Holly Big Canoe

The appellant appealed a decision by the City of Mississauga regarding a freedom of information request for records concerning the Cawthra Woodlot.

The appellant challenged the reasonableness of the City's search, the responsiveness of certain records, the denial of a fee refund for returned records, and the method of access provided.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that the City conducted a reasonable search, the records were responsive, a fee refund was not appropriate, and the provision of photocopies rather than original records was appropriate given the appellant's request.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $22,513 issued by the Ministry of Health for responding to a freedom of information request regarding doctor's billing practices.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's estimates for paper record searches, preparation time, and photocopying, but found the estimate for searching electronic files to be excessive.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Ministry to adjust its fee estimate to $14,179, reflecting a more reasonable calculation for electronic search time.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board for access to records relating to a disciplinary investigation against him.

The Police denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under section 52(3).

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that the records were collected and maintained in relation to proceedings before a tribunal that relate to the employment of a person by the institution, and thus fell outside the scope of the Act.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Police Complaints Commissioner for records relating to an investigation initiated by the appellant and her husband.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to thirteen records under sections 14(2)(a) and 49(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that only one record met the three-part test for a report prepared in the course of law enforcement.

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

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Halton Regional Police Services Board for correspondence relating to himself.

The Police granted partial access to two records but refused to confirm or deny the existence of any other records pursuant to section 8(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that merely confirming the existence or non-existence of a police intelligence file relating to the requester could reasonably be expected to interfere with the gathering of law enforcement intelligence information.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Toronto for medical reports, rehabilitation assessments, job descriptions, and performance evaluations.

The City denied access on the basis that the records were excluded under section 52(3) of the Act as employment-related records.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that the records were collected and used in relation to employment-related matters in which the City had an interest, specifically the duty to accommodate an employee with a disability and workers' compensation claims.

The appellant appealed the Regional Municipality of Halton's decision to deny access to records relating to an internal investigation of workplace misconduct.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Region conducted a reasonable search for the requested records.

Furthermore, the records were excluded from the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)3, as they were prepared and maintained by the Region in relation to an employment-related matter in which the Region had an interest.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Health for a briefing note regarding ancillary student health services fees at the University of Western Ontario.

The Ministry provided partial access, claiming exemptions under sections 18 and 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the application of section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) to severed portions of the record.

The Inquiry Officer found that the severed portions met the four criteria for the common law solicitor-client privilege, as the employee responsible for briefing the Minister acted as the Minister's agent in seeking and receiving legal advice.

The Ministry's decision to deny access to the severed portions was upheld.

The appellant, an employee of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board, requested access to records concerning an internal investigation into problems between staff, in which the appellant was the complainant.

The Police denied access under section 52(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the records were collected, prepared, maintained, or used by the Police in relation to communications about employment-related matters in which the Police have an interest, and were therefore excluded from the scope of the Act.

The appellant requested access to records relating to an investigation of a 1993 workplace complaint from the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

The Municipality denied access, claiming the records were excluded under section 52(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected, prepared, and maintained in relation to proceedings before the Ontario Human Rights Commission concerning employment matters.

Therefore, the records fell within the section 52(3) exclusion and the Municipality's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's decision to deny access to records relating to a grant application by the Anti-Racist Action organization.

The Municipality claimed exemptions for advice or recommendations, danger to safety or health, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the withheld records contained personal information and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of certain letters written in a professional capacity and a severed version of a briefing note, finding that the advice or recommendations and danger to safety or health exemptions did not apply to it.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Metropolitan Separate School Board for records relating to meetings, interviews, and complaints involving the appellant and another individual.

The Board denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Act under section 52(3)1.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's decision, finding that the records were collected, prepared, maintained, or used in relation to grievance arbitration proceedings and a human rights complaint, which relate to labour relations and employment.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Natural Resources for records relating to the Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licences Regulations.

The Ministry denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for Cabinet records, advice and recommendations, relations with other governments, economic interests, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the exemptions for Cabinet records, solicitor-client privilege, and relations with other governments.

The Commissioner ordered the disclosure of several records where the exemptions for economic interests, advice and recommendations, third-party information, and invasion of privacy were not established.

The Commissioner also requested further representations on the application of the public interest override.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to records relating to historical and economic studies of the Saugeen Ojibway fisheries.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13, 18(1)(e), 18(1)(g), and 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records did not qualify for exemption under sections 13, 18(1)(e), or 18(1)(g), as they were historical information and not developed plans or advice.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the application of section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) for two of the records, finding they were prepared for Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the third record.

The appellant, a solicitor representing the family of a deceased individual shot by police, appealed the police's decision to deny access to records relating to the deceased.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant did not establish he was the deceased's personal representative under section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Furthermore, the records were exempt from disclosure under section 14(1) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, given they were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to an investigation of a fire at their business premises.

The Police denied access under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

During mediation, arson charges were laid against the appellant.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision to deny access under section 38(a) in conjunction with section 8(1)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, finding that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement matter before the courts.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the County of Renfrew for records relating to an incident at his wife's place of employment.

The County denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Act under section 52(3).

The appellant appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected and used in relation to an investigation, discipline, and a grievance, which are employment-related matters in which the County has an interest.

The appeal was dismissed, and the records were held to be excluded from the Act.

The appellant sought access to records sent by the Ministry of the Attorney General to the Law Society of Upper Canada regarding his past criminal prosecution.

The Ministry denied access, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that any common law or statutory privilege attaching to the records was waived when the Ministry voluntarily disclosed them to the Law Society.

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

The appellant appealed the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to deny access to records relating to her human rights complaint.

The OHRC claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for advice or recommendations, law enforcement, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained only the appellant's personal information, dismissing the privacy exemption for third parties.

The advice and recommendations exemption was not upheld for the case officer's notes.

However, the law enforcement exemption was upheld for most records, as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing investigation.

The OHRC was ordered to disclose three records that did not qualify for the exemption.

The appellant, acting through the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to a Special Investigations Unit (SIU) investigation of a police shooting in which the appellant was severely injured.

The Ministry denied access to witness statements and photographs under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the SIU report and appendices were exempt under section 14(2)(a) as a report prepared in the course of law enforcement, and that the witness statements were exempt under section 21(3)(b) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.