Holly Big Canoe

The appellant requested access to records removed from a Planning Committee agenda regarding a specific property.

The Township denied access to several pages under various exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of some pages, finding that the draft by-law and law enforcement exemptions did not apply.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Township's decision to deny access to other pages based on solicitor-client privilege and the protection of personal privacy, and found that the public interest override did not apply.

A requester appealed the Municipality of the Township of Tiny's decision to deny access to parts of a memo regarding 'issues needing action'.

The Township claimed exemptions for closed meetings, advice or recommendations, and law enforcement.

The Inquiry Officer found that the closed meeting exemption applied to some items, but rejected the advice or recommendations and law enforcement exemptions.

The personal information exemption was applied to specific names in one item.

The public interest override was found not to apply.

The Township was ordered to disclose the non-exempt parts of the memo.

The appellant requested specific police officers' notebook entries from the Niagara Regional Police Services Board.

The Police provided records with some severances, which were not appealed.

The appellant appealed on the basis that additional entries should exist.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the Police had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records and upheld the Police's decision, concluding the search was reasonable.

A member of the media requested access to information concerning the establishment of a Local Area Network in the Ministry of the Attorney General's Computer and Telecommunications Branch, specifically regarding a named individual's employment and termination.

The Ministry refused to confirm or deny the existence of the records under section 21(5) of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that section 21(5) did not apply and confirmed the existence of records.

The Officer ordered the disclosure of certain administrative records, finding their release would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, while upholding the exemption for other personal and performance-related records.

The Officer also found that the third-party commercial information exemption did not apply, and that the public interest override applied only to portions of a critical issue sheet.

A member of the media appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to a memorandum regarding a consultant's departure.

The Ministry claimed the record was exempt under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the first paragraph contained the affected person's employment history and was exempt under section 21(3)(d).

The remaining paragraphs were purely administrative and ordered disclosed.

The appellant's claim that the public interest override in section 23 applied was dismissed, as disclosure of the exempt paragraph would not contribute meaningfully to the public's understanding of government activities.

The appellant sought access to an investigation report prepared by the Gloucester Police Services Board regarding a named police officer.

The Hawkesbury Police Services Board denied access under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing invasion of privacy and right to a fair trial.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information compiled as part of an 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 correspondence and allegations submitted by employees or former employees of the Town of Whitby about the appellant.

The Town denied access relying on exemptions for third party information, danger to safety or health, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third party and safety exemptions did not apply.

The privacy exemption applied to some portions of the records, but the remainder was ordered to be disclosed as fairness required the appellant to be aware of allegations affecting their employment.

The appellant requested access to a petition concerning the condition of his property from the Township of Portland.

During mediation, the appellant narrowed the request to only the signatures on the second page.

The Inquiry Officer refused to allow the appellant to expand the scope of the appeal back to the full petition.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Township's decision to deny access to the signatures, finding that they were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Property Standards By-law, and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the Town of Valley East's decision regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to an economic development committee.

The appellant challenged the adequacy of the search and the fee charged.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Town's search for financial records was reasonable.

However, the fee was reduced because the Town improperly charged search time for hours spent photocopying the records, which is already covered by the per-page photocopying fee.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines' decision to deny access to a letter prepared by Crown counsel for a witness in a Labour Relations Tribunal matter.

The Ministry claimed the record was exempt under the solicitor-client privilege exemption in section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained the requester's personal information but qualified for exemption under Branch 2 of section 19, as it was prepared by Crown counsel in contemplation of litigation.

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

The requester sought access to employment records and group insurance policies from the Leeds, Grenville and Lanark District Health Unit.

The Health Unit failed to respond within the 30-day statutory timeframe, resulting in a deemed refusal under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Despite intervention by an Appeals Officer, the Health Unit only provided partial records and failed to issue a formal decision letter.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Health Unit to issue a comprehensive decision letter within 15 days without recourse to a time extension.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services to deny access to records pertaining to a workplace harassment investigation.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the complainant's personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that while some records were properly withheld, records detailing a meeting held with both parties present should be disclosed, as the appellant was already aware of the allegations and outcome.

The appellant, who had been denied social assistance, requested access to a letter from his former employer to the Town of Dryden's Welfare Administrator regarding his dismissal.

The Town denied access, citing invasion of privacy and evaluative or opinion material exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the record contained only the appellant's personal information, not the former employer's, and that the former employer could not reasonably have assumed their identity would be held in confidence.

The Town was ordered to disclose the record to the appellant.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to records regarding a business's operation, claiming law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained professional, not personal, information, rendering the privacy exemption inapplicable.

Furthermore, the Police failed to provide sufficient evidence of expected harm to justify the law enforcement exemptions under sections 8(1)(a) and (f), and the records did not qualify as "reports" under section 8(2)(a).

The Police were ordered to disclose the records in their entirety.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Metropolitan Toronto Police regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to an incident involving the appellant and the transfer of a former Superintendent.

The appellant argued that additional responsive records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police conducted a reasonable search for records relating to the appellant's involvement with the Police, but failed to provide evidence of a search for records regarding the Superintendent's transfer.

The Police were ordered to conduct a further search for the transfer records.

The appellant requested information regarding the cost of a Workers' Compensation Board hearing transcript and a copy of a police report.

The Amherstburg Police Services Board denied access to the transcript cost record, claiming the invasion of privacy exemption under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and stated no other records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record did not contain personal information and ordered its disclosure.

The Officer also found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search for the requested report.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Niagara Regional Police Services Board to deny access to a General Incident Report under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information of both the appellant and an affected person, compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

The Officer upheld the exemption for portions identifying the affected person but ordered the disclosure of the remainder of the record relating to the appellant.

The appellant made two requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to a woodlot managed by the Credit Valley Conservation Authority.

The Authority granted access to some records but stated no other records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing more records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Authority had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records, including staff meetings, computer searches, and reviewing the central file index.

The Authority's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $186.80 for a freedom of information request to the Credit Valley Conservation Authority.

The Inquiry Officer disallowed the $60 search fee and $120 preparation fee, finding that time spent reviewing records for exemptions does not constitute search or preparation time.

The photocopying fee of $6.80 was upheld.

The appellant's request for a fee waiver based on financial hardship and public health and safety was denied.

The City of Niagara Falls received a request for a fire department incident report.

The City decided to disclose the record, but the property owner appealed, arguing the record contained personal information exempt under section 14 of the Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the record did not contain information relating to identifiable individuals and therefore did not meet the definition of personal information.

The City's decision to disclose the record was upheld.