Holly Big Canoe

The appellant requested access to a report regarding radio transmission towers from the City of Nepean.

The City denied access under sections 11(c), (d), and (e) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Appeals Officer also raised the mandatory exemption under section 10.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that any of the discretionary exemptions under section 11 applied.

Furthermore, the mandatory exemption under section 10 did not apply because the record was not supplied in confidence by the third party, and there was insufficient evidence of harm.

The City was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant requested access to all records relating to investigations and prosecutions pertaining to himself, specifically regarding a 1978 murder investigation.

The Ministry granted partial access, denying access to certain notes and claiming other records were not responsive.

The appellant appealed, arguing more records should exist.

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

However, the Officer determined that two pages of the severed records contained the appellant's personal information and ordered their disclosure.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision regarding a freedom of information request, claiming the search for responsive records was inadequate.

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

The Officer also determined that certain records sought by the appellant, which related to an employee's personal legal matters, were not in the custody or under the control of the Ministry.

However, the Ministry was ordered to issue an access decision regarding three newly identified records.

The appellant appealed the Halton Board of Education's response to a freedom of information request, claiming that additional responsive records, including a tape recording of a meeting, should exist.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the steps taken by the Board to locate the records, including searches by the Director of Education's secretary and the Board secretary, and concluded that the Board's search was reasonable in the circumstances.

The appellants appealed a decision by the Durham Region Board of Commissioners of Police to grant partial access to records related to an assault investigation under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester was the alleged victim of the assault, and the appellants were the alleged perpetrators.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information and that disclosure of certain identifying information on pages 1 and 3 would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's exercise of discretion under section 38(b) to disclose parts of pages 4 and 14, balancing the requester's right to their own personal information against the appellants' privacy rights.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Town of Caledon for materials submitted by a municipal councillor to a consultant regarding a planning study.

The Town identified one sketch, denied access under s. 7(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and claimed no other records existed.

After the councillor consented to disclosure, the Town agreed to release the sketch but failed to do so.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Town to disclose the sketch and dismissed the appeal regarding the existence of additional records, finding the Town's search was reasonable.

A teacher requested access to two letters and a report containing complaints about their conduct from parents.

The Board denied access to the letters under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and claimed the report did not exist.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the letters contained personal information but that disclosing the substance of the complaints would not constitute an unjustified invasion of the parents' personal privacy, as the information was relevant to the teacher's fair determination of rights in an upcoming grievance hearing.

The Board was ordered to disclose the letters, severing only the parents' home address and telephone number.

The Board's search for the report was found to be reasonable.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to an occurrence report regarding a workplace harassment complaint at a young offenders facility.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information and that section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applied to exempt the personal information of individuals other than the appellant and the affected person.

The Inquiry Officer also determined that the Young Offenders Act did not prohibit disclosure of the severed record.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the severed record.

The Durham Region Board of Commissioners of Police received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a police report and statements regarding a fire.

The Police decided to disclose the records, and three affected persons appealed the decision to protect their personal information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information and that the requester failed to establish that the information was required to prepare for a related civil proceeding.

Consequently, the disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, and the Police were ordered not to disclose the appellants' personal information.

The appellant requested a list of structurally non-compliant nursing homes and the original reports detailing their non-compliance from the Ministry of Health.

The Ministry denied access under sections 18(1)(c) and (d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Several affected nursing homes also claimed the records were exempt under section 17(1).

The Inquiry Officer found that the information was not supplied in confidence by the third parties, so section 17(1) did not apply.

Furthermore, the Ministry failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice its economic interests or be injurious to the financial interests of the Government of Ontario under sections 18(1)(c) and (d).

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The requester appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board to deny access to portions of a Staff Sergeant thesis written by six police officers during a management course in 1979.

The severed information included names, signatures, and badge numbers.

The Inquiry Officer found that the severed information qualified as personal information under section 2(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer further held that the mandatory exemption under section 14 applied, as the disclosure of the authors' identities in the context of an academic exercise would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, and was not desirable for the purpose of subjecting the activities of the institution to public scrutiny.

The Halton Board of Education received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to a motion made by a school trustee.

The trustee objected to the disclosure of the records, arguing they contained his personal information, and appealed the Board's decision to grant access.

The Inquiry Officer found that the trustee's views and opinions expressed in his capacity as an elected official did not qualify as his personal information.

While the records contained the trustee's views about other identifiable individuals, those individuals consented to disclosure.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the records, with the exception of the trustee's home address, which was exempt from disclosure as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

A school board trustee appealed the Halton Board of Education's decision to disclose records relating to his failed motions on a board program.

The Inquiry Officer found that the trustee's views and opinions about the program, expressed in his capacity as an elected official, did not qualify as his personal information.

Views about other individuals were the personal information of those individuals, who had consented to disclosure.

Only the trustee's home address qualified as his personal information and was exempt from disclosure under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board was ordered to disclose the remaining records.

A requester sought access to the rationale provided by a school trustee regarding motions on a Board program.

The Board decided to grant access, and the trustee appealed, arguing the record contained his personal information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the trustee's views and opinions were expressed in his capacity as a publicly elected official and did not qualify as personal information under section 2(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, the trustee's home address contained in the record was found to be personal information and exempt from disclosure under section 14(1).

The Board was ordered to disclose the record with the home address severed.

The requester appealed the Municipality's decision regarding a freedom of information request, arguing that additional responsive records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the affidavits detailing the Municipality's search efforts and concluded that the Municipality had taken all reasonable steps to locate the requested records.

The search was deemed reasonable and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested access to all personal information in the custody of the School Board pertaining to himself, his wife, and his three children.

The School Board granted partial access but denied access to four pages under section 13 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure could threaten the children's health and safety.

The Inquiry Officer found that the School Board conducted a reasonable search and that the records contained personal information.

However, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the section 13 exemption did not apply, as the appellant was already aware of the children's remarks and disclosure could not reasonably be expected to seriously threaten their safety or health.

The School Board was ordered to disclose the severed information.

The requester appealed the decision of the Belleville Board of Commissioners of Police to deny access to the name of a deceased person found in a field, contained in a Sudden Death Report.

The Inquiry Officer found that the deceased person's name constituted personal information under section 2(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(1)(f) and upheld the decision to deny access.

The City of Toronto received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a 'Life Safety Study' regarding a hospital.

The City decided to disclose the record, and two affected parties appealed, arguing the record was exempt under section 10(1) and that disclosure would infringe copyright.

The Inquiry Officer found that the affected parties failed to establish that the record was supplied in confidence or that disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause the specified harms.

The Inquiry Officer also held that disclosure under the Act does not constitute copyright infringement.

The City's decision to disclose the record was upheld.

The requester appealed the Town of Ajax's decision to deny access to portions of a report regarding the feasibility of the Town assuming the public transportation service.

The Town relied on discretionary exemptions under sections 11(c), (e), and (f) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that section 11(f) did not apply as the record was not a plan.

Section 11(e) applied only to one section detailing the Town's position on union rights in anticipated negotiations.

Section 11(c) did not apply as disclosure of general anticipated operating costs would not prejudice the Town's economic interests.

The Town was ordered to disclose the remaining severed portions.

The Ministry of Natural Resources denied a freedom of information request for the names and titles of individuals consulted during a policy review, claiming the information was exempt as personal information under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The Inquiry Officer found that the individuals expressed their views in a professional or business capacity, not a personal one.

Therefore, the severed names and titles did not qualify as personal information under section 2(1) of the Act.

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