Holly Big Canoe

The appellant requested access to records relating to a motor vehicle accident, including police notes and witness statements.

The Ministry granted partial access, withholding some information under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The appellant appealed, claiming additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry conducted a reasonable search and located additional records.

The Officer ordered the disclosure of certain severed information that did not contain personal information or for which consent was provided, but upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the remaining information as its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b) of the Act.

The Guelph Mercury appealed the City of Guelph's decision to deny access to portions of a report prepared by the Ontario Fire Marshal regarding fire department operations.

The City claimed the information was exempt under section 9(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as information received in confidence from the provincial government.

The Inquiry Officer found that the exemption is designed to protect the supplier's requirement of confidentiality, not the recipient's.

Since the Fire Marshal is statutorily required to provide such information to municipalities, it was not received in confidence.

The City was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to himself as a support payer.

The Ministry denied access to several records under various exemptions, including personal privacy, advice or recommendations, and law enforcement.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the personal privacy exemptions, finding the information highly sensitive.

The advice or recommendations exemption was rejected as the records did not contain suggested courses of action.

The law enforcement exemption was upheld for some records revealing investigative techniques, but rejected for others detailing enforcement techniques.

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

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Peel Regional Police Services Board for the entire contents of a police file relating to an assault incident in which the appellant was the victim.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the undisclosed portion of the occurrence report was responsive to the request.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision to deny access to the records, finding that they contained the personal information of other individuals and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under sections 14 and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

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

The Agency decided to grant access, and the construction firm appealed, arguing the records were exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained commercial and financial information, but the appellant failed to establish that disclosure would cause the harms specified in section 17(1), particularly given a prior Ontario Labour Relations Board ruling ordering production of the documents.

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

The appellant, a former employee, submitted a 51-item freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services to prepare for a human rights complaint.

The Ministry subdivided the request into 33 separate requests and demanded additional application fees.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that items 1-16 and 20-50 were reasonably related to the appellant's employment and discrimination complaint, and should be treated as a single request covered by the initial $5 fee.

The Ministry's categorization of the last four items as three separate requests requiring additional fees was upheld.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to an incident where he was mistakenly identified as a suspect and allegedly injured during apprehension.

The Police denied access under the law enforcement exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records contained personal information of other individuals and were exempt from disclosure.

For other records, the Inquiry Officer found the Police failed to properly exercise their discretion under the law enforcement exemptions, particularly for information already known to the appellant, and ordered the Police to reconsider their exercise of discretion.

The appellant requested copies of police notes taken during a visit to a company following a complaint of threats.

The Police granted partial access, denying portions under sections 9(1)(d) and 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information retrieved from the C.P.I.C. database related to the appellant's own probation order, and thus section 9(1)(d) did not apply.

The Officer also found that disclosing names provided by the appellant or contained in the probation order would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 38(b).

The Police were ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records concerning the investigation of a complaint about unlicensed individuals investigating workplace harassment on behalf of the federal government.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 15, 17, and 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third party information exemption (section 17) and the intergovernmental relations exemption (section 15(a)) did not apply.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the application of section 15(b) to two records, as they contained information received in confidence from the federal government during an investigation under the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the remaining records.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the City of Ottawa for records relating to a by-law complaint against the appellant's company.

The City provided partial access but withheld the complainant's name and telephone number under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that the by-law enforcement process qualifies as a law enforcement matter and that disclosing the information would reveal the identity of a confidential source under section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant requested a copy of a letter of complaint from a fire department employee that may have led to the fire chief's departure.

The City of Orillia refused to confirm or deny the existence of the record under section 14(5) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that confirming or denying the existence of the record would reveal personal information about the former fire chief and constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply.

The appellant requested access to statements taken by the OPP during an investigation into his claim that he was detained at a reserve by members of a First Nation band.

The Ministry disclosed the appellant's own statements but withheld the statements of other individuals under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 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 of an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 21(3)(b).

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the parts of the records that did not contain the personal information of individuals other than the appellant, while the statements of the band members were withheld.

The appellant requested a police investigation report regarding the death of their sister.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police denied access to the record in its entirety, citing the invasion of privacy exemption under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained the personal information of the deceased and other identifiable individuals, and that it was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

Therefore, the disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to a Special Investigations Unit (SIU) report regarding the death of a psychiatric patient following police restraint.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the SIU report met the three-part test for exemption under section 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as it was a report prepared in the course of a law enforcement investigation by an agency with the function of enforcing compliance with a law.

The public interest override in section 23 did not apply to section 14 exemptions.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested information from the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board relating to the investigation of his wife's death.

The Police denied access based on law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant was not his wife's personal representative under section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act because he lacked letters of probate or administration.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the records were exempt under section 38(b) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, since they were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Mental Health Act.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to the investigation of her husband's death in a mining accident.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant did not establish she was the personal representative of the deceased's estate.

The law enforcement exemptions did not apply because the police were acting as agents for the Coroner, whose proceedings do not constitute law enforcement.

The invasion of privacy exemption applied to toxicology and autopsy reports, as well as identifying information of third-party witnesses, but the remaining personal information of the deceased was ordered disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer issued a final order regarding the disclosure of records by the Toronto Board of Education.

In a previous order, the Board was directed to provide written representations on the application of the section 38(b) exemption under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to several records.

The Board subsequently advised it would not pursue further representations.

Consequently, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the remaining records, while upholding the exemption for a portion of one record as previously determined.

The appellant, a former student, appealed the College's response to a freedom of information request, claiming that further responsive records should exist, specifically notes of meetings and professors' notes regarding grades.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the College's search efforts, including an affidavit detailing record-keeping practices and steps taken to locate records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the College's search for records was reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for 'all evaluation documents' pertaining to two tender requests.

The Ministry provided evaluation tables and scores but the appellant appealed, arguing the request should have included the actual tender documents submitted by other bidders.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's interpretation of the request was reasonable and that it had fulfilled its obligations under section 24 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as the request did not indicate the appellant was seeking the actual tender documents.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records concerning his complaint about police conduct during a search of his property.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the presumption against disclosure did not apply because the records contained information provided by the appellant himself.

Balancing the privacy interests, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would not result in an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and ordered the Ministry to disclose the records.