Donald Hale

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Labour for records relating to policies compelling employers to disclose self-initiated environmental audits.

The Ministry initially responded that no responsive records existed, but after mediation and further searches, located and disclosed several records.

The appellant appealed, maintaining that additional records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had provided sufficient evidence of its inquiries and searches, concluding that the Ministry's search for additional records was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

A newspaper reporter appealed the Metropolitan Licensing Commission's decision to deny access to the names and details of natural persons who hold taxi licenses or act as agents.

The Inquiry Officer found that the requested information constituted personal information and its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, as it revealed financial assets and activities.

The Inquiry Officer also held that the public interest override did not apply, as the public interest in scrutinizing the taxi industry was not sufficiently compelling to outweigh the privacy exemption.

The Commission's decision was upheld.

A newspaper reporter requested access to police records relating to the investigation of a series of sexual assaults in 1985 and 1986.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denied access to the majority of the records, claiming various exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records fell outside the Act's jurisdiction as employment-related matters, while others were exempt under provisions protecting personal privacy, closed meeting deliberations, solicitor-client privilege, and law enforcement investigative techniques.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of certain records, including court documents and press clippings, with personal identifiers removed.

The appellant requested records relating to police surveillance of him following a February 1995 incident.

The Police denied access to an occurrence report and officer's notes under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and refused to confirm or deny the existence of surveillance records under section 8(3).

The Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption under section 38(b), finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

However, the Officer found that the Police could not rely on section 8(3) to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of surveillance records, and confirmed that no such records exist.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Peel Regional Police Services Board to deny access to records relating to a fatal motor vehicle accident involving the appellant's father.

The Police claimed the records were exempt under the personal privacy exemption in section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the presumption in section 14(3)(b) applied to most of the records, as they were compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

However, applying the 'absurd result' principle, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of specific pages containing information already known to the appellant, while upholding the exemption for the remaining records.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Halton Regional Police Services Board denying access to records relating to a criminal complaint made against the appellant by another individual.

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

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

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision to deny access, concluding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b).

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to an OPP officer's handwritten notes regarding an incident involving the appellant.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the 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, triggering the presumption in section 21(3)(b).

The decision to deny access was upheld as disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry of Environment and Energy received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to the continuation of the Intervenor Funding Project.

The Ministry denied access to portions of a record, claiming exemptions for Cabinet records and advice or recommendations.

The requester appealed the severances.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the severances were properly exempt under either section 12(1) or 13(1), as they would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations or the advice of a public servant.

However, two severances did not qualify for either exemption and were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant appealed the Town of Niagara-On-The-Lake's response to a freedom of information request, arguing that additional records from a December 23, 1996 meeting should exist.

The Town provided evidence that it searched the relevant offices and that the employees present at the meeting did not have any notes.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Town's search for responsive records was reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the Regional Municipality of Halton's decision to deny access to the hourly and mileage rates contained in a bid from an appraisal firm under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information constituted commercial information supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the affected party's competitive position.

The decision to deny access under section 10(1)(a) was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services' decision to deny access to an OPP report regarding an investigation into allegations of fraud and corruption.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Criminal Code.

Therefore, the presumption in section 21(3)(b) applied, and disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to a record relating to a transfer of shares in a corporation.

The Ministry claimed the record was exempt from disclosure under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information relating to the financial history or activities of affected persons, and that its disclosure was presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(f).

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, an injured worker, requested access to his Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) claim file under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The WCB provided the file, but the appellant appealed, arguing that additional records, including an audit report and documents he mailed to the WCB, should have been located.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed affidavits from the WCB detailing their search efforts and concluded that the WCB's search for responsive records was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Sault Ste.

Marie Police Services Board denying access to records relating to a police investigation of a former teacher.

The Inquiry Officer found that several records were excluded from the scope of the Act under sections 52(3)1 and 3 as they related to employment and labour relations matters.

For the remaining records, the Inquiry Officer held that they were compiled as part of a police investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b).

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to a brief and an investigation report prepared by the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) regarding a motor vehicle accident involving a police pursuit.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to portions of the records, claiming exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records constituted a report prepared in the course of a law enforcement investigation by an agency with the function of enforcing compliance with a law, and thus qualified for exemption under section 14(2)(a).

The appellants, reporters for a Toronto newspaper, appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to the names and identifying information of police officers and victims contained in 64 Informations and Indictments.

The Ministry claimed the invasion of privacy exemption under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the information was publicly available in court facilities, the disclosure of the withheld information, which included criminal convictions and acquittals, was highly sensitive and could unfairly damage reputations.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the privacy interests outweighed the factors favouring disclosure and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant requested access to records detailing financial expenses incurred by the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) during an investigation and subsequent proceedings.

The OHRC denied access to legal accounts, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and advised the appellant to request other records from the Ministry of Citizenship.

The Inquiry Officer found the OHRC's search for records was reasonable, but ordered the OHRC to formally transfer the request for the Ministry's records under section 25(1).

The Inquiry Officer also held that the legal accounts did not qualify for solicitor-client privilege as they did not reveal the substance of legal advice, and ordered their disclosure.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records concerning sheltered workshops and Vocational Rehabilitation Services under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 12(1)(b) (Cabinet records) and 13(1) (advice or recommendations).

The Inquiry Officer refused to allow the Ministry to raise the discretionary section 13(1) exemption for additional records late in the process, as no extenuating circumstances were provided.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of several records, finding they did not qualify as Cabinet records, but upheld the section 13(1) exemption for other records that contained advice or recommendations.

The appellant requested access to records detailing the salary range, benefits, and duration of severance payments for four former senior management employees of the City of Trenton.

The City denied access to the duration of the severance payments, claiming the invasion of privacy exemption under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information did not qualify as employment history under section 14(3)(d) or benefits under section 14(4)(a).

Balancing the factors under section 14(2), the Inquiry Officer concluded that the public interest in scrutinizing the expenditure of public funds and ensuring public confidence in the institution outweighed the privacy interests of the affected persons.

The City was ordered to disclose the duration of the severance payments.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $780 provided by the Regional Municipality of Halton for responding to a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The request sought a list of appraisal assignments and quotes from a named appraisal firm.

Halton estimated it would take 26 hours to search 71 property files, based on its actual experience of taking 2.5 hours to search seven files for a previous narrowed request.

The Inquiry Officer found the fee estimate to be reasonable and upheld Halton's decision.