Holly Big Canoe

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for records related to the referral and amendment of her compensation order.

The Board initially claimed no records existed, but later disclosed a draft order and a worksheet.

The appellant appealed, claiming more records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's search for responsive records was reasonable in the circumstances and upheld the Board's decision.

The appellant sought access to records from the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board regarding a widely reported sexual harassment complaint.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information of identifiable individuals.

Because the appellant did not submit representations or establish that disclosure would not be an unjustified invasion of privacy, the mandatory exemption under section 14 applied.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Toronto Board of Education's access decisions regarding a request for his personal information.

The Board claimed various exemptions, including solicitor-client privilege, and argued the request was an abuse of process.

The Inquiry Officer found no abuse of process and determined that while some records held by the Board's lawyers were not under the Board's control, others were.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of certain records and upheld the exemption of others under solicitor-client privilege and personal privacy exemptions.

The appellant requested access to unit prices and category options provided by the successful bidder for a contract to supply bottle bags to the LCBO.

The LCBO denied access to portions of the record under the third party information exemption in section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that the information was commercial, supplied in confidence, and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of the third party.

The public interest override in section 23 did not apply as the appellant's interest was private.

The appellant, a private investigator retained by an insurance company, requested access to the investigation briefs prepared for a Coroner's Inquest into a fatal boating accident.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access to portions of the record, citing the personal information and law enforcement exemptions.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the withheld records contained highly sensitive personal information and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose a few pages that did not contain personal information, but its decision to withhold the remainder of the record was upheld.

The appellant, an access parent, appealed the East York Health Unit's decision to deny access to his child's medical records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On reconsideration of a previous order, the Inquiry Officer found that section 16(5) of the Divorce Act, which grants an access parent the right to be given information as to the health, education, and welfare of the child, expressly authorizes disclosure for the purposes of section 14(1)(d) of the Act.

The Health Unit was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant appealed the Lincoln County Board of Education's decision regarding a freedom of information request for records pertaining to the development of school curriculum.

The sole issue was whether the Board conducted a reasonable search for records identifying contributors, consultants, and printed references used in a specific curriculum section.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's search was reasonable, noting that the Act does not require the Board to create a list of sources if one does not exist.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested access to a police occurrence report relating to an incident involving himself and his daughter.

The Halton Regional Police Services Board denied access to portions of the report, citing exemptions for invasion of privacy and law enforcement.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the record contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to an alleged abuse investigation involving his daughter.

The Peel Regional Police Services Board denied access to the records, citing the invasion of privacy exemption under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant, a hoist supplier, requested copies of shop drawings, stress calculations, and correspondence related to equipment supplied under a Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) contract.

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

The appellant appealed, arguing a compelling public interest in disclosure due to safety and compliance concerns.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the TTC's decision, finding that the records met the three-part test for exemption and that the appellant failed to demonstrate a compelling public interest that outweighed the purpose of the exemption.

The appellant requested access to the General Accounts of the Townships of Belmont and Methuen.

The Townships disclosed the accounts but severed information relating to payments made to three individuals and a pension fund contribution, claiming the invasion of privacy exemption under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the pension fund contribution related to an employee benefit and its disclosure was not an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(4)(a).

However, the Inquiry Officer determined that the three individuals were employees, not independent contractors, and the disclosure of their payment amounts was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(f).

The Townships were ordered to disclose the pension fund contribution information but not the payments to the three individuals.

A teacher employed by the Metropolitan Separate School Board requested access to letters written to the Board regarding an article that referred to her.

The Board granted partial access but severed the names, addresses, and personal identifiers of the authors under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The requester appealed the denial of access to the identifying information.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's decision, finding that disclosure of the personal identifiers would constitute an unjustified invasion of the authors' personal privacy under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as the information was highly sensitive, provided in confidence, and associated with religious beliefs.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to the Special Investigations Unit's hiring policies and the recruitment of a specific individual.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the advice or recommendations exemption did not apply, as the information was not sufficiently connected to the deliberative process of government decision-making.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the personal information of the specific individual should be disclosed based on his consent, but upheld the privacy exemption for the personal information of other candidates, finding no compelling public interest to override the exemption.

The requester sought access to information regarding trapping licences issued by the Ministry of Natural Resources for a property jointly owned by members of a corporation.

The Ministry denied access to the personal information of the trappers, citing the invasion of privacy exemption under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained personal information and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also found that there was no compelling public interest under section 23 that outweighed the purpose of the exemption.

The appellant sought access to an examination report of a credit union prepared by the Ministry of Finance under the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act.

The Ministry denied access, citing the law enforcement exemption under section 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the report was prepared in the course of an inspection to enforce compliance with the CUCPA, and that the routine inspection exception in section 14(4) did not apply because the examination was discretionary rather than mandatory.

The appellant requested access to his two claim files from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board granted full access to approximately 400 pages of records, but the appellant appealed, claiming that medical reports from specific professionals were missing.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board provided sufficient evidence, including sworn affidavits from employees, to demonstrate that it had made a reasonable effort to identify and locate all responsive records.

The Board's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested copies of all reports from an investigation of an industrial accident that resulted in two deaths.

The Ministry of Labour denied access, claiming the law enforcement exemption under section 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer applied a three-part test and found that the record 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 Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the County of Wellington's decision to deny access to portions of his General Welfare Assistance file under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant also claimed that additional records should exist and that the copies provided were incomplete.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption for a two-page letter and portions of a narrative sheet, finding their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The search for records was deemed reasonable, but the County was ordered to allow the appellant to review the original file to identify any missing pages from the copies provided.

The appellant requested access to the last two versions of the final test and solutions administered to police officers taking the breath alcohol training course.

The Ministry denied access under several exemptions, including section 18(1)(h) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for examination questions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had definite plans to reuse the questions and that section 18(1)(h) applied.

The Inquiry Officer also determined that the record could not be reasonably severed under section 10(2) because disclosing only the answers would either reveal the exempt questions or result in meaningless information.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The Ministry of Transportation received a freedom of information request for an agreement between the Ministry and a bus supplier.

The Ministry granted access to three schedules to the agreement, and the bus supplier appealed, claiming the schedules were exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third party commercial information.

The Inquiry Officer found that Schedule A was the product of negotiations and not 'supplied' to the Ministry, and that Schedule C was publicly discussed, making any expectation of confidentiality unreasonable.

However, the Inquiry Officer found that Schedule B contained information supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the supplier's competitive position.

The Ministry was ordered not to disclose Schedule B, but its decision to disclose Schedules A and C was upheld.