Donald Hale

The appellant, daughter of the victim in a murder-suicide, appealed the Elliot Lake Police Services Board's decision to deny her request for access to police investigation records concerning her mother's death.

The adjudicator upheld the police's decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

Disclosure was presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator also found no compelling public interest to override the privacy exemption.

The appellant, through an agent, requested access to a Sudden Death Report prepared by the Toronto Police Services Board regarding her daughter's death.

The Police disclosed portions of the records but denied access to the remainder under the invasion of privacy exemptions in sections 14(1) and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, finding that the undisclosed information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy.

Furthermore, the adjudicator found that the appellant and her agent did not provide sufficient documentation to establish themselves as the 'personal representative' of the deceased under section 54(a) of the Act.

The appellant mailed an appeal of a freedom of information decision to the Information and Privacy Commissioner within the 30-day statutory period, but it was delayed in the mail and received after the period expired.

The institution argued the appeal was out of time.

The Adjudicator held that the effective date for making an appeal under section 50(2) of the Act is the date of mailing, not the date of receipt.

The institution's objection to timeliness was dismissed.

The appellant sought access to records maintained by the Ministry of Community and Social Services relating to three agencies operating group homes.

The Ministry and the affected agencies claimed exemptions under sections 17(1) (third party information) and 21(1) (personal information) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that certain records contained personal information requiring severance.

Applying the three-part test for section 17(1), the adjudicator determined that some records contained labour relations information supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice ongoing negotiations, and were thus exempt under section 17(1)(a).

The remaining records did not meet the test and were ordered disclosed.

The adjudicator also found the Ministry's search for records to be reasonable.

The appellant sought reconsideration of an order regarding access to police notes from an investigation into an alleged assault.

The adjudicator found that the undisclosed portions of the record contained the personal information of other identifiable individuals.

Applying the presumption in section 21(3)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the adjudicator concluded that the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry's decision to deny access under section 49(b) was upheld.

The appellant, an individual against whom allegations of abuse were made, requested access to compensation applications filed by victims of abuse at the St. John's Training School.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Adjudicator upheld the denial for records containing personal information, finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the victims' personal privacy.

However, the Adjudicator ordered the disclosure of certain application form pages that did not contain personal information, as the law enforcement exemption no longer applied.

The appellants submitted requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for ten police occurrence reports relating to ongoing disputes with neighbours.

The Police initially deemed the requests frivolous and vexatious but later withdrew this claim, granting partial access and withholding the remainder under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The appellants appealed, alleging the Police's search was inadequate and their decisions were biased due to ongoing civil litigation against the Police.

The Adjudicator dismissed the bias allegations, found the Police's search for records to be reasonable, and upheld the decision to withhold the remaining information under section 38(b), as it constituted an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The requester appealed the Halton Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to an occurrence report and police officer's notes relating to complaints or allegations made about the requester.

The Adjudicator found that the records contained the personal information of both the requester and another identifiable individual.

The Adjudicator concluded that the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The decision of the Police to deny access under section 38(b) was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the South Bruce-Grey Police Services Board to deny access to portions of an occurrence report under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police claimed the undisclosed information was exempt under section 14(1) (invasion of privacy).

The Adjudicator found that the records contained the personal information of both the appellant and an affected person, and that the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

Consequently, the disclosure of the affected person's information would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The Adjudicator upheld the Police's decision to exempt the information under section 38(b).

The appellant requested access to the examination and scoring method used for the position of Fire Prevention Inspector from the City of Vaughan.

The City denied access under section 11(h) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

During the appeal, it was revealed that grievances had been filed regarding the hiring process.

The Adjudicator found that the record was maintained and would be used by the City in relation to ongoing grievance arbitrations, which are proceedings relating to labour relations.

Consequently, the record fell within the jurisdictional exclusion in section 52(3)1 of the Act, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the City of Windsor's decision to deny access to a list of developers and related correspondence concerning a request for proposals for a development project.

The City claimed the records were exempt under section 9(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as they were received in confidence from the Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC).

The Adjudicator upheld the exemption for the information received from the ORC, finding it was an agency of the provincial government and had supplied the information in confidence.

The City was ordered to disclose the names of local politicians included in the records that were not part of the confidential ORC list.

The appellant submitted 13 freedom of information requests to the Ministry of Natural Resources for expense account records of 13 employees.

The Ministry provided a fee estimate that included a one-time charge of $495 for 16.5 hours of search time to locate records in its Finance and Administration Branch.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate, arguing it should be prorated or was unreasonable due to inefficient record storage.

The adjudicator upheld the fee estimate, finding that conducting a single comprehensive search was practical and to the appellant's financial benefit, and that the calculation of $30 per hour for 16.5 hours was in accordance with section 57(1) of the Act.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of police records relating to his arrest and conviction for assault.

The appellant also raised issues regarding the Ministry's delay in responding and the adequacy of its search.

The Adjudicator found the delay issue moot, upheld the Ministry's determination that certain information was non-responsive, and concluded the search was reasonable.

The Adjudicator further held that the severed information was exempt from disclosure under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b) because the records were compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought access to records relating to the Ministry of Natural Resources' Northeast Hardwood Project and the allocation of hardwood resources.

The Ministry denied access to various records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, third party information, and economic interests.

The Adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to the majority of the records, finding that they contained sensitive commercial and financial information supplied in confidence by third parties, as well as the Ministry's negotiating strategies and advice for its deliberative process.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose only a small portion of one record relating directly to the appellant.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Toronto Police Services Board for his employment application file.

The Police denied access, claiming the records were excluded under section 52(3) of the Act.

The appellant appealed, limiting the scope to a one-page Employment Investigator's Report.

The adjudicator found that the record was collected, prepared, maintained, or used by the Police in relation to a job competition, which constitutes an employment-related matter in which the institution has an interest.

Consequently, the record was excluded from the scope of the Act under section 52(3)3, and the decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the South Simcoe Police Services Board to deny access to portions of an accident report concerning a fatal parachuting accident.

The Police claimed the withheld information was exempt under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the records were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption against disclosure in section 14(3)(b).

The appeal was dismissed and the decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a 1981 police investigation in which he was a subject.

The Sudbury Regional Police Services Board initially refused to confirm or deny the existence of records, but later confirmed their existence and claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the records contained personal information compiled for law enforcement purposes, and that disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The decision of the Police to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Halton Regional Police Services Board denying access to portions of occurrence reports from a 1971 investigation and claiming that seized documents could not be located.

The adjudicator found that the undisclosed portions of the occurrence reports were exempt from disclosure under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy.

The adjudicator also found that the Police conducted a reasonable search for the seized documents, which likely no longer exist.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Toronto Licencing Commission appealed a decision by the Peel Regional Police Services Board denying access to records relating to an investigation of a taxi driver.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for law enforcement and invasion of privacy.

The Adjudicator found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The Adjudicator also rejected the Commission's argument that it was entitled to the records under section 32(f)(ii), noting that section 32 does not create a right of access.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the District School Board Number 3 to deny access to Grade 12 advanced mathematics final examination questions and answers.

The Board claimed the records were exempt under section 11(h) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act because the questions were to be used in an upcoming examination.

The Adjudicator distinguished previous orders where questions were drawn from a test bank for completed exams, finding that the requested records contained virtually identical questions to those intended for an upcoming examination.

The Board's decision to deny access was upheld.