Holly Big Canoe

The appellant requested records related to the Advocacy Act from the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office (PPAO).

The Ministry of Health refused to process the request, claiming the records were not in its custody or control because the PPAO operates independently.

The Inquiry Officer found that the PPAO is fundamentally an internal program of the Ministry and is not a separate statutory entity.

Consequently, the records are in the custody and control of the Ministry, and the Ministry was ordered to process the request in compliance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for prosecution and investigation case files related to a death.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, citing exemptions for solicitor-client privilege and advice to government.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the section 19 exemption to the Crown brief and related correspondence, and the section 13(1) exemption to other records containing advice or recommendations.

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

The Ministry of Health received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records concerning the requester.

The Ministry decided to release a transcript of an interview with the appellant, an affected party, with some severances.

The appellant appealed the decision to release the record.

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

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the disclosure of the record would not constitute an unjustified invasion of the appellant's personal privacy under section 49(b) of the Act, and upheld the Ministry's decision to disclose the record.

The Ministry of Health received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for standing offers from air ambulance service providers.

The Ministry denied access to the tariff schedules under the third-party commercial information exemption.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained commercial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the competitive position of the affected party.

The Ministry's decision to deny access under section 17(1)(a) was upheld.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Durham Region Board of Commissioners of Police for records relating to a complaint and a parking ticket.

The Police provided access to some records, including audio tapes, but the appellant appealed, arguing that additional responsive records existed and that portions of the tapes had been deleted.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the search efforts of the Police, which included sworn affidavits detailing computer, manual, and audio searches, and accepted the Police's explanation that gaps in the tapes were due to the deletion of non-responsive conversations.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the Police had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records and that the search was reasonable.

The appellant requested records relating to the quality of drinking water at the Penetanguishine Mental Health Centre.

The Ministry of the Environment granted partial access and charged a fee.

The appellant appealed, arguing the search was inadequate, non-responsive records were provided, and the fee was excessive.

The Inquiry Officer found the search was unreasonable because the Laboratory Services Branch was not searched, but the records provided were responsive.

The fee was partially upheld, but the Ministry was ordered to refund the charge for preparation time related to photocopying.

The appellants requested access to their son's Ontario Student Record from the Simcoe County Board of Education.

After receiving the records and an inventory, the appellants made a second request for nine items listed in the inventory but not provided.

The Board located two records and stated its search was complete.

The appellants appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Commissioner had jurisdiction to review the appeal as it was filed within the statutory time limit following the second request.

The Inquiry Officer also concluded that the Board conducted a reasonable search for the remaining records, accepting the Board's explanations regarding typographical errors in the inventory and the destruction of obsolete records.

The appellant requested the Teme-Augama Anishnabai 1992-1993 budget and 1991-1992 Statement of Revenue and Expenditures from the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat.

The Ministry of the Attorney General, acting as agent, disclosed the budget but severed three dollar figures from the Statement of Revenue and Expenditures under the personal privacy exemption in section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Secretariat provided insufficient evidence to establish that the severed salary and consultant figures could be attributed to identifiable individuals.

As the information did not qualify as 'personal information' under section 2(1), the Ministry was ordered to disclose the severed figures.

The requester, acting on behalf of an assault victim, appealed the Waterloo Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to identifying information of the accused and witnesses in a police investigation file.

The Inquiry Officer found that the requested information constituted personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption of an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester's need for the information to commence a civil proceeding did not outweigh this presumption.

The decision of the Police to deny access under section 38(b) was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's deemed refusal to provide access to records relating to civil actions.

During the inquiry, the Ministry claimed the advice or recommendations exemption under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for several records.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records contained advice or recommendations and were exempt, while others contained merely factual material or did not qualify for the exemption.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records and sever personal information from certain records under section 21(1).

The appellant submitted three requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Town of Markham for records relating to construction change orders, computer equipment, and consultant invoices.

The Town refused to confirm or deny the existence of some records under section 8(3) and claimed exemptions under sections 8(1)(a) and (b) for law enforcement matters.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Town failed to justify its use of section 8(3) and did not provide sufficient evidence that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or investigation.

The Town was ordered to disclose the responsive records, subject to severing personal information.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a development project known as Landport from the City of Brampton.

The City and affected persons objected to disclosure under section 10 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records contained technical, commercial, or financial information supplied in confidence, and their disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in similar information no longer being supplied to the City.

These records were exempt under section 10(1).

The Inquiry Officer also found that a record of an in-camera council meeting was exempt under section 6(1)(b).

The City was ordered to disclose the remaining records.

The appellant appealed the Halton Board of Education's decision to deny access to records describing agreements with computer hardware and software suppliers for a new secondary school.

The Board and the affected suppliers objected to disclosure under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer applied the three-part test for third-party commercial information and found that the records contained commercial information supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the suppliers' competitive position.

The decision to deny access to the remaining records was upheld, while parts of the records consented to by one supplier were ordered disclosed.

The appellant requested access to reports concerning an attack on a student at Aurora High School.

The York Region Board of Education denied access under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the records contained personal information of identifiable individuals and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, as no factors weighing in favour of disclosure were established.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a criminal investigation of his business activities under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations granted partial access but denied the remainder, citing law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the appellant's personal information and that the withheld records qualified for exemption under section 14(1)(d) as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal the identity of confidential sources.

The Ministry's search for records was also found to be reasonable.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose certain response letters with the names and addresses of the complainants severed.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to deny access to interview documents related to his human rights complaint.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the personal information of both the appellant and other identifiable individuals.

The Officer upheld the application of the discretionary exemption under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to protect the personal privacy of other individuals, but ordered the disclosure of the appellant's own personal information.

The Officer also found that the institution's search for records was reasonable.

The appellant requested access to information about new building permits issued by the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, including the names and addresses of property owners and builders.

The Town denied access to the names and addresses, claiming they were exempt as personal information under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the names and addresses of individuals qualify as personal information, but those of business entities do not.

The Town was ordered to disclose the names and addresses of business entities, while the exemption was upheld for the personal information of individuals.

The appellant requested access to records relating to meetings held between the appellant, a student, and the school principal.

The Hamilton Board of Education responded that no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that records should exist given the sensitive nature of the meetings.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the Board's search for records, which included manual searches and consultations with relevant staff, was reasonable in the circumstances.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Transportation's decision that a requested letter of reprimand, referenced in an investigation report, did not exist.

The Ministry provided an affidavit from the investigator stating the record was never obtained as it was not material to the investigation, and a search of the file did not locate it.

The Inquiry Officer found the Ministry's search for the requested record was reasonable in the circumstances and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant requested access to their institution file from the Whitby Jail.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access to certain occurrence reports, claiming exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for confiscated records, danger to physical safety, and correctional records.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the records contained the appellant's personal information, the Ministry failed to establish that any of the claimed exemptions applied.

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