Holly Big Canoe

The requester, a lawyer formerly on the Official Guardian panel, sought access to the Ministry's complete file regarding their involvement in the program after being unsuccessful in seeking re-appointment.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that one record contained highly sensitive personal information of a child and parents, and upheld its exemption under section 49(b).

Regarding the advice or recommendations exemption under section 13(1), the Inquiry Officer found that most records were factual, administrative, or did not relate to the deliberative process, and ordered their disclosure.

However, one draft letter seeking advice on a suggested course of action was found to be exempt under section 49(a).

The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to the successful tender for the supply of medical equipment.

The Region decided to grant access to the record, which contained unit pricing information.

The successful bidder appealed, claiming the record was exempt as third party information under section 10(1) of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's expectation of confidentiality was unreasonable given the Region's long-standing practice of granting access to unit pricing information in its tendering process, and therefore the information was not supplied in confidence.

The appellant appealed the Township of West Carleton's decision to deny access to engineering reports related to a subdivision application under the third party information exemption of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The records were commissioned by an affected party who had entered into an agreement to purchase the land but later backed out.

The Inquiry Officer found that records supplied by the appellant were not exempt, while records supplied by the affected party and another party met the three-part test for exemption under section 10(1)(c), as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in an undue gain to the appellant.

The Township was ordered to disclose the records supplied by the appellant and withhold the rest.

The appellant requested information regarding a complaint made by a named individual.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board refused to confirm or deny the existence of the records under section 14(5) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that since the incident and tribunal proceedings were widely reported in the media, confirming the existence of records would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Police were ordered to conduct a search for responsive records.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision to withhold a specific record of a closed meeting under section 6(1)(b), as its disclosure would reveal the substance of the Board's deliberations.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to records relating to his health insurance coverage.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for law enforcement and security.

The Inquiry Officer found that the computer operator identification codes were exempt under section 14(1)(i) as their disclosure could endanger the security of the Registered Persons Database.

The remaining records were found exempt under section 14(1)(b) as they related to an ongoing fraud investigation by the Ministry's Investigation Unit.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, an unsuccessful candidate in a job competition, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to the interview answers of the other candidates under the invasion of privacy exemption of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry argued that the candidates could be identified from their answers even if names were removed.

The Inquiry Officer found that, with the exception of the 'Experience' section, the interview answers did not contain information about an identifiable individual and therefore did not qualify as personal information under section 2(1) of the Act.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records with the names and experience comments severed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for a 'Wine Sector Strategy Report'.

The Ministry identified three records but later submitted that only one was responsive.

The Ministry denied access to the responsive record, claiming various exemptions including section 18(1)(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (economic and other interests).

The Inquiry Officer found that only one record was responsive to the request and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access, concluding that disclosure of the record could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the financial interests of the Government of Ontario.

The requester appealed Ontario Hydro's decision to deny access to an economic impact assessment study regarding a proposal to site an experimental nuclear fusion reactor in Ontario.

Ontario Hydro claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including section 18(1)(c) for economic interests.

The Inquiry Officer first determined that Ontario Hydro had custody of the record for the purposes of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer then found that disclosure of the record could reasonably be expected to prejudice Ontario Hydro's economic interests, as the information involved sensitive price negotiations and assumptions.

Finally, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as there was no compelling public interest in disclosure that clearly outweighs the purpose of the exemption.

Ontario Hydro's decision was upheld.

The appellant, a school board trustee, requested access to a memorandum from the Director of Education regarding tax levy reconciliations.

The Metropolitan Separate School Board denied access, claiming exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for closed meetings, valuable government information, and economic interests.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Education Act did not authorize a closed meeting for this subject matter, as it did not involve the 'security of the property' of the Board.

The Officer also found insufficient evidence that the information had intrinsic monetary value or that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the Board's economic or financial interests.

The Board was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Carleton Roman Catholic School Board for records relating to her daughter.

The Board denied access to staff reports mentioned at a closed meeting, citing the closed meeting exemption under section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's decision, finding that the meeting was authorized to be closed under the Education Act because it involved potential litigation, and disclosure would reveal the substance of the deliberations.

The appellant requested access to statements and submissions pertaining to a workplace harassment complaint made against her.

The Regional Municipality of Waterloo denied access to several records, citing the invasion of privacy exemption under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the decision and alleged a conflict of interest by the decision-maker.

The Inquiry Officer found no conflict of interest and determined that one disputed record was responsive to the request.

The Officer ordered partial disclosure of the interview notes, finding that disclosing certain portions would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy, while upholding the denial of access to the remainder.

The appellant requested the names, addresses, and phone numbers of all persons who applied for the City of Mississauga's Urban Forest Management Advisory Committee.

The City denied access under the personal information exemption in section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that the records contained personal information and that none of the exceptions to the mandatory exemption applied, as disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The requester appealed the Town of Pickering's decision to deny access to certain records relating to a landfill site, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester also challenged the reasonableness of the Town's search for records and argued the Town claimed the exemption too late.

The Inquiry Officer allowed the late exemption claim, finding no prejudice to the requester.

The Officer held that the legal opinions and portions of the legal accounts were exempt under section 12.

The Officer also found the Town's search for records was reasonable, except for one item, and ordered the Town to issue a decision letter regarding three newly identified letters.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Environment and Energy's decision that no records existed in response to two requests for information about charges or prosecutions against two businesses.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant provided no reasonable basis for believing records should exist, and that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records.

The Ministry's decisions were upheld.

The appellant requested records relating to a sexual harassment complaint, written discipline correspondence, and her personnel file from the Metropolitan Separate School Board.

The Board denied access to the investigation records citing invasion of privacy and refused to confirm or deny the existence of the discipline correspondence.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board could not refuse to confirm or deny the existence of the discipline records as it had already confirmed their existence.

The Officer ordered the disclosure of the response to the complaint and meeting minutes, finding it would not be an unjustified invasion of privacy, but upheld the exemption for the Board's conclusion letter.

The Officer also found the Board conducted a reasonable search for records.

The appellant requested access to records relating to the zoning, building permits, and operation of a business in the City of Port Colborne.

The City granted partial access but denied access to six records, claiming exemptions for advice to government, law enforcement, and solicitor-client privilege, and refused to confirm or deny the existence of other records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City failed to provide sufficient evidence to support any of its exemption claims or its refusal to confirm or deny the existence of records.

The City was ordered to disclose the records in their entirety.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board's decision to deny access to portions of records relating to his claim for legal indemnity.

The Police claimed exemptions under sections 6(1)(b), 7(1), 10(1)(d), 12, and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and argued some portions were non-responsive.

The Inquiry Officer found the disputed portions were responsive.

The Officer rejected the section 38(b) privacy exemption, finding disclosure of the personal information was not an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Officer upheld the section 12 solicitor-client privilege exemption for one record, the section 6(1)(b) closed meeting exemption for part of one record, and the section 7(1) advice or recommendations exemption for parts of several records.

The section 10(1)(d) third party information exemption was rejected entirely.

The Police were ordered to disclose the non-exempt records.

The requester appealed the Credit Valley Conservation Authority's decision that no records existed relating to the Authority's request to its courier service to return a package.

The Authority explained that the only record created was a bill of lading, which was destroyed when the package was recalled before delivery, and no fee was charged.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Authority had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records and upheld the decision.

The appellant appealed the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board's decision to partially deny access to police occurrence reports regarding harassing telephone calls.

The Police relied on exemptions for endangering life or safety, security, law enforcement, and invasion of privacy under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were exempt as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, reveal a confiscated record, or disclose a law enforcement report.

However, the endangerment to life or safety exemption was not established.

The Police were ordered to disclose parts of the records and withhold others.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision that it did not have custody or control of elevator access records requested under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The records were created by a private security company and maintained by the building's property manager.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry exercised a measure of control over the records, as it could obtain them upon request and restricted the appellant's direct access to them.

The Ministry was ordered to request the records from the property manager and issue an access decision.