Holly Big Canoe

The appellant requested access to two consultant reports regarding the Town of Markham's fire department operations and fire station locations.

The Town denied access to portions of the records, claiming discretionary exemptions under sections 11(e), (f), and (g) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records did not contain plans, positions, or instructions intended for negotiations, nor did they contain unimplemented administrative plans or information whose disclosure would cause undue financial benefit or premature policy disclosure.

The Town was ordered to disclose the severed portions of the records.

The requester appealed the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to deny access to 49 pages of records relating to their human rights complaint.

The Inquiry Officer found that all records contained personal information.

Several records were found to be exempt under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege), section 13(1) (advice or recommendations), and section 14(2)(a) (law enforcement report) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the OHRC's application of the discretionary exemptions under sections 49(a) and 49(b) to protect the personal privacy of other individuals.

The OHRC was ordered to disclose portions of two records, while its decision to withhold the remaining records was upheld.

The appellant requested access to the toxicology reports of two individuals killed in a boating accident, which were relevant to a civil lawsuit.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General denied access under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records constituted personal information and that their disclosure would be a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(a).

The appellant failed to establish that the information was required to prepare for the civil proceeding under section 21(2)(d).

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records relating to the Ministry's investigation into possible violations of the Discriminatory Business Practices Act by the Ontario Science Centre.

The Ministry denied access under sections 14(2)(a) and 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that two of the three records qualified for exemption under section 14(2)(a) as reports prepared in the course of a law enforcement investigation.

The third record, prepared after the investigation concluded, did not qualify under section 14(2)(a) or section 13(1).

The public interest override in section 23 was found inapplicable to section 14 exemptions.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the third record with witness names severed.

The appellant requested access to police records regarding an investigation of an assault upon her at her workplace.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police granted partial access, severing certain personal information and law enforcement information.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the severed information contained personal information of the affected person and witnesses, the disclosure of which would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14.

The Commissioner also upheld the application of the discretionary exemptions under sections 38(b) and 8(2)(a) for witness statements and law enforcement reports, ordering disclosure only of the information to which the affected person had consented.

The requester appealed the City of Hamilton's decision to deny access to records relating to an internal investigation of the requester's harassment complaint.

The Inquiry Officer found that most records contained personal information.

The Officer ordered the disclosure of information provided by the requester and the affected persons in direct response to the complaint, finding that its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, the Officer upheld the exemption for information provided by other individuals and witnesses.

Exemptions claimed under sections 38(c) and 10(1)(d) were rejected.

The appellant requested access to records relating to compliance investigations undertaken by the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario.

The Ministry of Health denied access, claiming the records were privileged under section 52(9) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer held that the privilege under section 52(9) applies only to records produced in the course of an inquiry, not a compliance investigation.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The requester appealed the Collingwood Police Services Board's decision to deny access to a report written by the Durham Regional Police Special Investigation Unit regarding an internal investigation.

The Board claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record met the three-part test for exemption under section 8(2)(a) as a report prepared in the course of law enforcement by an agency enforcing compliance with the law.

The Board's decision to refuse disclosure was upheld.

The appellant requested access to a contract between the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission (ONTC) and Bearskin Airways, as well as market analysis data.

The ONTC denied access under sections 13, 17, and 18 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the market analysis data (Record 2) was properly exempt under section 18(1)(c) as its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the ONTC's economic interests.

However, the Inquiry Officer found that the contract schedules (Record 1) were not exempt under section 17 or 18, as the ONTC and Bearskin failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence of expected harm from disclosure.

The ONTC was ordered to disclose Record 1.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Education's decision to deny access to a list of retail stores in Cornwall that were given FUTURES program placements.

The Ministry claimed the records were neither in its custody nor under its control.

The Inquiry Officer found that the FUTURES program was delivered by a third-party agency under a purchase of service contract, and the Ministry's right to access the records was limited to audit and accountability purposes.

The Inquiry Officer concluded the records were not in the custody or under the control of the Ministry and upheld the decision.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Natural Resources for records concerning the history and disposition of a specific lot.

After receiving access to the file, the appellant appealed, alleging that additional responsive records existed but were missing.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the affidavits detailing the Ministry's manual searches of the Crown Land Registry and district office files, and concluded that the Ministry's search for the requested records was reasonable in the circumstances.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to a paragraph of a memorandum under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed the record was exempt under section 19 due to common law solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record did not meet the test for solicitor-client privilege because it was a communication between Ministry administration staff, not between a client and a legal advisor, and it was not created for a lawyer's brief.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant requested access to tenders submitted for clerical and drafting supplies.

Ontario Hydro denied access under sections 17(1)(a) and (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer applied the three-part test for third party information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records of four existing companies met the test for exemption under section 17(1)(a) as disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice their competitive position.

However, the records of one company that no longer existed were ordered to be disclosed as no harm could result.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Town of Westminster for an engineering report regarding municipal infrastructure.

The Town granted partial access, severing portions under the advice or recommendations exemption (s. 7(1)) and the solicitor-client privilege exemption (s. 12) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that only one sentence of the severed portions qualified as a recommendation under s. 7(1), and that the public interest override in s. 16 did not apply to that sentence.

The Inquiry Officer also rejected the application of s. 12, finding the report was not a communication with a legal advisor nor prepared for counsel.

The Town was ordered to disclose the remaining severed portions.

The appellant requested access to the blood alcohol levels of five deceased persons involved in a motor vehicle accident from the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

The Ministry denied access under the personal privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records constituted personal information and that their disclosure would be a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as they related to medical conditions.

The appellant failed to establish that the information was required for a fair determination of rights in a civil proceeding to rebut the presumption.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records relating to her harassment complaint from the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Ministry denied access under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of other individuals' personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the records contained personal information of other individuals, disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of their personal privacy.

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

The Ministry of Natural Resources received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for comments regarding a proposed land exchange.

The Ministry denied access to three letters under section 21 of the Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the letters contained the affected person's home address and financial transaction information, which qualified as personal information.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure of this personal information would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, and ordered the Ministry to disclose the records with the personal information severed.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General's decision to deny access to information pertaining to two witnesses who appeared in a criminal trial, and its claim that a requested exhibit could not be located.

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

The Inquiry Officer also found that the severed information qualified as personal information and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Walkerton Board of Commissioners of Police for records relating to a perjury charge against a certain individual.

The Police responded that no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, claiming the records did exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search, including questioning all officers and searching all likely areas, and upheld the institution's decision.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to withhold a record under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

In an interim order, the Inquiry Officer ordered the OHRC to reconsider its exercise of discretion because it had previously released similar personal information to the appellant.

After receiving the OHRC's representations on its reconsideration, the Inquiry Officer upheld the OHRC's decision to withhold the record.