Donald Hale

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to records relating to a consulting contract.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 17(1), 18(1)(f), 18(1)(g), and 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as well as the labour relations exclusion under section 65(6).

The Inquiry Officer found that certain records were excluded under section 65(6)3 as they related to labour relations matters in which the Ministry had an interest.

The Officer also upheld the application of the third-party information exemption under section 17(1) for most of the remaining records, finding they contained trade secrets and commercial information supplied in confidence.

One record was ordered disclosed as it did not meet the criteria for any claimed exemption.

The appellant, a member of the Ontario Provincial Police, requested access to his personnel records, Professional Standards Bureau records, Workers' Compensation Board records, and Long Term Disability records.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under sections 65(6)1 and 3.

The Inquiry Officer found that the WCB and disciplinary records were excluded under section 65(6)1 as they related to proceedings.

However, the personnel and LTD records were not excluded under either section 65(6)1 or 3, as they were not maintained in relation to proceedings or meetings in which the Ministry had a legal interest.

The Ministry was ordered to issue an access decision for the personnel and LTD records.

The appellant, a victim of a dog attack, requested records relating to the incident from the City of Scarborough.

The City disclosed the records but withheld the names and telephone numbers of the dog owners under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while the information was highly sensitive, the appellant required the names of the dog owners to commence a civil action for damages.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the names but upheld the City's decision to withhold the telephone numbers, as they were not necessary for the civil action.

The appellant requested access to information concerning the volume of wood cut under a Ministry of Natural Resources license.

The Ministry denied access under the third party exemption in section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while the information was commercial and supplied in confidence, there was no evidence from the affected third party to establish a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellants appealed the Prince Edward County Board of Education's response to their request for records relating to their child, a special education student.

The appellants argued that additional records should exist, including a hospital booklet, a medication log, a special education file folder, and a third medical report.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board had provided sufficient evidence, including an affidavit from the Supervisor of Special Education Services, to demonstrate that it had made a reasonable effort to identify and locate the requested records.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a victim of a serious assault, requested access to the prosecution file relating to the criminal proceedings against the individuals charged with the assault.

The Ministry of the Attorney General initially denied access claiming solicitor-client privilege, and later claimed additional exemptions including law enforcement and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose certain records to which no mandatory exemptions applied, but its decision to deny access to the remaining records was upheld.

A pharmaceutical company requested access to records relating to the Ministry of Health's purchase of the drug AZT.

The Ministry denied access to the majority of the records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, third party information, economic interests, and solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the records and found that many were exempt under solicitor-client privilege and third party commercial information exemptions, as their disclosure could harm the competitive position of the affected party.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of certain records and portions of records that did not meet the criteria for exemption.

The public interest override was found not to apply.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission denying access to an organizational review report under section 65(6) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

During the inquiry, the appellant advised that he had obtained a copy of the record through other means but wished to proceed with the appeal to obtain it under the Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appeal was moot, as the appellant already possessed the record and no useful purpose would be served by proceeding.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Transportation's decision to deny access to a consultant's report regarding the operation of an office where the appellant was formerly employed.

The Ministry claimed the record was excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6).

The Inquiry Officer found that the record was prepared on behalf of the Ministry in relation to communications about employment-related matters in which the Ministry has a legal interest.

As all requirements of section 65(6)3 were met, the record was excluded from the scope of the Act, and the Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant sought access to the identity of a person who filed a complaint against her regarding the care of her husband.

The Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee denied access to the complainant's name, citing the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the information was highly sensitive and supplied in confidence, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the complainant's personal privacy under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant, a Ministry employee, requested access to an Engineering Development Program Audit Report under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded under section 65(6) of the Act as they related to employment-related matters in which the Ministry had an interest.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were prepared on behalf of the Ministry in relation to communications about a training program, which constituted an employment-related matter.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Ministry had a legal interest in the matter, as the findings could affect its legal rights or obligations regarding fair hiring practices.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

A police officer appealed the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board's decision to deny access to records in his medical file under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police claimed the records were excluded from the Act's jurisdiction under section 52(3) because they related to employment and disciplinary proceedings.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected in relation to potential disciplinary hearings and fitness for duty investigations, which are employment-related proceedings.

The decision of the Police to deny access was upheld, as the records fell outside the scope of the Act.

The appellant appealed a decision by the London Police Services Board denying access to portions of a police accident report and records relating to a public complaint investigation.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records relating to the public complaint investigation were excluded from the scope of the Act under section 52(3) as they related to employment-related matters.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the undisclosed portions of the accident report contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b).

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's fee estimate and its decision to deny a fee waiver for a freedom of information request regarding ancillary student health care fees.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's fee estimate, finding the formula of two minutes per page for severing to be reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer also dismissed the request for a fee waiver, concluding that while the subject matter was of public interest, the appellant failed to demonstrate how disseminating the records would yield a public benefit by disclosing a public health concern or contributing meaningfully to the understanding of a public health issue.

The appellant sought access to the Ministry of Education and Training's decision and internal memoranda regarding a complaint against a teacher.

The Ministry denied access, citing various exemptions.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer considered whether the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(6).

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were prepared and used by the Ministry in relation to discussions about an employment-related matter in which the Ministry had a legal interest.

Consequently, the records fell within section 65(6)3 and were excluded from the scope of the Act.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, an insurance adjuster, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to witness statements taken by the OPP following a motor vehicle accident.

The Ministry relied on the personal privacy exemption under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption against disclosure in section 21(3)(b).

As the presumption was not rebutted, the Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

A requester sought access to an agreement and amendments between an advertising agency and OC Transpo for transit shelter advertising.

The advertising agency objected to the disclosure of the Addenda, claiming the third party information exemption under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the Addenda contained commercial and financial information, the information was negotiated rather than 'supplied' to the institution.

As the three-part test for exemption was not met, the institution's decision to disclose the records was upheld.

The appellant requested the name of a complainant from an occurrence report created by the Town's Municipal Law Enforcement Officer regarding a possible property standards by-law violation.

The Town denied access, claiming the information was exempt under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Town's decision, finding that the complainant's name was personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for witness statements from an OPP investigation into the accidental death of his son.

The Ministry denied access to the statements of individuals who did not consent to disclosure, citing the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 21(3)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The public interest override did not apply as the appellant's interest, while compelling, was private.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose only the information relating to the consenting individuals.

The appellant appealed the Waterloo Regional Police Services Board's response to a freedom of information request for records of police investigations involving him.

The sole issue on appeal was whether the Police conducted a reasonable search for responsive records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police had provided sufficient evidence of their search efforts, including additional searches during mediation, and concluded that the search was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.