John Higgins

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for records relating to a disturbance at a youth centre and subsequent allegations of abuse by staff.

The Ministry denied access, claiming various exemptions and that the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(6) as employment-related matters.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected, prepared, maintained, or used in relation to meetings, discussions, or communications about an employment-related matter in which the Ministry had an interest.

The records were therefore excluded from the scope of the Act under section 65(6)3.

The Ministry of Finance requested a reconsideration of Order P-1351, which ordered the Ministry to seek the Executive Council's consent to disclose certain impact studies under section 12(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the previous order provisions exceeded the Commissioner's jurisdiction by effectively substituting the Inquiry Officer's discretion for that of the head and impinging on the Premier's conventional powers.

The provisions were rescinded.

However, the Inquiry Officer found that the head's original decision not to refer the matter to the Executive Council was a reviewable exercise of discretion that failed to consider relevant factors.

The head was ordered to reconsider the decision.

The appellant, a historian barred from entering Canada due to accusations of inciting hatred, submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for all documents concerning him.

The Ministry disclosed some records but withheld a handwritten note and a two-page memorandum under the solicitor-client privilege exemption.

The appellant appealed the denial and argued more records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding the withheld records were exempt under sections 19 and 49(a) of the Act, and concluded the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The appellant sought access to the police investigation file concerning a motor vehicle accident in which his son died.

The Renfrew Police Services Board denied access, claiming exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were not excluded under the employment and labour relations provisions of section 52(3).

The Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption of the collision reports under the law enforcement exemption in section 8(2)(a), and the exemption of personal information of non-consenting individuals under the privacy exemption in section 14(1).

The Police were ordered to disclose photographs and the personal information of consenting witnesses, and to conduct a further search for additional records.

A labour organization appealed a fee estimate of $705.70 charged by the Ministry of Community and Social Services for processing a freedom of information request.

The appellant also requested a fee waiver.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the fee, finding that the search time and photocopying charges were reasonable and lower than the maximum permitted by regulation.

The appeal for a fee waiver was dismissed as the appellant failed to provide evidence of financial hardship or that disclosure would benefit public health or safety.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for records relating to allegations made to his probation officer.

The Ministry granted partial access, claiming the invasion of privacy exemption under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the remainder.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that disclosure of some of the severed information would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, while the remainder would not.

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

The appellant, a former employee, submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to a workplace harassment investigation that resulted in a reprimand.

The Township denied access to the consultant's investigation report, citing the employment records exclusion in section 52(3)3 of the Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Township's decision, finding that the report was prepared and used by the Township in relation to communications about an employment-related matter in which the Township had a legal interest.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for records relating to his applications for appointment as a private bailiff.

The Ministry initially withheld some information but later disclosed it during the inquiry.

The sole remaining issue was the reasonableness of the Ministry's search for records.

The Inquiry Officer found the search reasonable for the appellant's application file and related correspondence, but unreasonable regarding records about the need for private bailiffs and Ministry policies.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct a further search for those specific records.

The appellant, a trade organization, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to a report on the review of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

The Ministry claimed the record was excluded under the labour relations provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and exempt as a Cabinet record.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record was not excluded under the labour relations provisions, as its connection to labour relations was too remote.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access, finding that the record was exempt from disclosure as it contained policy options or recommendations submitted to a committee of the Executive Council.

The appellant submitted a 56-part request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Elliot Lake regarding land transactions.

The City refused access, claiming the request was frivolous or vexatious due to the appellant's pattern of conduct, including complaints and litigation.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City failed to establish that the request was part of a pattern of conduct amounting to an abuse of the right of access or interfering with operations, nor was it made for a purpose other than to obtain access.

The City was ordered to process the request.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Finance regarding a freedom of information request.

The appellant sought to view the responsive records at a Ministry office in Ottawa to avoid paying photocopy fees for records he did not want, and challenged the fees charged ($131.60 for photocopies and $30 for preparation).

The Inquiry Officer allowed the appellant to raise these as new issues in an existing appeal.

The Officer upheld the Ministry's refusal to allow viewing in Ottawa due to security and copying costs, and upheld the $131.60 photocopy fee.

However, the $30 preparation fee was not upheld as the Ministry failed to provide sufficient evidence of the preparation activities undertaken.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Finance for records relating to his property tax assessment.

The Ministry refused access, claiming the request was frivolous or vexatious as part of a pattern of conduct amounting to an abuse of the right of access or made in bad faith.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to establish reasonable grounds that the request was part of a pattern of conduct or made in bad faith.

The Ministry was ordered to make an access decision.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board to refuse an access request on the grounds that it was frivolous or vexatious.

The Police argued the request was part of a pattern of conduct amounting to an abuse of the right of access and was made for a purpose other than to obtain access.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police failed to establish that the request met the criteria for being frivolous or vexatious under the Regulation.

The Police were ordered to issue an access decision based on the substantive provisions of the Act.

The appellant, a former psychiatric patient, requested access to records from the Health Professions Board regarding complaints against two physicians.

In a reconsideration of Order P-1088, the Inquiry Officer found a jurisdictional error in the previous order's interpretation of section 65(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer determined that copies of clinical records transferred to the Board retain their character as clinical records under the Mental Health Act and are therefore excluded from the scope of the Act.

For the remaining administrative records subject to the Act, the Officer upheld most severances under the invasion of privacy exemption, but ordered the disclosure of one letter from a physician.

The appellant, a former employee of the Township, appealed a decision denying access to statements in his personnel file relating to the election of the Reeve and Township Council.

The Township claimed the records were exempt as evaluative or opinion material under section 38(c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On reconsideration of a previous order, the Inquiry Officer found no conflict of interest by the Township Council in making the access decision.

The Inquiry Officer determined that the records contained the personal information of the appellant and others.

The section 38(c) exemption was found not to apply, but a portion of one record was exempt under section 38(b) to protect the privacy of another municipal employee.

The Township was ordered to disclose the records with specific severances.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation for the financial statements of the Ontario Underwater Council.

The Ministry denied access to the financial statements under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing third party information exemptions.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Inquiry Officer found that the financial statements constituted financial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the competitive position of the Ontario Underwater Council.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of Transportation for all information held under his name.

The Ministry granted partial access to records, and the appellant appealed, arguing that the Ministry did not identify all responsive records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant's broad request was not sufficiently specific, but that the Ministry's searches of the specific locations and types of records mentioned in the request were reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Township of McNab for records relating to complaints about his property.

The Township disclosed some records but the appellant believed more existed.

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

The appellant requested access to a Ministry of Labour report regarding safety concerns at a petrochemical refinery.

The Ministry denied access to parts of the report under the third-party information exemption in section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the undisclosed technical information was exempt, as its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the corporation's competitive position.

However, two passages explaining past incidents and the investigator's conclusions were ordered disclosed, as they did not qualify for the exemption and their disclosure was supported by the public interest override in section 23.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Township of Norfolk for test results on winter sand provided by a supplier.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the exemption did not apply because the information was generated by a consultant, not supplied in confidence by the third party, and there was no evidence of competitive harm.

The Township was ordered to disclose the record.