John Higgins

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Halton Regional Police Services Board for records relating to an allegation that he stalked a named individual.

The Police granted partial access to the investigating officer's notebook but denied access to parts of it under the invasion of privacy and law enforcement exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the undisclosed information was exempt under section 38(b) as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

However, the Inquiry Officer found that certain passages containing exclusively the appellant's personal information were not exempt under section 38(b) or section 38(a) in conjunction with section 8(2)(c), and ordered their disclosure.

The appellant requested copies of an Application for Oilfield Brine Disposal and supporting documentation submitted to the Ministry of Natural Resources by a third party.

The Ministry denied access to several records under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming they contained third party information.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained technical information supplied implicitly in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the competitive position of the third party.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Peterborough for fire department records relating to a specific address.

The City advised that the responsive records had been previously disclosed and declined to disclose them a second time.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant did not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that additional undisclosed records existed and that the City's search efforts were reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested access to the entire file relating to her deceased son, who had been involved in a Ministry-operated Homeshare program.

The Ministry granted substantial access but denied access to parts of some records, citing the invasion of privacy exemptions under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant did not establish the right to exercise her son's access rights under section 66.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of certain passages containing only the personal information of the appellant and her husband, but upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the remaining information as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of third-party privacy.

The Ministry's search for a missing page was deemed reasonable.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for her General Welfare Assistance file.

The City of Kingston disclosed some records but refused to confirm or deny the existence of additional records relating to a potential welfare fraud investigation, relying on section 8(3) of the Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that confirming or denying the existence of such records would communicate information that could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter under section 8(1)(a).

The appellant, a former employee of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, appealed the Municipality's decision to deny access to portions of an interdepartmental memorandum under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the undisclosed portions contained advice or recommendations setting out a suggested course of action.

Therefore, the information qualified for exemption under section 7(1) and section 38(a) of the Act.

The Municipality's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to a sexual assault investigation against him, which resulted in charges that were later withdrawn.

The appellant sought the records for a malicious prosecution lawsuit against his niece and her parents.

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

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the denial for most of the records under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the third parties' personal privacy.

However, the Commissioner ordered the disclosure of one passage from a police officer's notebook, finding it was not exempt under the law enforcement exemptions in section 8(2).

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the police for records relating to the 1975 sudden death investigation of his father.

The police denied access, citing exemptions for invasion of privacy and law enforcement records.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation, which is presumed to be an unjustified invasion of privacy if disclosed.

The Commissioner also held that the public interest override did not apply, noting that the legislature explicitly protected the privacy of deceased individuals for thirty years after death.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Transportation for records relating to the Bradford Bypass Proposal.

The Ministry denied access to several records, citing the Cabinet records exemption under section 12 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the denial and questioned the reasonableness of the Ministry's search for records.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records were exempt as Management Board submissions and minutes, and that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The appellant, a corporation that locates missing heirs, requested a list of names of persons whose estates passed to the Public Trustee by escheat.

The Ministry of the Attorney General issued a fee estimate of $14,940 and denied the appellant's request for a fee waiver.

The appellant appealed the fee waiver denial.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the appellant failed to substantiate its claim of financial hardship or meet any other criteria for a fee waiver under section 57(4) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant, a tenant, requested access to building inspection records and work orders relating to his residence, and requested corrections to include his name and note other tenants.

The City of Toronto granted partial access, withholding some information under the invasion of privacy exemption (s. 14(1)), and declined to alter past enforcement records.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding the withheld information was exempt under sections 14(1) and 38(b) as it related to medical history and a law enforcement investigation.

The Commissioner also found it unreasonable to require the City to correct past enforcement records, though the appellant could request a statement of disagreement be attached.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism to deny access to records relating to agreements between an Ontario Development Corporation and a named corporation.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under sections 17(1)(a) and (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third party information.

The Inquiry Officer applied the three-part test for the exemption and found that while some information was supplied in confidence and its disclosure could prejudice the corporation's competitive position, the remaining information was not 'supplied' to the Ministry.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption for the supplied information and ordered the disclosure of the rest.

The appellant requested records from the Town of Fort Erie relating to the drowning death of her son and the subsequent rescue attempt by the Fire Department.

The Town denied access to four witness statements completed by firefighters, citing the law enforcement exemption under section 8(2)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the statements did not meet the three-part test for the law enforcement exemption.

However, the Officer determined that the records contained personal information.

The firefighters' ranks, addresses, telephone numbers, and birthdates were found to be exempt under section 14(1) as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The remaining portions of the statements were ordered to be disclosed.

A newspaper reporter appealed the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation's decision to deny access to letters regarding provincial grants for a municipal arena project.

The Ministry claimed the letters were exempt under the invasion of privacy provision in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the letters contained personal information and that factors favouring privacy protection outweighed any public interest in disclosure.

The Inquiry Officer also determined that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as disclosure would not shed light on the Ministry's decision-making processes.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to her central employee file.

The Board granted free access to new records but charged a fee for records previously disclosed to the appellant in a prior request.

The appellant appealed the fee.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board was not required to provide access to the previously disclosed records for a second time, as it had already fulfilled its obligations under the Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, an insurance agent, requested access to a complaint letter written about him to the Ontario Insurance Commission (OIC).

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the law enforcement exemption did not apply because the OIC had already disclosed the identities of the complainants to the appellant, meaning they were no longer confidential sources.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the OIC's decision to deny access to portions of the record containing the personal information of other individuals, as disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, ordering the disclosure of only the appellant's own personal information and information previously disclosed to him.

The appellant, a former employee of the Township of Ratter and Dunnet, appealed the Township's decision to deny access to statements in his personnel file relating to a municipal election.

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

The Inquiry Officer found no reasonable apprehension of bias regarding the Reeve's participation in the access decision.

However, the Officer concluded that the records did not qualify as evaluative or opinion material compiled solely for determining employment suitability.

The Township was ordered to disclose the records, with third-party personal information severed.

The appellant, whose appointment to the Etobicoke Public Art Advisory Committee was rescinded, requested access to a report from the Chair of the Etobicoke Municipal Arts Commission.

The City of Etobicoke denied access, claiming exemptions for closed meetings and advice or recommendations.

The Inquiry Officer found that the report contained the appellant's personal information and that the City failed to establish that the exemptions under sections 6(1)(b) and 7(1) applied.

Furthermore, the City did not establish that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b).

The City was ordered to disclose the report.

The appellant requested records relating to the Ontario Coroners' Council's investigation of his complaint against four coroners regarding the investigation and inquest into his mother's death.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, law enforcement, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the advice and law enforcement exemptions did not apply.

While some personal information was exempt as an unjustified invasion of privacy, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of most of the records, emphasizing the need for an adequate degree of disclosure to ensure the fairness of the administrative process.

The appellant requested records relating to a Fire Marshal's investigation of a fire that destroyed their residential property.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access to most of the records, citing the invasion of privacy exemption under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

During mediation, the appellant clarified they did not seek the personal information of other individuals, such as firefighters.

The Inquiry Officer found that once the personal information of other individuals was severed from the records, the remaining information could not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the severed records to the appellant.