Holly Big Canoe

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority for documents regarding development at Snow Valley.

The NVCA granted partial access, claiming exemptions for personal privacy, third party information, and economic interests.

The adjudicator found that most of the severed information was not personal information, except for a residential telephone number which was exempt.

The adjudicator also found that the NVCA failed to establish a reasonable expectation of harm for the third party information exemption, and that the economic interests exemption did not apply because the records did not belong to an institution.

The NVCA was ordered to disclose the remainder of the records.

An insurance company appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to the names and personal information of individuals listed in a fire report.

The appellant sought the information to pursue subrogation rights against third parties.

The Adjudicator found that the information was highly sensitive and that the appellant had alternative means to commence a civil action without the names.

The Adjudicator concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and upheld the City's decision.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for access to his personal information and complaints made against him by a named individual.

The Ministry denied access, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the requested police reports contained the personal information of both the appellant and the affected person.

The Adjudicator concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's privacy, as the records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption under section 21(3)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Barrie Police Services Board for police notes and records relating to himself.

The request was narrowed to statements made by an affected person about the appellant.

The Police denied access under section 38(b) of the Act, claiming disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, finding that the records contained the personal information of both the appellant and the affected person, and that the factors favouring privacy protection outweighed the appellant's right of access.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Toronto Police Services Board for records relating to an assault charge.

The Police denied access to portions of the records, claiming exemptions for relations with other governments and invasion of privacy.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional records, including a micro-cassette recording, should exist.

The Adjudicator upheld the Police's decision to withhold information in the Confidential Crown Envelope under section 38(a) and found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search for the requested records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to criminal charges against him, including the Crown brief, witness statements, and police notes.

The Adjudicator found that certain records containing the personal information of the victim and other individuals were exempt from disclosure as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under sections 21 and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, the Adjudicator rejected the Ministry's claim that the remaining records were exempt under the solicitor-client and litigation privilege in section 19, finding that the privilege had expired with the termination of the litigation, did not apply to communications with opposing parties, or had been waived.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records to the appellant.

The appellant, an insurance company, sought access to records from the Ministry of the Attorney General relating to the circumstances of an insured's death to defend a civil action.

The Ministry denied access citing solicitor-client privilege and invasion of privacy.

On reconsideration, the Adjudicator found that while many records contained personal information and were exempt under section 21, certain photographs of the accident scene and correspondence did not contain personal information.

The Adjudicator also held that litigation privilege under section 19 had expired for the police photographs since the related criminal litigation had terminated.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records.

The Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation received a freedom of information request for records relating to funding provided to the Eelam Thamil Information Centre (ETHIC).

The Ministry decided to grant partial access to the records.

ETHIC appealed the decision, arguing the records contained confidential financial information.

The adjudicator found that ETHIC failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence to satisfy the three-part test under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, specifically failing to prove the information was supplied in confidence or that disclosure would cause a reasonable expectation of harm.

The appeal was dismissed and the Ministry's decision to disclose the records was upheld.

The appellant, an unsuccessful applicant for a Police Constable position, requested access to his recruitment file under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Toronto Police Services Board denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act's jurisdiction under section 52(3)3 as employment-related records.

The Adjudicator found that while the records related to an employment matter, the Police did not have a sufficient legal interest in the matter because there was no pending or reasonably foreseeable dispute that could affect their legal rights or obligations.

The records were therefore subject to the Act, and the Police were ordered to issue an access decision.

A construction firm appealed the Regional Municipality of Waterloo's decision to refuse a freedom of information request regarding a municipal employee's salary and hiring details.

The Region claimed the request was frivolous, vexatious, and made in bad faith due to ongoing legal disputes between the parties.

The Adjudicator found that while the appellant's actions may have been inappropriate, they did not amount to bad faith or a dishonest purpose.

The Region was ordered to process the request.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Community and Social Services for records showing the legal expenses of the Barrie & District Association for People with Special Needs.

The Ministry provided some records, but the appellant appealed, arguing that further responsive records, such as legal accounts and budgets, should exist.

The Adjudicator found that the Ministry's search of its Capital Projects Unit, Legal Services Branch, and Barrie Area Office was reasonable, noting that the Ministry does not typically require invoices from service providers unless there is a specific reason.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested access to the Board's legal budgets and legal invoices for a specific school project, seeking only the dollar amounts.

The Board denied access, claiming the records were exempt under sections 11(c), 11(d), and 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the Board's search for the legal budget was reasonable as no such budget existed.

However, the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of the dollar amounts in the legal invoices, finding that they did not qualify for exemption under the economic interests or solicitor-client privilege provisions.

The appellant requested access to transcripts of an interview conducted by a Ministry investigator with her son, who subsequently committed suicide.

The interview was part of an investigation into allegations of abuse by employees at a provincial school for the deaf.

The Ministry denied access, and the appellant appealed.

The adjudicator found that the records were collected in relation to an employment-related matter in which the Ministry has an interest, and therefore fall within the exclusion in section 65(6)3 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant made two requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to sewer repairs and video taping.

The City provided access to some records and stated no additional records existed.

The appellant appealed, claiming more records should exist.

The Adjudicator found that the appellant had expanded the scope of the original request and that the City's search for responsive records was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board denying access to records relating to the appellant's employment with the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board.

The OLRB claimed the records were excluded under section 65(6) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that records sent by or to the municipal employer were excluded from the Act, extending the definition of 'institution' in section 65(6) to include municipal institutions to avoid an absurd result.

The OLRB was ordered to issue an access decision for the remaining records.

An insurance company appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to the death of an insured individual.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) and section 21 (invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that only a small portion of the records qualified for litigation privilege under section 19, as the litigation had terminated and the rationale for the privilege no longer existed for most records.

However, the Adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to records containing personal information under section 21, finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Toronto Police Services Board for a 911 tape of a telephone call from a specific residence.

The Police refused to confirm or deny the existence of the record under section 14(5) of the Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that disclosing the existence or non-existence of the record would reveal personal information about an identifiable individual and constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant, a non-profit organization, requested access to records regarding municipal and industrial air and water dischargers in non-compliance with environmental limits.

The Ministry of the Environment provided a fee estimate and denied the appellant's request for a fee waiver.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the issues surrounding non-complying discharges are of public interest and relate directly to public health and safety.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Ministry to waive the search and preparation charges, but upheld the decision not to waive photocopying and shipping costs.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for technical scientific manuals.

After the Ministry was ordered to disclose the manuals, it assessed a fee of $69.80 for photocopying.

The appellant appealed the fee and requested a fee waiver, arguing that disclosure would benefit public health and safety.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the fee estimate and denied the fee waiver, finding that the dissemination of highly technical scientific manuals would not yield a public benefit or contribute to the understanding of an important public health issue.

The appellants submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for police investigation records relating to a criminal proceeding in which they were the complainants.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, claiming exemptions for law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records did not qualify for solicitor-client or litigation privilege under section 19, as the litigation had terminated.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold certain records under sections 21(1) and 49(b) on the basis that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellants' argument that the public interest override in section 23 applied was rejected, as the interest in obtaining disclosure for a civil lawsuit was private rather than public.