Holly Big Canoe

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to certain records relating to a corporation's application for a public banquet hall licence.

The City claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing the records contained personal information whose disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Adjudicator found that the records contained personal information.

Balancing the relevant factors, the Adjudicator ordered the disclosure of the applicants' home addresses and residency status, as this information was publicly available on articles of incorporation.

However, the Adjudicator upheld the City's decision to withhold information regarding the applicants' criminal and licensing history, as well as the personal information of other individuals who objected to or supported the licence application, finding that disclosure of this information would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant requested the name and contact information of an anonymous lawyer who submitted a statement on behalf of a respondent in a human rights complaint.

The OHRC denied access.

The Adjudicator found that the lawyer's name and professional contact information did not qualify as 'personal information' under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, considering representations from the affected lawyer regarding the appellant's past aggressive behaviour, the Adjudicator applied the discretionary exemption under section 14(1)(e) (health and safety), finding a reasonable basis to believe disclosure could endanger the lawyer's physical safety.

The OHRC was ordered to exercise its discretion under section 14(1)(e).

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) for a 1999 Anderson Consulting report on its supply chain operations.

The LCBO denied access, claiming the record was exempt under sections 12(1)(e) and 18(1)(f) and (g) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the adjudicator found that the report was prepared to brief the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations on matters currently before the Executive Council.

Consequently, the record was held to be exempt from disclosure as a Cabinet record under section 12(1)(e), and the LCBO's decision was upheld.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to allegations he made about a Ministry employee.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded from the Act under sections 65(6)1 and 65(6)3, arguing they related to labour relations or employment matters.

The Adjudicator found that while the records were connected to an employment-related investigation, there was no reasonable prospect of proceedings, nor did the Ministry establish a legal interest capable of being engaged.

The records were therefore subject to the Act, and the Ministry was ordered to issue an access decision.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Peel Regional Police Services Board stating that no records existed in response to his request for surveillance records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant believed he was the subject of a large surveillance network and that records must exist because of a discrepancy with a previous request where the Police refused to confirm or deny the existence of records.

The Adjudicator found that the Police had made reasonable efforts to search for and locate responsive records in its Intelligence Services bureau, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to four sealed envelopes contained in his personnel file at the City of Toronto.

The City denied access, claiming the records were excluded under sections 52(3)1 and 52(3)3 as they related to labour relations and employment matters, specifically a grievance that the appellant had recently withdrawn.

The adjudicator found that the first envelope, which contained information directly related to the grievance, was excluded from the Act because the grievance was withdrawn without prejudice and could be reactivated, meaning the City retained a legal interest.

However, the adjudicator found no substantial connection between the remaining three envelopes and the grievance, and ordered the City to issue an access decision for those records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Elliot Lake Police Services Board for a police report relating to a fatal motor vehicle accident involving his son.

The Police denied access citing privacy and law enforcement exemptions.

On appeal, the adjudicator found that the appellant did not qualify as the deceased's personal representative under section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator held that most of the records contained personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumed unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b).

However, the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of a diagram, certain photographs of the vehicle, and the contact information of one consenting witness, as they did not fall under the exemptions.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Township of Southgate for records related to road construction and maintenance.

The Township provided a fee estimate of $400.00 for search, preparation, and photocopying.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate.

The Adjudicator found that the Township failed to justify the search and preparation charges, as it did not provide a detailed breakdown or comply with interim notice requirements.

The Adjudicator did not uphold the search and preparation fees but upheld the photocopying charges at a rate of $.20 per page.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee for records relating to his mother's estate.

The OPGT, acting as litigation guardian for the appellant's brother, denied access to certain records under the personal privacy exemption.

The adjudicator found that the records contained highly sensitive financial and legal information relating to the brother.

The adjudicator concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the brother's personal privacy and upheld the OPGT's decision to deny access.

The appellant requested access to records relating to his application for a Police Constable position with the York Regional Police Service.

The Police denied access to background investigation records, claiming exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the records contained personal information of both the appellant and the individuals who provided references.

The adjudicator held that the section 38(c) exemption applied to information from three individuals who supplied it in confidence, but not to four others who were named as references by the appellant.

However, the adjudicator found that section 38(b) applied to protect the privacy of the three individuals who did not consent to disclosure among the four.

The Police were ordered to disclose the remaining records.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to portions of correspondence regarding a sports league.

The City withheld the name, address, and other personal information of a member of the public who had submitted concerns about the league, claiming exemptions under sections 14(1) and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that the withheld information qualified as personal information and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's privacy, particularly given that the information was supplied in confidence.

The City's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Peel Regional Police Services Board denying access to a report titled 'Operation Gun Runner' under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the report did not contain the appellant's personal information.

Furthermore, the adjudicator determined that the report met the three-part test for exemption under section 8(2)(a) as a report prepared in the course of law enforcement, upholding the police's decision to deny access.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Cornwall Police Services Board denying access to police notebook entries relating to an incident involving the appellant's apprehension under the Mental Health Act.

The adjudicator found that the records contained the personal information of both the appellant and another identifiable individual.

Applying the presumption in section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the adjudicator concluded that the information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

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

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General for all files concerning himself.

The Ministry claimed the only record was the request itself.

The appellant appealed, arguing more records should exist, specifically a 28-page letter he had sent to the OPP Commissioner.

During mediation, the appellant provided a copy of the letter to the Ministry, which agreed to investigate his concerns.

The adjudicator dismissed the appeal, finding that since the appellant already possessed the record and had provided it to the Ministry, ordering a search would serve no useful purpose.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to an OPP officer's vacation schedule for April and May 1997.

The adjudicator found that the record was not excluded from the Act under the employment-related matters exclusion in section 65(6)3, as the Ministry failed to establish a legal interest.

However, the adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access under section 21(1), finding that the record contained personal information and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the officer's personal privacy.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the respondent police board for records relating to an investigation of a break and enter at his home.

The police denied access to parts of the records, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The adjudicator found that the records contained the personal information of a suspect and a witness, which was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

Applying the presumption under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the adjudicator concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and upheld the police's decision to withhold the records under section 38(b).

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton for a list of companies with Special Discharge Agreements relating to sewer and waste.

The Region denied access under the law enforcement exemption.

The adjudicator found that the law enforcement exemption did not apply because disclosure would not reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter.

The adjudicator also found that the third party information exemption did not apply because the names of the companies were not supplied in confidence.

The Region was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant appealed the Region's decision to deny access to portions of records relating to a successful bidder's proposal for a review of municipal legal services.

The Region claimed exemptions under sections 10(1) (third party information) and 14(1) (invasion of privacy) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that while the educational and employment histories of the bidder's employees were exempt as personal information, the bidder's past project experience was not personal information.

Furthermore, the Adjudicator held that the third party commercial information exemption did not apply because there was no reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure.

The Region was ordered to disclose the project experience information.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Toronto Police Services Board denying access to portions of police records relating to his apprehension under the Mental Health Act.

The Police claimed exemptions under sections 14(1) and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, finding that the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and thus subject to the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b).

The appellant sought access to police records relating to an impaired driving investigation in which he was the accused.

The Police denied access, claiming the records were exempt under the law enforcement provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that the records did not qualify as a 'report' under section 8(2)(a) and that disclosure would not interfere with an ongoing law enforcement matter or investigation under sections 8(1)(a) or (b).

The Adjudicator also found that the Police failed to conduct a reasonable search for additional responsive records, such as CAD system data and officer notebooks.

The Police were ordered to disclose the records and conduct a further search.