambulance service.

The 30-day extension was held to be reasonable and the Municipality's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to Minutes of Settlement and an attached release executed between the Ministry, two individuals, and a real estate company.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected persons' personal privacy under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant, an employee of the Metropolitan Licensing Commission, requested access to records pertaining to a work-related incident.

The Commission denied access to several records, claiming exemptions under sections 12, 38(a), and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the records were not prepared in contemplation of litigation and therefore did not qualify for exemption under section 12.

Furthermore, while the records contained personal information, their disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b).

The Commission was ordered to disclose the records to the appellant.

The appellant requested access to correspondence sent by a named individual to the Chairperson of the Hornepayne Board of Education containing allegations of unfair treatment.

The Board denied access under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information of both the appellant and affected persons.

However, the Board and affected persons failed to establish that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy under the criteria in section 14(2).

The Board was ordered to disclose the records to the appellant.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Toronto for audited statements of fax expenses incurred by Cityhome.

The City initially failed to issue a decision within 30 days, resulting in a deemed refusal, but subsequently issued a decision stating that no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The sole issue was whether the City conducted a reasonable search for the records under section 17 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City's search, supported by an affidavit from a knowledgeable manager, was reasonable and upheld the City's decision.

The requester appealed the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to certain police records relating to an incident and subsequent investigation.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information and qualified as reports prepared in the course of law enforcement under section 8(2)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police's exercise of discretion to deny access under section 38(a) was upheld.

The appellant requested access to three occurrence reports relating to an incident at a correctional facility.

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 the records contained the personal information of the appellant and other affected persons.

However, the Ministry failed to establish that disclosure would result in an unjustified invasion of privacy under sections 21(2) or 21(3).

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

The appellant, a Member of the Legislative Assembly, appealed the Ministry of Environment and Energy's decision to charge a $90 fee and refuse a fee waiver for a freedom of information request regarding environmental studies of a new Ministry office site.

The appellant argued that his status as an MLA and the public interest in the environmental condition of the site justified a fee waiver.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding the fee calculation reasonable.

The Officer applied the four-part test from Order P-474 and concluded that disclosing the record would not yield a public benefit by disclosing a public health concern.

Furthermore, the Officer held that the Act does not grant MLAs a special exemption from paying fees.

The requester appealed the City of North York's decision to deny access to a Management Agreement between the North York Performing Arts Centre Corporation and Live Entertainment.

The City claimed the record was exempt under section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as its disclosure would reveal the substance of deliberations of in camera meetings.

The Inquiry Officer found that the meetings were properly held in camera under the Municipal Act and the City of North York Act, and that disclosing the agreement would reveal the substance of those deliberations.

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

The appellant appealed the College's response to a freedom of information request for records relating to timetable changes for a program.

The College claimed no written documentation was required to effect such changes and provided a timetable.

The Inquiry Officer found that the College's affidavit did not clearly state which files were searched and identified a potentially responsive document that had not been addressed.

The Inquiry Officer concluded the search was not reasonable and ordered the College to conduct a further search and issue a decision letter regarding access to the identified document.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Workers' Compensation Board for access to certain named records and correction of personal information.

The Board released documents from two claim files, but the appellant appealed, arguing that additional records were withheld.

The sole issue on appeal was whether the Board conducted a reasonable search for the specific records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's search, supported by an affidavit from its Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Co-ordinator, was reasonable in the circumstances and upheld the Board's decision.

The appellant requested access to all information regarding a human rights complaint they initiated with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Commission denied access to 119 pages under various exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records qualified as law enforcement reports under section 14(2)(a) and advice or recommendations under section 13(1).

For the remaining records, the Inquiry Officer determined that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy under section 49(b).

The Commission was ordered to disclose one record (Record 4) and its decision to withhold the rest was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to an internal investigation report and attachments concerning an incident where a correctional staff member allegedly used excessive force on an inmate.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the records contained personal information of inmates and other individuals, the disclosure of which would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under sections 21 and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The recommendations section of the report was exempt as advice or recommendations under section 13(1).

However, the Ministry failed to establish that disclosing a hand-drawn diagram of the search area would facilitate an escape under section 14(1)(j), and failed to establish that a list of staff names and dates fell under the correctional history exemption in section 14(2)(d).

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the diagram and a severed list of attachments.

The appellant requested the correction of personal information contained in a letter from the Chairman of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton by deleting a specific sentence.

The Municipality refused the deletion but offered to attach a statement of disagreement.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while the sentence contained the appellant's personal information, it was not shown to be inexact, incomplete, or ambiguous.

The sentence reflected the Chairman's opinion and presumption at the time it was written.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Municipality's decision, concluding that the appropriate remedy for disagreeing with opinion information is a statement of disagreement under section 36(2)(b) of the Act.