Holly Big Canoe

The appellant sought access to correspondence addressed to the Ministry regarding complaints about an organization she represents.

The Ministry denied access under sections 17(1) and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third party information exemption under section 17(1) did not apply, as the records did not contain financial or labour relations information.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the personal privacy exemption under section 21(1) for certain records containing employment history and personal information supplied in confidence, while ordering the disclosure of records written in a professional capacity.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to an OPP investigation into a complaint of someone impersonating a police officer.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 14(2)(a), 49(a), 21, and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption against disclosure in section 21(3)(b).

The appeal was dismissed and the Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Labour's decision to deny access to records concerning an employment standards claim filed against the appellant.

The Ministry claimed the invasion of privacy exemption under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and that disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b).

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Insurance Commission (OIC) for his registration file as a life insurance agent.

The OIC granted partial access but withheld other records under exemptions for law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, and unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that certain records were exempt as they were compiled during a law enforcement investigation into the appellant's business practices, contained privileged communications with legal counsel, or constituted formal investigation reports.

However, the OIC failed to establish exemptions for several other records, which were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Labour's decision to deny access to certain records relating to a specified property and business under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b).

The public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, an employee of the City of Toronto, requested access to an independent investigator's report regarding workplace concerns.

The City denied access, claiming the record was excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3).

The Inquiry Officer found that the record was collected, prepared, maintained, or used in relation to meetings, consultations, discussions, or communications about employment-related matters in which the City had an interest.

The appeal was dismissed as the record fell outside the jurisdiction of the Act.

The appellant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of Labour for his entire file retained by the Office of the Worker Adviser.

The Ministry granted partial access, withholding three records under exemptions for advice or recommendations, law enforcement, danger to safety or health, and invasion of privacy.

The appellant appealed.

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

However, the Officer determined that the records did not contain personal information of anyone other than the appellant, and that the exemptions claimed by the Ministry did not apply.

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

The City of Toronto received requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for grant applications submitted by a named organization.

The City decided to disclose the records, and the organization appealed, arguing the records were exempt under section 10(1) as third party information.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the records contained financial information, the appellant provided no evidence that the information was supplied in confidence or that its disclosure would cause a specified harm.

The appeal was dismissed and the City was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to a specific Mortgage Broker's file.

The Ministry of Finance denied access to the records, citing exemptions for law enforcement, third party information, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third party information exemption did not apply.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold certain records under the solicitor-client privilege, law enforcement, and invasion of privacy exemptions.

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

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to the appellant's bookstore, which was alleged to have spread hate propaganda in the 1980s.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, danger to safety or health, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the law enforcement and solicitor-client privilege exemptions for most records.

However, the Officer rejected the Ministry's claim that disclosure would seriously threaten safety or health, noting the appellant was already aware of the published hate literature.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose certain records and parts of records.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto for access to her personnel, grievance, workers' compensation, and pay equity records.

The Municipality denied access to certain records, claiming they were excluded from the Act under section 52(3) as they related to labour relations and employment proceedings.

The Municipality also severed portions of other records under section 38(b) to protect the privacy of third parties.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Municipality's decision, finding that the records were excluded under section 52(3) and that disclosure of the severed information would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Officer also found that the Municipality had complied with the appellant's request to view the original records by offering her the opportunity to do so.

The appellant, a non-profit organization, appealed a fee estimate of $591.60 and the denial of a fee waiver by Ontario Hydro regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to nuclear performance and costs.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the fee estimate as reasonable and calculated in accordance with the Act.

The request for a fee waiver was denied, as the appellant failed to demonstrate financial hardship or that dissemination of the records would benefit public health or safety.

The Inquiry Officer also found it would not be fair and equitable to waive the fee given the circumstances.

The requester sought access to court documents relating to her daughter from the Durham Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board decided to disclose the records, finding that exemptions did not apply.

The daughter and her custodial parents appealed the decision, arguing disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of their personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's decision, finding that because the personal information was part of a public court record, its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 38(b) of the Act.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board for reports relating to an allegation that he was assaulted by two police officers.

The Police denied access under the law enforcement exemptions in sections 8(1)(a) and (b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the law enforcement exemptions did not apply because the investigations had concluded.

However, the records contained personal information of other individuals, triggering the presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

Applying the 'absurd result' principle, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of information the appellant had originally provided to the Police, but upheld the exemption for the remaining records.

The appellant appealed a decision by the City of Sault Ste.

Marie to deny access to parts of a temporary employment contract of a former employee under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The City claimed the disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the exact salary information was exempt from disclosure as it described the individual's finances and income.

However, the information regarding sick leave, vacation, and pension benefits fell under the exception for 'benefits' and was ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to severed portions of a preliminary draft report under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the severed information constituted advice and recommendations of a consultant, qualifying for the exemption.

The exception under section 13(2)(f) did not apply as the report did not evaluate the institution's performance or efficiency.

The Ministry's exercise of discretion was upheld despite the appellant's claim that the report had been leaked to the media.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board for records relating to an armed robbery at his business.

The Police denied access to two witness statements provided by the appellant's employees, citing the law enforcement exemptions under sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that while the investigation was ongoing, the Police failed to provide specific evidence demonstrating how disclosure of the statements, for which the witnesses had provided written consent, could reasonably be expected to interfere with the investigation.

The Police were ordered to disclose the records to the appellant.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to several records relating to her property under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that an inspection report was exempt as a law enforcement report under section 14(2)(a).

Other records were found exempt under section 14(1)(d) to protect a confidential source, and under section 49(b) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose certain photographs that did not contain personal information.

The appellant sought access to records relating to aboriginal fishing rights from the Ministry of Natural Resources.

After the Ministry disclosed one record, the remaining issue was whether the public interest override in section 23 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applied to the remaining exempt records.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the determination of aboriginal fishing rights is a matter of public interest, disclosure of the specific records at this stage would not result in a more informed citizenry or enhance the public's ability to express public opinion.

The Ministry's decision to withhold the records was upheld.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Elliot Lake for records relating to a financial contribution.

The City granted partial access and assessed a fee of $225 for 7.5 hours of search time, plus photocopying costs.

The appellant appealed the fee and the reasonableness of the search.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City's search was reasonable and upheld the fee estimate for search time and photocopying.