John Higgins

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Town of Whitby for records relating to an industrial construction project.

The Town issued a fee estimate of $128, which the appellant appealed, along with the reasonableness of the Town's search for records.

The Inquiry Officer reduced the fee to $38, finding the estimated search and preparation times excessive for a single property file.

The Officer also found the search unreasonable and ordered the Town to conduct a further search, including consulting the relevant Building Inspector.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto for computer spreadsheet models related to the Blue Box recycling system's cost allocation.

The Municipality denied access under section 11(e) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the records contained criteria for ongoing negotiations with the packaging industry.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Municipality's decision, finding that the four-part test for the section 11(e) exemption was met and that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Townships of Belmont and Methuen for various accounting records.

The Townships withheld information identifying an individual with tax arrears under the invasion of privacy exemption and charged a fee of $40.50.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the privacy exemption, finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also reviewed the fee calculation, reducing the total fee to $24.00 by pro-rating computer and preparation costs.

The appellant submitted 74 freedom of information requests to the Ministry of Transportation regarding a proposed highway project.

The Ministry refused access to 25 of these requests on the basis that they were frivolous or vexatious.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the volume, frequency, and overlapping nature of the requests constituted a pattern of conduct that amounted to an abuse of the right of access under section 5.1(a) of Regulation 460.

A news organization appealed a fee estimate issued by the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation in response to a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The request sought minutes of Board of Directors meetings and statistical information about the fund.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the fee estimate of $90 for search and preparation time for the minutes and $15 for search time for the statistical information, finding the estimated times to be reasonable.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Etobicoke for a City Councillor's cellular telephone billing records.

The City initially refused to confirm or deny the existence of the records, but later disclosed them after the Councillor consented.

The appellant appealed, alleging that the City employees who made the decisions lacked valid delegations of authority.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City Council, as the 'head' under the Act, had lawfully delegated its powers, and the employee who signed the decision letters had the authority to do so.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Niagara Regional Police Services Board denying access to records relating to a police response to a parked private investigation agency vehicle.

The records included a 911 call tape, dispatcher conversations, and an Incident History.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information of individuals other than the appellant, and that disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as the information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Police conducted a reasonable search for records.

The appeal was partially allowed to disclose non-exempt portions of the records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for records relating to the investigation of a complaint he filed against members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police.

The Police claimed the records were excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3), which excludes records relating to labour relations and employment-related matters.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected and used by the Police in relation to a communication about an employment-related matter in which the Police have an interest.

The decision of the Police to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Police Complaints Commissioner (PCC) for records relating to the investigation of his complaint against members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police.

The PCC denied access to 19 records, claiming exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were not excluded from the Act under section 65(6) as employment-related records.

The Officer upheld the exemption for one record as a law enforcement report under section 14(2)(a) but ordered the disclosure of several others.

For the remaining records containing personal information of other individuals, the PCC was ordered to re-exercise its discretion under section 49(b).

The appellants sought access to a police occurrence report regarding a motor vehicle accident in which their son was killed.

The Waterloo Regional Police Services Board granted partial access, withholding certain information under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the withheld information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law and its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant, former owner of a trailer park, appealed a decision by the Health Unit to disclose records relating to complaints about a septic bed to an adjoining property owner.

The appellant objected to disclosure under the third party information exemption (s. 10(1)) and personal privacy exemptions (ss. 14(1), 38(b)) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records did not meet the three-part test for third party information, as they were not supplied in confidence and no harm was reasonably expected from disclosure.

Furthermore, the records related to a commercial operation and did not contain personal information.

The Health Unit's decision to disclose the records was upheld.

The appellant submitted a request to the Township of Carlow under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to the selection process for the Township's Road Superintendent.

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

During mediation, it was revealed that some evaluation sheets had been destroyed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected in relation to meetings about an employment-related matter in which the Township had an interest, satisfying the requirements of section 52(3)3.

The records were therefore excluded from the scope of the Act.

The destruction of records was not referred to the Compliance Department because the Act did not apply to them.

The appellant, a member of a news organization, requested records relating to meetings of the interministerial committee on aboriginal emergencies regarding the situation at Ipperwash Provincial Park.

The Ministry of Transportation denied access to handwritten notes of a meeting, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations and the right to a fair trial.

The Inquiry Officer found that neither exemption applied.

The Inquiry Officer also found that, even if the advice or recommendations exemption had applied, the compelling public interest in disclosure of records relating to the events at Ipperwash Provincial Park would have clearly outweighed the purpose of the exemption.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record, with the exception of a small portion containing personal information.

The appellant, a member of a news organization, appealed the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs' decision to deny access to handwritten notes of interministerial committee meetings regarding the 1995 occupation of Ipperwash Provincial Park.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13(1), 14(1)(f), 19, and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that portions of the record were exempt under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege), except where privilege had been waived.

The section 14(1)(f) (fair trial) and section 21(1) (invasion of privacy) exemptions were found not to apply.

While one passage was found to contain advice or recommendations under section 13(1), the Inquiry Officer ordered its disclosure, finding that the compelling public interest in the events at Ipperwash clearly outweighed the purpose of the exemption under section 23.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the record.

A member of a news organization appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services' decision to deny access to handwritten notes of interministerial committee meetings regarding the occupation of Ipperwash Provincial Park.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13(1), 14(1)(f), 19, and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) applied to certain passages, but privilege had been waived for others.

The remaining exemptions were found not to apply, as the record did not pose a risk to fair trial rights, did not contain advice or recommendations, and did not contain personal information.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 23 would have applied to the section 13(1) exemption due to the compelling public interest in the government's role in the events at the Park.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the record.

The appellant, a member of a news organization, appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to notes of interministerial committee meetings regarding the 1995 aboriginal occupation of Ipperwash Provincial Park.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for advice or recommendations, law enforcement, right to a fair trial, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that four of the five records were entirely exempt under solicitor-client privilege as they were prepared by Crown counsel for use in litigation and giving legal advice.

However, the first record, consisting of notes taken by non-lawyers, was ordered disclosed (with minor severances) as the exemptions claimed did not apply, and any solicitor-client privilege had been waived by public statements made in the Legislature.

The appellant, a member of a news organization, appealed a decision denying access to minutes and notes of meetings of the interministerial committee on aboriginal emergencies regarding the occupation of Ipperwash Provincial Park.

The institutions claimed exemptions under solicitor-client privilege, right to a fair trial, advice or recommendations, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were exempt under solicitor-client privilege, but rejected the fair trial and invasion of privacy exemptions.

While some records qualified for the advice or recommendations exemption, the Inquiry Officer applied the public interest override, ordering their disclosure due to the compelling public interest in the events at Ipperwash.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $38,836.33 issued by the Ministry of Education and Training for a freedom of information request regarding an educational institution.

The Ministry argued the appeal was filed late, but the Inquiry Officer allowed it to proceed due to the Ministry's own delays and lack of prejudice.

The Inquiry Officer reduced the fee estimate for readily available records to $2,760.80 and the estimate for searching student files to $21,603.

The appellant's request for a fee waiver based on financial hardship and public interest was denied.

The appellant, on behalf of the City of Toronto, submitted freedom of information requests to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for market value assessment studies relating to four municipalities.

The Ministry denied access on the basis that it did not have custody or control of the records.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry did not have custody or control, but ordered the Ministry to forward the requests to the Ministry of Finance and the Town of Markham pursuant to section 25(1) of the Act, as those institutions likely had custody or control of responsive records.

A journalist appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to deny access to records concerning the economic, social, and budget impacts of Quebec independence.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13(1), 15(a), and 18(1)(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records qualified for these exemptions.

However, applying the public interest override in section 23, the Officer ordered the disclosure of portions of the records that did not reveal strategic plans or detailed economic impacts, finding a compelling public interest in informed public discussion about the consequences of Quebec independence.