Holly Big Canoe

The appellant requested access to the personal services contract of the City Manager.

The City of Thunder Bay informed the appellant that no such record existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that a responsive record must exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City had conducted a reasonable search of its files, including City Council Minutes, the City Clerk's files, and the City Manager's personnel file, and upheld the City's decision.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a tender call for the restoration of a municipal museum.

The Town of Penetanguishene denied access to portions of the Forms of Tender under the third party information exemption.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the withheld pages contained commercial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the competitive position of the bidding companies.

The Town's decision to withhold the detailed pricing information was upheld.

The appellant requested access to documents regarding a building permit for a barn renovation involving a liquid manure system.

The Township denied access to the building permit application, drawings, and a legal opinion, citing law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found the legal opinion exempt under section 12 (solicitor-client privilege).

However, the drawings and building permit application were ordered disclosed, as they did not meet the tests for third party information or personal information exemptions.

The appellant appealed the Town of Richmond Hill's decision to deny access to a legal opinion regarding a property acquisition, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record was a confidential written communication directly related to formulating and giving legal advice, and thus fell squarely within the section 12 exemption.

The Officer also determined that no information could be reasonably severed under section 4(2), and that the public interest override in section 16 does not apply to section 12.

The Town's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested records from the Regional Municipality of Peel regarding the construction method of a water main.

The Region claimed it had no responsive records, as the project belonged to the Ontario Clean Water Agency, and transferred the request.

The appellant appealed, arguing records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Region's affidavit detailing its search across multiple departments and concluded that the Region had made a reasonable effort to locate the records.

The Region's decision was upheld.

The appellant, an insurance carrier, appealed the decision of the Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board to deny access to a police investigation report regarding a motor vehicle accident.

The Police relied on the law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that disclosure of parts of the records could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement matter, and that disclosure of the personal information contained in the records would result in an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant requested access to the employment contract between the Lanark County Board of Education and its Director of Education.

The Board denied access, claiming the discretionary exemption for unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer declined to consider an additional discretionary exemption raised late in the appeals process.

The Inquiry Officer found that the contract contained the Director's personal information, but that disclosure of the classification, salary range, benefits, and employment responsibilities did not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(4)(a).

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Board to disclose the record to the appellant.

The requester appealed the Town of Meaford's decision to deny access to records regarding a property subject to an Order to Remedy.

The Town claimed exemptions under section 10(1) (third party information) and section 12 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Town failed to establish the requirements for the section 10(1) exemption for tender documents.

Regarding section 12, the Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption for three records that were confidential communications between solicitor and client, but ordered the disclosure of the remaining records, which involved communications with third parties.

The requester appealed the City of Etobicoke's decision to deny access to the name of a person who filed a by-law complaint against them.

The City relied on the law enforcement exemption under section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing that disclosing the name would reveal a confidential source.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that the confidentiality of complainants is integral to the by-law complaints process and that the City properly exercised its discretion to refuse disclosure of the requester's own personal information under section 38(a).

The requester appealed a decision by the Sault Ste.

Marie Police Services Board to deny access to a record identifying the duty officer and dispatchers on duty at a specific time, claiming the personal privacy exemption under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that disclosing the names would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, noting the public interest in knowing who they are in contact with in the public service and the requester's need for the information to defend against a Highway Traffic Act charge.

The Police were ordered to disclose the names.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to a record related to the Ministry's response to his complaint about the prosecution of his son.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13 and 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record, a letter from an Assistant Crown Attorney to the Regional Director of Crown Attorneys, was prepared for use in giving legal advice.

Therefore, the record qualified for exemption under Branch 2 of section 19 and was exempt under section 49(a).

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, a police officer, requested access to records related to an alleged sexual assault complaint made against them.

The Police denied access, citing law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that the records were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

Consequently, 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, which was not rebutted.

The appellant, a taxi owner, requested access to a 1975 record containing names corresponding to missing numbers on a taxicab fleet owners waiting list.

The Metropolitan Licensing Commission responded that the record did not exist.

The appellant appealed, arguing a reasonable search was not conducted.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Commission had taken all reasonable steps to locate the records, noting that the list had been reformatted and superseded over the years, and upheld the Commission's decision.

The appellant, a private investigation firm, appealed the decision of the Peel Regional Police Services Board to deny access to an occurrence report related to a sudden death at a water park.

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

The Inquiry Officer applied the three-part test for the law enforcement exemption under section 8(2)(a) and found that the record was a report prepared by a law enforcement agency in the course of a law enforcement investigation.

The decision of the Police to deny access was upheld.

A member of the media requested details of the Township of Collingwood's liability insurance coverage.

The Township denied access, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, right to a fair trial, and economic interests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Township failed to establish that the records contained advice or recommendations, or that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice a fair trial or the Township's economic interests.

The Township was ordered to disclose the records.

The requester appealed a decision by the Peterborough County Board of Education denying access to records concerning the conditions and costs of assisting an expelled student.

The Board claimed exemptions under section 6(1)(b) (closed meetings) and section 14 (invasion of privacy) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records, which included minutes of an in camera committee meeting and a letter to the student's parents, were properly exempt under section 6(1)(b) because they would reveal the substance of deliberations from a meeting authorized to be closed under the Education Act.

The Board's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested a severance permit from the Townships.

The Townships initially withheld the record under the personal privacy exemption, but later claimed during mediation that the record did not exist.

The appellant appealed, arguing the permit must exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Townships failed to provide sufficient evidence of a reasonable search and failed to make reasonable inquiries to determine if another institution had custody of the record.

The Townships were ordered to conduct a further search and issue a new decision or transfer the request.

The appellant appealed the Townships' decision regarding a freedom of information request for road subsidy reports, arguing that additional records should exist for a specific four-month period.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Townships failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as an affidavit detailing the search efforts, to demonstrate that a reasonable search had been conducted.

The Townships were ordered to conduct a further search for the requested records and issue a new decision.

The appellant, a non-custodial father involved in divorce proceedings, appealed a decision by the East York Health Unit denying him access to his five-year-old child's medical records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant argued that section 16(5) of the Divorce Act expressly authorized disclosure.

The Inquiry Officer found that section 16(5) lacked the specificity required to constitute express statutory authorization under section 14(1)(d) of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer also concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the child's personal privacy and that the appellant could not exercise the child's rights under section 54(c) because he did not have lawful custody.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested information relating to the costs of investigating two cases and the Green Ribbon Task Force.

The Police responded that no records exist, as expenses are paid directly by the province.

The appellant appealed, arguing additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found the Police's search unreasonable, noting that the Police possess payroll records and general orders that would contain responsive information regarding wages and overtime.

The Police were ordered to inform the appellant of their record holdings and issue a new decision.