Holly Big Canoe

The appellants requested the name and address of a complainant who reported them for by-law violations.

The City of North York denied access, citing the confidential source exemption under section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that disclosing the complainant's position and address would not identify them, ordering those details released.

However, the Officer upheld the City's decision to withhold the complainant's name, confirming it qualified as a confidential source.

The requesters sought access to information regarding a film crew that accompanied police officers, including an unedited copy of the film footage.

The Police claimed they did not have a copy of the film and that no other responsive records existed.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the Police conducted a reasonable search for the records and that the film footage was not in the custody or control of the Police.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Peel Regional Police Services Board for records pertaining to investigations into computer bulletin board services.

The Police refused to confirm or deny the existence of such records under section 8(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while the records, if they existed, would qualify for the law enforcement exemption, the Police failed to establish that merely confirming their existence or non-existence would communicate exempt information.

The Inquiry Officer did not uphold the Police's decision and confirmed that no responsive records exist.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Niagara Regional Police Services Board denying access to records relating to the investigation of the disappearance and death of an individual.

The Police relied on 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 records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b).

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, as there was no compelling public interest that clearly outweighed the purpose of the exemption.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant appealed the City of Mississauga's response to a freedom of information request, arguing that further records should exist regarding the Cawthra Bush and related matters.

The sole issue was whether the City's search for records was reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed affidavits from City staff detailing extensive searches and concluded that the City's efforts to locate responsive records were reasonable.

The City's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested information from the City of Toronto regarding specific clauses in rental agreements for three commercial properties.

The City denied access, claiming exemptions under sections 11(c) and (d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act relating to economic and financial interests.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City failed to provide convincing evidence linking the disclosure of the records to the alleged harms.

The City was ordered to disclose the records in their entirety.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to portions of their Crown Ward File under the invasion of privacy exemption.

Despite a settlement agreement, the Ministry failed to fulfill its terms or provide representations.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the records and ordered partial disclosure, finding that some pages contained only the personal information of others, while others contained mixed personal information where disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The appellant sought access to his and his family's Crown Ward File from the Ministry of Community and Social Services under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

After the Ministry failed to fulfill a settlement agreement, the matter proceeded to an inquiry.

Three affected persons consented to the disclosure of their personal information, which the Inquiry Officer ordered released.

However, the Inquiry Officer found that the appellant was not the personal representative of two deceased family members under section 66(a) of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosing the deceased individuals' personal information would constitute an unjustified invasion of their personal privacy under section 49(b) and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to those portions of the record.

A board of education appealed the Ministry of Education and Training's decision to grant only partial access to a mediation report prepared for the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13, 17, 18, and 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third party information and economic interests exemptions did not apply.

However, the Officer upheld the application of the advice to government and invasion of privacy exemptions to specific portions of the record.

The Officer also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply to the remaining exempt information.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the record.

The appellant requested access to all information pertaining to any investigation conducted by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board into a named bookstore and its staff.

The Police granted partial access to three records and refused to confirm or deny the existence of other records under section 14(5) of the Act, claiming invasion of privacy under section 14(1).

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the Police failed to provide sufficient evidence that confirming the existence of the records would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, and thus section 14(5) did not apply.

However, the Commissioner upheld the decision not to disclose the records themselves, as they contained personal information of individuals other than the appellant and disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant requested access to the detailed cellular phone invoices of the Town Administrator.

The Town claimed it did not have custody or control of the detailed call listings, as the Administrator discarded them and the Town Council had passed a resolution stating the Administrator was not required to submit them.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Town had control of the records, as the account was in the Town's name and the cellular company would provide copies upon request.

The Town was ordered to obtain the records and issue an access decision without charging a fee.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to a memorandum written by a co-worker regarding a workplace incident.

The Ministry claimed the invasion of privacy exemption under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the memorandum contained the personal information of both the requester and the affected persons.

The Officer concluded that the affected persons' information was highly sensitive and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the memorandum with the affected persons' personal information severed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision regarding a freedom of information request for correspondence.

After the Notice of Inquiry, the Ministry disclosed the previously withheld records and an additional record.

The sole remaining issue was whether the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Ministry's affidavit detailing the search steps and concluded that the search was reasonable, upholding the Ministry's decision.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision regarding a freedom of information request for records concerning a Temporary Absence Program application and medical evaluations, arguing that additional responsive records should exist.

The Ministry provided affidavits detailing its search of the single Records Management file and medical file.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate the records and upheld the Ministry's decision, concluding the search was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Peel Regional Police Services Board refusing to correct a portion of an occurrence report containing a complainant's description of the appellant's actions.

The appellant argued the description was false and contradicted a later statement made by the complainant.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the appeal, finding that the police accurately recorded the information as it was provided to them at the time, and it is unreasonable to require police to delete all false statements made to them.

The appellant requested copies of the 'in camera' portion of the Police Services Board's meeting minutes.

The Police issued a fee estimate and denied a fee waiver.

The appellant appealed the fee amount and the denial of the fee waiver.

The Inquiry Officer reduced the fee for preparation time and photocopying, but upheld the Police's decision not to waive the fee, finding that the appellant's reasons for a waiver did not fit within the statutory criteria.

The appellant, an employee of Fanshawe College facing a sexual harassment complaint from a student, requested access to the student's academic records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The College denied access, citing the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the College's decision, finding that the records contained the student's educational history, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 21(3)(d).

The Officer also found no compelling public interest under section 23 that would override the privacy exemption.

The appellants appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Separate School Board denying access to a resignation letter submitted by a Parent-Teacher Association President.

The Board claimed the letter was exempt from disclosure under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as an invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the letter contained the personal information of both the author and the appellants.

After considering the circumstances, including that the letter was read aloud at a public gathering and addressed to all parents, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of the author's personal privacy under section 38(b).

The Board was ordered to disclose the letter in its entirety.

The appellant requested access to complaints and investigation records regarding by-law infractions at a building complex.

The City of York denied access to several records, claiming law enforcement and third-party information exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer refused to allow the City to raise new discretionary exemptions late in the process.

The Officer found that the City failed to establish that the records qualified for exemption under sections 8(1) or 10(1)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and ordered the disclosure of the responsive records.

The appellant requested records relating to the employment and release agreements between the Village of Winchester and its former Chief Administrative Officer.

The Village disclosed the records but severed information relating to financial entitlements, 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 while the severed information constituted personal information, the public interest in scrutinizing the expenditure of public funds and ensuring public confidence in the institution outweighed the former CAO's privacy interests.

The Village was ordered to disclose the severed information.