Holly Big Canoe

The appellant requested a list of respondents to a survey related to the expansion of Seneca College.

The College withheld the list, claiming exemptions for third party commercial information and personal privacy under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the list did not constitute commercial information, as it did not relate solely to the buying, selling, or exchange of merchandise or services.

Furthermore, the respondents participated in their professional capacities, meaning their identities did not qualify as personal information.

The College was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant requested access to records regarding the formulation and implementation of pay equity plans at the Ottawa Civic Hospital from the Pay Equity Commission.

The Commission denied access to various records under several exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the majority of the records, including information supplied by the parties to the Review Officer, were exempt under section 17(1)(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as labour relations information supplied in confidence to a person appointed to resolve a labour relations dispute.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of signed pay equity plans, administrative correspondence, and certain notes, finding that they did not qualify for exemption under sections 14(1)(a), 14(1)(b), or 14(2)(a).

The requester appealed the decision of the Port Hope Police Services Board to deny access to portions of records relating to investigations and prosecutions pertaining to the requester.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that the withheld information qualified for exemption under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as it contained personal information of other individuals, law enforcement intelligence information, and information subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer issued a Final Order following Interim Order M-285, which required the City of Kitchener to reconsider its exercise of discretion under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

After reviewing the City's representations regarding the factors considered, the Inquiry Officer found nothing improper and upheld the City's decision.

Following Interim Order M-286, the City of Kitchener reconsidered its exercise of discretion under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and provided representations to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the City's representations and found nothing improper in its exercise of discretion.

The City's decision was upheld.

In a final order following an interim order, the Inquiry Officer reviewed the York Region Board of Education's further representations regarding its exercise of discretion under section 6 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's exercise of discretion was proper and upheld the Board's decision.

The appellant requested access to personal information collected by the Ontario Provincial Police regarding their political activities and other matters.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access to the remaining 120 pages of records, claiming they consisted of an intelligence file.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information but qualified for exemption under section 14(1)(g) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal law enforcement intelligence information.

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

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision regarding a Freedom of Information request for records pertaining to their court case, arguing that additional records should exist and that one disclosed record appeared altered.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's explanation for the appearance of the record was satisfactory and that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records.

The search was deemed reasonable.

The appellant appealed the City of Kitchener's decision to deny access to certain records related to a proposed correctional facility and its claim that no additional responsive records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the mandatory exemption for third-party information under section 10 did not apply to the asking prices of properties.

While certain records qualified for the discretionary solicitor-client privilege exemption under section 12, the City was ordered to reconsider its exercise of discretion because it mistakenly believed the privilege belonged to the City Solicitor rather than the City.

The Inquiry Officer also concluded that the City had conducted a reasonable search for records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to records regarding the Church of Scientology.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13, 19, and 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that Record 11 did not contain personal information or advice/recommendations, and ordered its disclosure.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of solicitor-client privilege under section 19 for most records, but ordered the disclosure of Record 7 as it was not directly related to seeking or giving legal advice.

The requester appealed the Ontario Lottery Corporation's decision to deny access to a list of addresses for all Sports Select Lottery outlets in Ontario.

The requester sought the list to distribute a newsletter.

The OLC claimed exemptions under sections 18(1)(a) and (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the list qualified as commercial information belonging to the OLC with potential monetary value, satisfying the three-part test for exemption under section 18(1)(a).

The OLC's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant made several requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for police records, logs, and notes concerning himself.

The Police disclosed portions of an officer's notes but stated no other responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that more records should exist and that the disclosed handwritten notes were illegible.

The Inquiry Officer found that the disclosed records contained the appellant's personal information, but held that the Police were not obligated under section 37(3) to provide a typewritten copy because the handwriting was comprehensible to an average person.

The Inquiry Officer also concluded that the Police conducted a reasonable search for additional records.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

A reporter requested access to an addendum to an employment contract between the York Region Board of Education and a former Director of Education, which the reporter had already obtained via a leak and published.

The Board denied access under various exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

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

While the record contained personal information, exceptions applied to certain clauses.

The Board established that the record revealed the substance of in camera deliberations under section 6(1)(b), but failed to consider the fact that the record had already been published when exercising its discretion.

The Board was ordered to provide further representations on its exercise of discretion.

The requester appealed the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat's decision to deny access to a 15-page settlement proposal regarding Algonquin land claims.

The institution relied on the discretionary exemption under section 15(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing disclosure could prejudice intergovernmental relations between Ontario and Canada.

The Inquiry Officer applied the three-part test for section 15(a) and found that the negotiations were intergovernmental, highly sensitive, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice those relations.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant sought access to minutes of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission's meetings and related documentation.

The ONTC denied access to portions of the President's Reports under various exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the discretionary exemption under section 18(1)(c) applied to information regarding Carload Freight and Freight Marketing, as disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the ONTC's economic interests.

However, the Inquiry Officer found that the remaining exemptions claimed under sections 12, 13(1), 15(b), 17(1), and other parts of section 18 did not apply to the rest of the records.

The ONTC was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the records.

The appellants submitted a freedom of information request for records relating to employment complaints made against one of them.

The Ministry granted partial access, denying the rest under sections 49(a) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information of the appellants and other individuals.

The Officer ordered the disclosure of portions relating primarily to the appellants, but upheld the exemption under section 49(b) for the remaining information, finding its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy as it was compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to intercepted police conversations (wiretaps).

The Ministry refused to confirm or deny the existence of the records under section 14(3) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and later claimed the Act did not apply to wiretap records due to the federal Criminal Code.

The Inquiry Officer found that the doctrine of federal legislative paramountcy renders the Act operationally incompatible with the wiretap provisions of the Criminal Code.

The appeal was dismissed as the request fell outside the scope of the Act.

The appellant requested copies of expense account sheets and credit card statements for seven named employees of the Metropolitan Separate School Board.

The Board denied access, claiming the records contained personal information and were exempt under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records related to expenses incurred by the employees in their professional capacity, not personal expenses.

Therefore, the records did not qualify as personal information under section 2(1) of the Act.

The Board was ordered to disclose the records to the appellant, with the actual credit card numbers severed.

The appellant requested access to prosecution files and Crown briefs related to charges laid against them.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to a three-page letter, claiming it would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's privacy, upholding the Ministry's decision to apply the discretionary exemption under section 49(b).

The Ministry of Health denied a freedom of information request for records relating to a psychiatric patient, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(2) and that section 35 of the Mental Health Act prohibited their disclosure to the Commissioner.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Ministry to produce the records to the Commissioner, holding that the Commissioner has the power under section 52(4) to compel production to determine whether the section 65(2) exclusion applies, and that section 35(5) of the Mental Health Act permits disclosure pursuant to such an order.