Holly Big Canoe

The appellant requested access to personal information collected by the police during a surveillance or investigation.

The police granted partial access to officers' handwritten notebook entries, withholding portions under sections 8(1)(l) and 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the exemptions, the comprehensibility of the handwritten records, and the reasonableness of the search.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the privacy exemptions for third-party information but found the law enforcement exemption did not apply to a police code.

The Officer also held that the police were not required to provide typewritten transcripts of legible handwritten notes, but ordered the disclosure of the decoded police code.

The search for records was deemed reasonable.

The requester sought access to records relating to the investigation of her sexual harassment complaint against a co-worker.

The Ministry of Health granted partial access, denying access to some records under sections 13(1), 19, and 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Both the requester and the co-worker (affected person) appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were exempt under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) and section 21 (personal privacy), but ordered the disclosure of other records where the exemptions did not apply or where the Ministry failed to establish the requirements for section 13(1) (advice or recommendations).

The Ministry of Health received a freedom of information request for records relating to a sexual harassment investigation.

The complainant objected to the disclosure of the records and appealed the Ministry's decision to grant partial access.

The Inquiry Officer found that the mandatory exemption for third-party information did not apply because the individuals involved were employees, not third parties.

The records contained the personal information of both the requester and the complainant.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to disclose the records, finding that the complainant failed to demonstrate that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of her personal privacy.

The appellant requested access to records relating to an investigation of a complaint that he had sexually harassed a co-worker.

The Ministry of Health disclosed some records but withheld others under various exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld records contained personal information and that some were exempt under solicitor-client privilege.

The Officer also upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold other records on the basis that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the affected persons who provided information during the investigation.

The Ministry's search for records was deemed reasonable.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Hamilton Board of Education for records relating to a student's program eligibility appeal.

The Board responded that no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing the Board failed to conduct a reasonable search, citing contradictory information previously provided by a Board employee.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's search was reasonable, as it was conducted by knowledgeable staff in locations where records might reasonably be located, and the employee explained that the previous contradictory information was based on a mistaken assumption.

The appellant appealed the Hamilton Board of Education's decision that no responsive records existed for a request for notes taken at a specific meeting.

During the appeal, the Board located and disclosed two pages of notes.

The sole issue was whether the Board conducted a reasonable search for additional records.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Board's search efforts, including affidavits from the employees involved, and concluded that the search was reasonable.

The appellant requested access to a consultant's report identifying potential landfill sites.

The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto denied access to portions of the report under sections 10, 11, and 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information was not supplied in confidence with a reasonable expectation of harm under section 10(1)(c), did not qualify for discretionary exemptions under section 11, and did not constitute personal information under section 2(1).

The Municipality was ordered to disclose the records.

The requester appealed the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's decision to deny access to a list of potential landfill sites under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Municipality claimed exemptions under sections 10, 11, and 14.

The Inquiry Officer found that the section 10(1)(c) and section 11 exemptions did not apply because the Municipality failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence of expected harms.

The Inquiry Officer also determined that only the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of individual property owners constituted 'personal information' under section 2(1), which the requester had not sought.

The Municipality was ordered to disclose the remaining portions of the record.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a 1964 motor vehicle accident in which he was an uninsured driver.

The Ministry of Finance denied access to certain records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that some records were exempt under section 19 as they were prepared by Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice, and others were exempt under section 21 as they contained personal information of other individuals, the disclosure of which would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant requested a copy of a draft evaluation report regarding the Toronto Food Policy Council from the City of Toronto.

The City denied access, claiming the discretionary exemption under section 11(1)(g) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing disclosure would prematurely reveal a pending policy decision.

The Inquiry Officer found that a 'pending policy decision' requires a decision to have been reached but not yet announced, rather than merely being under consideration.

As no decision had been reached regarding the Council's future, the exemption did not apply, and the City was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant requested access to a complaint letter written by a neighbour to the City of North York.

The City denied access under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing personal privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information of both the appellant and the neighbour.

Applying section 38(b), the Officer determined that one sentence describing the neighbour's assets was exempt as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(f).

However, the remainder of the letter was ordered disclosed, as the neighbour had not supplied the information in confidence and its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The appellant requested access to records concerning his complaint against the Ottawa Police Force.

The Ministry of the Attorney General provided partial access, severing personal information of other individuals.

The appellant appealed the severances.

The Inquiry Officer found that the severed information qualified as personal information and that its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as it was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The Ministry's decision to withhold the information under section 49(b) was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to partially deny access to records concerning a sexual harassment investigation.

The requester sought handwritten witness statements.

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

The Officer also determined that the withheld portions contained personal information and that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed the City of Mississauga's response to a freedom of information request for records relating to the towing of their motor vehicle.

The requester alleged that additional responsive records should exist beyond the single record provided.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the affidavit evidence from the City's Supervisor of Traffic Control detailing the search efforts.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the City's search for the requested records was reasonable in the circumstances.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to an autopsy report under the personal privacy exemption of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry argued that the privacy rights of murder victims should not lapse after 30 years due to the sensitive nature of the information.

The Inquiry Officer found that section 2(2) of the Act clearly excludes information about individuals who have been dead for more than 30 years from the definition of personal information, with no exceptions.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a complaint made to the Ontario Securities Commission concerning a condominium project.

The Ministry of Finance denied access to several records under various exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the advice or recommendations exemption (s. 13(1)) for internal memoranda and the third-party commercial information exemption (s. 17(1)(b)) for records supplied by the affected party.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of a letter from the OSC to the affected party, finding that it did not contain commercial information supplied in confidence, nor did it qualify for the law enforcement or personal privacy exemptions.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Environment and Energy's decision to extend the 30-day statutory time limit for responding to three freedom of information requests by an additional 23 days.

The Inquiry Officer found that the requests involved a large number of records requiring careful review by specific individuals, and that meeting the original time limit would unreasonably interfere with the Ministry's operations.

The Ministry's decision to extend the time limit was upheld as reasonable under section 27(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant requested access to Weed Inspector's Reports from the County of Brant.

The County denied access, claiming exemptions for personal information and law enforcement reports.

The Inquiry Officer found that while some names in the reports constituted personal information exempt from disclosure under section 14(1), the addresses alone did not.

Furthermore, the reports did not qualify for the law enforcement exemption under section 8(2)(a) because they were administrative summaries rather than reports prepared in the course of an actual investigation.

The County was ordered to disclose the records with the exempt personal information severed.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Environment and Energy's decision to deny access to records regarding a mining proposal.

The Ministry withdrew its objection to disclosing two records, leaving only a 'Summary of the Terms of Agreement' between the mining company and two First Nations bands at issue.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained commercial information supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the negotiations of the mining company and the First Nations bands.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the two undisputed records and its decision to withhold the agreement was upheld.

The City of Toronto received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to an application for a special event permit for the use of a public park.

The applicant for the permit objected to disclosure, claiming the exemption for third party information under section 10(1)(a).

The Inquiry Officer found that the information was not supplied in confidence, either explicitly or implicitly, as the application was subject to review in a public meeting.

Furthermore, the information would become publicly evident upon the staging of the event, so disclosure could not reasonably be expected to prejudice the appellant's competitive position.

The City's decision to disclose the record was upheld, with the exception of the appellant's home telephone number.