Holly Big Canoe

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Toronto for records relating to quarantine procedures and the mishandling of rabies specimens by the Toronto Humane Society.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the City and the affected third party failed to provide representations or satisfy the three-part test for the exemption.

The City was ordered to disclose the record to the appellant.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board to deny access to police surveillance reports concerning the appellant.

The Police claimed exemptions under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained law enforcement intelligence information gathered in a covert manner, qualifying for exemption under section 8(1)(g).

Consequently, the records were exempt from disclosure under section 38(a), and the decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to certain records related to a police complaint file under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer refused to expand the scope of the appeal beyond the records identified during mediation and found that the Ministry's decision letter met statutory requirements.

The withheld records were found to be exempt under section 49(b) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

Finally, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the Ministry conducted a reasonable search for responsive records, including the requested interim and final reports.

A requester sought access to tender and bonding documents submitted by a construction firm to the Ontario Clean Water Agency.

The Agency decided to disclose the records, and the construction firm appealed, claiming the records contained trade secrets and confidential commercial information exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Upon reconsideration of a previous order, the Inquiry Officer found that while the records contained commercial and financial information, the firm failed to establish that the information was supplied in confidence or that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause harm.

The Agency's decision to disclose the records was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Finance (on behalf of the Ontario Securities Commission) to deny access to records relating to an investigation of a mutual funds salesperson.

The Inquiry Officer found that certain records were exempt from disclosure as their release would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under sections 21 and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, the OSC failed to establish that the remaining records were exempt under the law enforcement provisions of section 14(1), and those records were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to her personnel file and other records held by the Essex County Board of Education.

The Board denied access to 13 records, claiming they fell outside the scope of the Act under sections 52(3)1 and 3.

The appellant appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected, prepared, maintained, or used in relation to a grievance arbitration concerning the appellant's termination, which constitutes a proceeding relating to labour relations.

As such, the records were excluded from the Act under section 52(3)1, and the Board's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Metropolitan Separate School Board's decision to deny access to certain records from their personnel file under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board claimed the records were excluded from the Act under the labour relations and employment provisions in section 52(3), and alternatively exempt under section 38(b) as an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Act applied to the records, as the criminal proceedings and related communications were not sufficiently connected to labour relations or employment.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the privacy exemption for pages 1 and 3 of the record, ordering only the disclosure of page 2, and found the Board's search for records was reasonable.

The appellant made a freedom of information request for records relating to an OPSEU strike, essential services, and related Ontario Labour Relations Board proceedings.

The Management Board Secretariat denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the scope of the Act under the labour relations exclusions in sections 65(6)1 and 65(6)2.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision for most records, finding they were collected or prepared in relation to court proceedings or negotiations relating to labour relations.

However, the final agreement between the union and the employer was ordered disclosed as it fell within the exception in section 65(7)1.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to deny access to 40 pages of records regarding their company's registration with the Small Business Development Corporation.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under law enforcement and personal privacy provisions.

The Inquiry Officer refused to allow the Ministry to raise a new discretionary exemption late in the appeals process.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the withheld records were properly exempt under the law enforcement exemptions (confidential source and law enforcement report) and the personal privacy exemption, but ordered the disclosure of three records that did not qualify for exemption.

The appellant, the Guelph Mercury, appealed the City of Guelph's decision to deny access to a Fire Station Location Study prepared by the Office of the Fire Marshal.

On reconsideration, the City claimed the record was excluded under section 52(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act because it related to labour negotiations, and exempt under section 9(1)(b) as information received in confidence from the provincial government.

The Inquiry Officer found that the report was not sufficiently connected to labour negotiations to be excluded under section 52(3).

Furthermore, the Ministry confirmed there was no expectation of confidentiality regarding the report, meaning section 9(1)(b) did not apply.

The City was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to a named individual and a publication investigated as potential hate literature.

The Ministry denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, solicitor-client privilege, danger to safety or health, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer refused to consider late-raised discretionary exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the records were exempt under Branch 2 of the solicitor-client privilege exemption, as they were prepared by or for Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice.

Four records were found not to qualify for this exemption and were ordered disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the Ministry's application of the personal privacy exemption to certain records and concluded that the Ministry had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Environment and Energy's decision to deny access to portions of two internal electronic mail messages regarding the Keele Valley landfill site.

The Ministry claimed the severed information was exempt under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as advice or recommendations.

The Inquiry Officer found that the severed information did not contain a suggested course of action and was not sufficiently connected to the deliberative process of government decision-making.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Ministry to disclose the records to the appellant.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to a real estate appraisal report regarding land purchased by the City.

The City claimed discretionary exemptions under sections 11(a), (c), (d), (e), and (g) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as well as mandatory exemptions under section 10(1).

The Inquiry Officer found that none of the exemptions applied, as the City failed to establish that the information belonged to it, had monetary value, or that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the City's economic or financial interests.

The City was ordered to disclose the record to the appellant.

The appellant appealed the City of North York's decision to deny access to 36 records relating to the fire department's response to a specific call.

The City claimed the records were exempt under section 12 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (solicitor-client privilege).

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were prepared by or for counsel employed or retained by the City, and that the dominant purpose for their preparation was the contemplation of litigation.

The City's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Environment and Energy's decision to deny access to individual review comments and reviewers' titles regarding the Dufferin Waste Landfill Study.

The Inquiry Officer found that the academic qualifications of the reviewers constituted personal information and were exempt from disclosure under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The reviewers' comments were also found to be exempt under section 13(1) as they constituted advice or recommendations that suggested a course of action for the deliberative process.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted three freedom of information requests to the Ministry for 55 categories of records relating to meat inspections during a strike.

The Ministry extended the 30-day time limit by over 100 days, citing the large volume of records and the need for outside consultations.

The appellant appealed the time extension.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to demonstrate that the requests necessitated a search through a large number of records that would unreasonably interfere with its operations, or that the required consultations justified the lengthy extension.

The time extension was deemed unreasonable, and the Ministry was ordered to issue a decision letter by a specified date.

The requester appealed the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board's decision to refuse disclosure of part of a 911 tape and several records under section 38(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Following an interim order directing the Police to provide representations on their exercise of discretion, the Inquiry Officer found that the Police had exercised their discretion in accordance with established legal principles and upheld the decision.

The appellant, the Superintendent of Insurance, appealed a decision by the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board denying access to portions of a police file relating to a 1991 hit-and-run accident.

The appellant sought the information to determine liability for insurance benefits.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, making their disclosure a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer also held that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, as the appellant already had access to sufficient information for the litigation.

The police decision was upheld.

The Ottawa Public School Board appealed a decision by the Ministry of Finance denying access to a Municipal Enumeration Form under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

During the appeal, it was revealed that the original form had been destroyed and the only remaining copy was a severed version that the Ministry had already disclosed to the Board during Assessment Review Board proceedings.

The Inquiry Officer found that because the Board already possessed the record through legitimate means, the appeal was moot and no useful purpose would be served by proceeding.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant requested access to records relating to the conditions of detention and release of a psychiatric patient who had been found not guilty by reason of insanity.

The Ministry of Health denied access under section 65(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which excludes clinical records of psychiatric patients.

The appellant appealed, arguing the records were not clinical and that section 65(2) violated sections 7 and 15(1) of the Charter.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding the records were clinical records and that the Charter arguments failed.