Dora Nipp

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's fee estimate of $4,875.00 for preparing and severing 13 videotapes of former City of York council meetings.

The City claimed it needed to dub the tapes to a different format and spend extensive time editing and severing personal information.

The adjudicator found the City's estimate for dubbing and final editing excessive, noting that standard equipment could duplicate the tapes more efficiently.

The adjudicator upheld the estimated time for severing personal information but disallowed charges for inserting statements and final editing.

The fee estimate was reduced to $2,112.50.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Management Board Secretariat for records relating to travel expense contracts with a specific company linked to a Member of Provincial Parliament.

The institution denied access to portions of the responsive proposals and agreements, citing the third-party commercial information exemption under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the adjudicator upheld the application of section 17(1) for the proprietary and pricing information supplied in confidence, but ordered the disclosure of general information and negotiated contract terms.

The adjudicator also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as the matter had already been reviewed by the Integrity Commissioner.

The appellant submitted two requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of the Solicitor General for police notes, occurrence reports, and a videotape relating to various incidents and property disputes.

The Ministry granted partial access, withholding certain information under the personal privacy exemption.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional records should exist.

The adjudicator found that the Ministry conducted a reasonable search for records.

The adjudicator also upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to the remaining information under section 49(b), finding that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of third-party privacy.