Donald Hale

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Scarborough for records relating to their employment termination.

The City denied access to two records, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12.

The Inquiry Officer found that Record 1, a letter from the City Solicitor to the Mayor, qualified for exemption under the common law solicitor-client privilege branch of section 12.

However, Record 2, a memorandum from the Director of Planning and Development Law, was found to contain administrative comments rather than legal advice, and was not prepared in contemplation of litigation.

The City was ordered to disclose Record 2 to the appellant.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to records relating to an Employment Equity complaint.

The records consisted of a draft letter and an interoffice memorandum.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the personal information of the requester and others.

The Inquiry Officer also determined that the records qualified for exemption under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they contained advice or recommendations of a public servant.

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

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought access to personal information and general records relating to Freedom of Information files maintained by the Ministry of Health.

The Ministry denied access to several records, citing various exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including advice or recommendations, third party information, solicitor-client privilege, and inquiry privilege.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the records and upheld the Ministry's decision for some records while ordering the disclosure of others.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable and that the decision-makers had the proper delegated authority.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to Transit Windsor for correspondence and supporting records related to labour relations.

Transit Windsor initially found no responsive records but, after mediation and further searches, located and disclosed several documents.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that Transit Windsor's search for responsive records was reasonable in the circumstances and upheld the institution's decision.

The appellant requested access to invoices, payments, and by-laws relating to a named sole proprietorship from the Township of Cavan.

The Township denied access, claiming exemptions under sections 7(1) and 14(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records did not contain advice or recommendations, so section 7(1) did not apply.

Furthermore, the information related to a sole proprietorship and did not qualify as 'personal information' under section 2(1).

The Township was ordered to disclose the records in their entirety.

The Ministry of Environment and Energy received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for environmental audit reports relating to two properties.

The Ministry decided to disclose the records, and the third-party company that commissioned the reports appealed.

The appellant argued the records were exempt under section 17(1) of the Act and protected by common law solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the records contained technical information supplied in confidence, the appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of harm under sections 17(1)(a), (b), or (c).

The Inquiry Officer also held that common law solicitor-client privilege cannot be claimed outside the specific exemptions in the Act.

The Ministry's decision to disclose the records was upheld.

The requester appealed a decision by the Niagara Regional Police Services Board denying access to certain incident reports under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information of both the requester and other identifiable individuals.

Applying section 38(b) and the presumption in section 14(3)(b), the Inquiry Officer concluded that the records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other individuals.

The Police's decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to witness statements compiled during a Police Complaints Investigation Bureau investigation.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information of the requester and other identifiable individuals.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to apply the discretionary exemption under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, concluding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy as the records were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The requester, acting as the executor of an estate, appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision that no additional responsive records existed regarding provincial land tax and succession duty files.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Ministry's search efforts, which included checking historical microfiche, computer records, and card indexes, and noted that the relevant closed file had been destroyed pursuant to a records retention schedule.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the Ministry's search was reasonable in the circumstances and upheld the decision.

The appellant appealed the institution's decision regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to two mining claims, arguing that additional responsive records should exist.

The institution provided affidavits from five staff members detailing their search efforts.

The Inquiry Officer found that the institution's search was conducted by knowledgeable staff in locations where records might reasonably be found, and upheld the institution's decision, concluding the search was reasonable.

The Corporation of the Town of Dunnville received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for an environmental audit on land it proposed to purchase.

The Town denied access, claiming exemptions under sections 11(c) and 11(g) of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Town failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of harm to its economic interests or competitive position under section 11(c).

The Officer also found that the record did not meet the two-part test for exemption under section 11(g).

The Town was ordered to disclose the record to the appellant.

The requester appealed the Corporation's decision to deny access to its 1992 draft 'line item' budget and its claim that no records existed regarding replacement employees.

The Inquiry Officer found that the draft budget was exempt under section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as it would reveal the substance of deliberations of an in camera meeting.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Corporation met its obligation to conduct a reasonable search, as it had not hired any replacement employees and therefore no responsive records existed.

The requester appealed a fee estimate of $1,095 provided by the Metropolitan Licensing Commission for processing a request for records listing taxi license plates owned by 44 named licensees in 1975.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the components of the fee estimate, including manual search charges, photocopying, and preparation time.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Commission had double-counted some preparation time under the search charges.

The fee estimate was reduced to $785, allowing for 18 hours of manual search time, photocopying, and 8 hours of preparation time.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to refuse a fee waiver for a $600 fee associated with a request for job descriptions of staff in Ontario correctional facilities.

The requester argued financial hardship and that dissemination of the record would benefit public health and safety.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the requester failed to provide sufficient evidence of his assets and expenses to prove financial hardship, and failed to demonstrate a connection between disclosure and a benefit to public health or safety.

The appellant requested a list of landowners of Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) in Grey and Bruce counties from the Ministry of Natural Resources.

The Ministry denied access to the names and addresses of natural persons on the list, citing the mandatory personal privacy exemption under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the names and addresses constituted personal information and that the appellant failed to establish that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed the Township of Ignace's decision to deny a request to correct personal information contained in three personnel evaluations.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information qualified as personal information but concluded that it consisted of evaluative and opinion information rather than factual errors.

Applying the test from Order 186, the Inquiry Officer determined that the appropriate remedy was not correction under section 36(2)(a), but rather attaching a statement of disagreement under section 36(2)(b).

The Township's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested personal information from the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto relating to his employment and discharge in the 1960s, specifically seeking records substantiating an alleged promise of re-employment or retraining.

The Municipality granted partial access, transferring part of the request to the Workers' Compensation Board and withholding some third-party personal information.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the search efforts detailed in an affidavit by the Manager of Administrative Services, which included searches of departmental dockets, Workers' Compensation files, Corporate Personnel files, and inactive records.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the Municipality conducted a reasonable search for responsive records as required by section 17 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and upheld the Municipality's decision.

The requester appealed the Township of Maryborough's decision to deny access to owners' names and property descriptions contained in building permit summary reports.

The Inquiry Officer found that the names of individual owners (natural persons) qualified as personal information and were exempt from disclosure under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, except for one individual who consented to disclosure.

The property descriptions and the names of non-natural persons did not qualify as personal information and were ordered to be disclosed.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to three records relating to an audit of a local organization and complaints against it.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's notice of refusal was deficient but proceeded to determine the access issues.

The Inquiry Officer held that portions of the draft status report (Record 1) were exempt under the law enforcement exemption, but the remainder was not exempt as advice or recommendations.

The internal memorandum (Record 2) was ordered disclosed in full.

The letter from named individuals (Record 3) was found to contain personal information and was exempt from disclosure as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry of Natural Resources received a freedom of information request for correspondence with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.

The Ministry decided to disclose three letters and their responses.

The Federation appealed, arguing the records were exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as scientific or technical information supplied in confidence.

The Inquiry Officer found the records contained neither scientific nor technical information, and the Federation failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence of reasonable expectation of harm.

The appeal was dismissed and the Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.