Holly Big Canoe

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to ten pages of records responsive to a freedom of information request.

The records consisted of biographical information, a doctor's note, and an individual's statement.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information about identifiable individuals other than the appellant.

In the absence of representations weighing in favour of disclosure, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested copies of tape recordings of interviews conducted during a Ministry of Health investigation.

The Ministry claimed no such records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing the investigator had secretly taped interviews.

The Ministry provided affidavits confirming that a thorough search was conducted and that the investigator had not taped any interviews because the interviewees refused.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search for the requested records was reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant requested records from the City of Oshawa regarding the fire department's responses to chemical spills on a specific property.

The City provided fee estimates and the appellant requested a fee waiver, arguing that disclosure would benefit public health and safety.

The City denied the fee waiver and the appellant appealed.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence that dissemination of the records would contribute meaningfully to public understanding of a health or safety issue, nor that the records would likely be disseminated to the public.

The decision not to waive the fees was deemed fair and equitable.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Housing's decision to deny access to five construction bids for a non-profit housing development under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer first determined that the records were in the custody or control of the Ministry.

Applying the three-part test for the third-party commercial information exemption, the Inquiry Officer found that while the bids contained confidential commercial and financial information, disclosure of general bid information would not cause the specified harms.

However, specific unit pricing, bid breakdowns, and alternatives were found to be exempt as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the contractors' competitive positions.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records with the exempt portions severed.

The requester appealed the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board's decision to deny access to records related to specific charges and a complaint investigation.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information and upheld the application of discretionary exemptions under sections 38(a) and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, concluding that the records were law enforcement reports and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant requested access to the name and address of a complainant who made an animal control complaint to the Town of Rayside Balfour.

The Town denied access under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Town's decision, finding that the by-law enforcement process qualified as a law enforcement matter and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal the identity of a confidential source.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited (SkyDome) denying access to records containing health and safety statistics and building inspection reports.

SkyDome claimed exemptions under sections 13(1), 17(1), 18(1), and 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that SkyDome failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that any of the claimed exemptions applied to the records.

SkyDome was ordered to disclose the records to the appellant.

A requester sought access to the amount and cost of electricity sold by Ontario Hydro to a named company.

Ontario Hydro denied access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing exemptions for third-party commercial and financial information.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information was supplied in confidence and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the affected party's competitive position and contractual negotiations.

The public interest override under section 23 was not met.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to audit reports from the Workers' Compensation Board under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board denied access, claiming exemptions under sections 13(1), 14(1)(i), and 18(1)(f).

The Inquiry Officer found that the recommendations in the reports did not constitute a 'plan' under section 18(1)(f).

The Officer also found that while the reports contained advice or recommendations, they fell under the mandatory exception in section 13(2)(f) as reports on the performance or efficiency of the institution.

Finally, the Officer concluded that disclosure would not reasonably be expected to endanger the security of a system under section 14(1)(i).

The Board was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellants requested access to police investigation and autopsy records relating to the death of their son.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denied access to most of the records under various exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that most records contained personal information of individuals other than the appellants and were exempt under section 14, as disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Police were ordered to disclose three specific records, and the search for records was deemed reasonable.

The appellant requested access to a contract between the Board of Education and a management services company under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board denied access, citing the third-party information exemption in section 10(1)(a).

The Inquiry Officer found that the contract was the product of negotiation and therefore the information was not "supplied" by the third party, failing the second part of the section 10(1) test.

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

The appellant requested a detailed listing of all buildings and properties owned, rented, or leased by the Government of Ontario, along with purchase prices and current market value assessments.

The Management Board Secretariat provided a fee estimate of $7,219 and denied the appellant's request for a fee waiver based on financial hardship and public health and safety.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Secretariat's decision, finding that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to support the public health and safety claim, and that waiving the fee would not be fair and equitable given the large volume of records, the appellant's refusal to narrow the request, and the unreasonable burden it would place on the Secretariat.

The appellant requested a correction to her Supervisor's Temporary Employee Evaluation form under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, specifically disputing a checkmark indicating the supervisor had shared the evaluation with her.

The City denied the correction but attached her statement of disagreement.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while the information was the appellant's personal information, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the supervisor's entry was false or inaccurate.

The City's decision to deny the correction was upheld.

The appellant requested records pertaining to his employment at the Toronto Jail.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records under various exemptions, including sections 14(1)(d), 14(1)(k), and 20 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to establish a clear and direct linkage between disclosure and the alleged harms.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records to the appellant.

The appellant requested access to a report regarding a claim for compensation arising from the Municipality's efforts to expropriate property.

The Municipality granted partial access, exempting certain pages under various sections of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained the appellant's personal information and qualified for exemption under section 6(1)(b) as it would reveal the substance of deliberations of an in camera meeting.

The Municipality's exercise of discretion under section 38(a) to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to their prosecution case file regarding a robbery charge.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to certain records, including a committal form, pre-trial notes, handwritten trial notes, and the Crown's file cover, citing the section 19 exemption.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that all the withheld records were prepared by or for Crown counsel in contemplation of or for use in litigation, satisfying the second branch of the section 19 exemption.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Housing for draft reports related to a management review.

The Ministry responded that no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that responsive records should exist in specific offices.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search was not reasonable, as the affidavit provided by the Ministry was insufficient and did not explain why only one area was searched.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct a further search, including the areas identified by the appellant.

The requester appealed the Regional Municipality of Niagara's decision to deny access to 8 records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The records related to concerns about the requester's management style.

The Inquiry Officer found that all records contained the requester's personal information.

For one record containing another individual's personal information, the Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption under section 38(b) as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The remaining 7 records were ordered disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer also found the Municipality's search for records was reasonable.

Three requesters appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to records relating to the positions of Archivist and Records & Information Analyst.

The City claimed exemptions under sections 7, 10, 11, and 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while some records contained personal information, the exception for employment classification and salary applied to most, meaning disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also rejected the City's claims under sections 7, 10, and 11, ordering the disclosure of the majority of the records.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision regarding a freedom of information request, claiming the Ministry failed to conduct a reasonable search for responsive records.

The Ministry had provided two pages but the requester believed more existed based on previous requests and notations on the records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search was reasonable, noting that the relevant administrative correspondence file had been disposed of in accordance with retention schedules.