Holly Big Canoe

The appellant sought access to Ministry of Health investigation reports regarding the care and death of her mother at a long-term care facility.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, citing the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained the deceased mother's personal medical information and were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumptions against disclosure under sections 21(3)(a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation denying access to correspondence regarding a museum closure.

The Ministry claimed the records contained personal information of affected persons and withheld them under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the records contained personal information of both the appellant and the affected persons.

Applying sections 21 and 49(b), the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of parts of two records where consent was provided, but upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the remaining records to protect the affected persons' privacy.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to La Cité Collégiale for records relating to the classification of a job position.

The College denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(6)3.

The adjudicator found that the records were collected, prepared, and used in relation to communications about employment-related matters in which the College has a legal interest, specifically a grievance filed by the appellant.

The adjudicator upheld the College's decision and found the records fell outside the jurisdiction of the Act.

The appellant, a private investigator acting on behalf of a deceased's wife, appealed a decision by the Niagara Regional Police Services Board denying access to various records relating to a fatal motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the appellant was not acting as a personal representative for the administration of the estate under section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator ordered the disclosure of the wife's own statement and the description of items seized from the driver's car, as the driver had consented to disclosure.

The remaining records were found to be exempt under section 14(1) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant, acting as Estate Trustee for her deceased father, appealed a decision by the Peel Regional Police Services Board denying access to portions of a police investigation file regarding alleged theft from the deceased.

The adjudicator found that while the appellant had a right of access as a personal representative, the withheld records were exempt.

Specifically, witness statements and officer notes were exempt as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Furthermore, applying the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Campbell, the adjudicator held that communications between the police and the Crown Attorney were protected by solicitor-client privilege under section 12, explicitly departing from previous IPC precedent.

The appellant appealed the Toronto Police Service's decision to deny access to a videotape of his booking and release.

The Police claimed the record was excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)1, as it was used in an ongoing investigation into the appellant's complaint against several police officers.

The adjudicator found that the videotape was used in relation to employment-related proceedings under the Police Services Act.

The appeal was dismissed, and the record was found to be excluded from the scope of the Act.

The appellant, a law firm representing the estate of a deceased individual, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to three witness statements related to a fatal motor vehicle accident.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under sections 21 and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 21(3)(b).

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to a police report naming him as a suspect in a theft allegation.

The Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board denied access, citing exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator upheld the decision, finding that the records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other individuals named in the report.

The public interest override did not apply.

The appellant requested access to audit records from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The Ministry denied access to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board audit, claiming it was excluded under section 65(6)3 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as an employment-related matter in which the Board had a legal interest.

The adjudicator found that while the records related to employment matters, the Board failed to establish a reasonable prospect that its legal interest would be engaged, as the employee had resigned over two years prior and there was no ongoing dispute.

The records were found to be subject to the Act, and the Board was ordered to issue an access decision.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to Ontario Hydro for copies of agreements relating to water rights over the Niagara River.

Ontario Hydro identified 18 responsive agreements and denied access to them under sections 17 and 18 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

During mediation and inquiry, objections to the disclosure of several records were withdrawn.

The adjudicator found that the remaining records qualified for exemption under section 18(1)(d) of the Act, as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the financial interests of the Government of Ontario, given the impending competitive electricity market and Ontario Hydro's required divestiture of generating assets.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant, a victim of sexual assaults, submitted a freedom of information request to the Cornwall Police Services Board for records relating to the investigation of his former school teacher.

The Police denied access to portions of the records, citing personal privacy exemptions.

On appeal, the Adjudicator found that the withheld information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other identifiable individuals.

The decision of the Police to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the institution's decision to deny access to records relating to a search warrant execution and charges under the Liquor Licence Act.

The institution claimed the records were exempt under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (solicitor-client privilege).

The Adjudicator found that the records, which included communications between the institution and its legal counsel, lawyers' bills of account, and internal legal notes, were subject to common law solicitor-client privilege and litigation privilege.

The institution's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of Finance for a copy of the legal position used to authorize the destruction of an Impact Study.

The Ministry advised that no such records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing the search was inadequate.

The adjudicator found that the Ministry's search, supported by an affidavit from Senior Counsel explaining why no such legal provision existed, was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Halton Regional Police Services Board for access to police officers' notebook entries regarding a domestic call involving the appellant.

The Police granted partial access and denied the remainder under section 38(b) of the Act, claiming it would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the withheld information qualified as personal information of both the appellant and the affected person.

The adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, concluding that the information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and its disclosure was therefore presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The appellant sought access to police records, including witness statements, relating to an assault against him.

The Guelph Police Services Board denied access to portions of the records under the personal privacy exemption of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b).

The adjudicator rejected the appellant's argument that his need for the records to pursue a civil action and a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board claim constituted a compelling public interest under section 16.

The police's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the City of Ottawa for records relating to the redevelopment of Landsdowne Park.

The City denied access to an appraisal report and two other records, claiming exemptions for third party information and economic interests.

The adjudicator upheld the City's decision to withhold the records, finding that disclosure of the appraisal report could prejudice the City's financial interests and negotiations, and that disclosure of the other records could significantly prejudice the competitive position of third party proponents.

However, the adjudicator found that the City failed to demonstrate it had conducted a reasonable search for additional responsive records and ordered a further search.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to records relating to his complaint about a doctor fraudulently over-billing OHIP.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 14(1)(d) (law enforcement) and 21 (invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

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

The adjudicator also held that applying the law enforcement and privacy exemptions to the appellant's own complaint would lead to an absurd result, ordering its disclosure along with a general Ministry bulletin.

The remaining records were found to be exempt under section 21 as they were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Health Insurance Act.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Natural Resources for records relating to a tender for the construction of an amphitheatre.

The Ministry denied access to the successful bidder's bid submissions and deposits, claiming the third party information exemption under section 17(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the adjudicator found that the records did not meet the three-part test for exemption, as there was no reasonable expectation of confidentiality for the publicly read bid prices, and no evidence that disclosure would prejudice the third party's competitive position.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Hamilton for records relating to a feasibility study review.

The City withheld portions of several e-mails, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that some severed paragraphs were confidential communications directly related to seeking or formulating legal advice and were therefore exempt.

However, other paragraphs did not meet this test and were ordered disclosed.

The adjudicator also found that the City's search for responsive records was reasonable.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the City of London for a contract between a taxicab company and a university students' council regarding discounted flat rates.

The City denied access under the third party information exemption in section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that while the information was commercial, the flat rates were already publicly available to students and the disclosure of the contract would not reasonably be expected to cause the harms specified in section 10(1).

The City was ordered to disclose the records.