John Higgins

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Orillia for municipal water testing results.

The City provided a fee estimate of $196.40 and denied a fee waiver, stating it was not their policy to waive fees.

The appellant appealed the denial of the fee waiver.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the records related to a public health issue, it would not be fair and equitable to waive the fee because the requested information was available free of charge from the Ministry of Environment and Energy.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant requested access to his OHIP billings and continuing access for two years under section 24(3) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry of Health disclosed the existing record but denied continuing access, arguing that an OHIP Claims Reference File is not produced on a set schedule.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that section 24(3) is intended for records produced or issued in series, not for records which are updated irregularly based on an individual's use of medical services.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board for information regarding another individual's criminal history.

The Police refused to confirm or deny the existence of any responsive records pursuant to section 14(5) of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that the requested information is highly sensitive and that disclosing even the existence or non-existence of such records would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Insurance Commission for statistics regarding arbitration orders and appeals.

Following a previous order requiring a further search, the appellant appealed again, asserting the institution should possess records of withdrawn or settled appeals.

The institution argued the appeal was an abuse of process due to the volume of requests.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant was not abusing the access process, but accepted the institution's evidence that its tracking system could not ascertain the requested information.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant submitted an access request to the Metropolitan Toronto Police for copies of two letters relating to a prosecution initiated by the appellant.

The request was transferred to the Ministry of the Attorney General, which denied access to one letter under the solicitor-client privilege and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained the appellant's personal information but upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access, concluding that the record was exempt under section 49(a) as it was prepared by and for Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice, satisfying the requirements of section 19.

The appellant requested access to a discovery transcript from a civil action against the City of London under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The City charged a fee of $50.47 for the transcript.

The appellant appealed the fee.

The Inquiry Officer found that the transcript contained the appellant's personal information, and therefore, under section 45(2) of the Act, the City was precluded from charging any fee for access to the record.

The City was ordered to provide the transcript without charge.

The appellant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of the Attorney General for access to executions or judgments against him in the Judicial District of Sudbury.

The Ministry denied the request on the basis that the records sought were court records not in its custody or under its control.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that writs of seizure and sale filed with the sheriff remain under the court's supervision and the Ministry's possession of them is merely a bare possession that does not amount to custody or control under the Act.

The appellant requested access to Ministry of Health files pertaining to his complaints against two physicians before the Health Disciplines Board.

The Ministry withheld several records, claiming they were excluded from the Act under section 65(2)(b) as psychiatric patient records, or exempt under sections 21(1) and 49(b) as unjustified invasions of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records held by the Ministry for the purpose of investigating the physicians did not have a clinical purpose, and thus section 65(2)(b) did not apply.

Regarding the privacy exemptions, the Inquiry Officer upheld the severing of the physicians' personal information but ordered the disclosure of several records where the need for an adequate degree of disclosure to the complainant outweighed privacy concerns.

The appellant wrote a letter to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing alleging a potential conflict of interest regarding a specific individual.

That individual requested a copy of the letter under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry decided to grant partial access, and the appellant appealed to prevent disclosure, arguing it would be an unjustified invasion of his privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the allegations in the letter constituted the requester's personal information, not the appellant's.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the appellant's name and the allegations, but found that the appellant's home address was exempt from disclosure under section 49(b) as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

A trade union requested access to a custodial services contract between a school board and a contractor.

The school board decided to grant partial access, withholding only the contractor's home address and payment timing.

The contractor appealed, arguing the contract prices and other details were exempt as third-party information under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the appeal, finding that while the contract prices were financial information supplied to the board, they were not supplied in confidence given the board's established practice of disclosing winning tender amounts.

The records were ordered disclosed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Health for the medical records and OHIP billing history of her deceased husband.

The Ministry denied access to the only responsive record, the OHIP Claims Reference File, citing the invasion of privacy exemption.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the appellant could not exercise her husband's rights under section 66(a) of the Act because the request did not relate to the administration of his estate.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1) and found that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for the Crown file pertaining to a trial in which he was the defendant.

The Ministry denied access to the records, claiming exemptions including solicitor-client privilege and that the information was publicly available.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the Crown brief was exempt under solicitor-client privilege and the remaining records were publicly available, but ordered the Ministry to advise the appellant of the location where the statutory excerpts could be viewed.

A journalist requested access to financial security information provided to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs by three meat-packing operations under the Livestock Financial Protection Program.

The Ministry denied access, citing the third party information and invasion of privacy exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records were exempt under section 17(1)(b) because they contained confidential financial information, and disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in similar information no longer being supplied to the Ministry, which would jeopardize a program that is in the public interest.

The appellant, the grandfather of a deceased infant, appealed the decision of the Ottawa Regional Police Services Board to deny access to forensic and scientific reports relating to the infant's death.

The Police claimed 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 records met the definition of 'law enforcement' and satisfied the three-part test for exemption under section 8(2)(a), as they were reports prepared in the course of an ongoing police investigation.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant submitted freedom of information requests to the Ministry of Community and Social Services for records relating to funding provided to the Grandview Survivors Support Group.

The Ministry denied access to numerous records, claiming exemptions for cabinet records, advice to government, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

On reconsideration, the Inquiry Officer reviewed the application of these exemptions to the remaining records at issue.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the exemptions to certain records and portions of records, but ordered the disclosure of others that did not meet the criteria for exemption, subject to the severance of any identifying information of the Grandview survivors.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto for all records pertaining to his request for general welfare assistance.

The Municipality provided the entire contents of his welfare file.

The appellant appealed, claiming additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Municipality's search for responsive records was reasonable, as it conducted two reviews and provided an affidavit from a Supervisor of Social Assistance, while the appellant provided no adequate information to support his claim.

The Municipality's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Oshawa Public Utilities Commission denying access to the terms of settlement relating to an Ontario Human Rights Commission case.

The P.U.C. claimed the record was publicly available under section 15(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the P.U.C.'s decision to deny access but ordered the P.U.C. to clarify the precise method by which the appellant could obtain the record.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the P.U.C.'s search for responsive records was reasonable.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Labour for access to records pertaining to grievance proceedings against him.

The Ministry located three grievance forms and denied access to two of them under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records did not contain the appellant's personal information and that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the individuals who filed the forms.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted 21 freedom of information requests to the Ministry of Finance seeking information about a trust company relating to a condominium construction project and the Ministry's investigation of the appellant's complaints.

The Ministry denied access to certain records, claiming exemptions for third party information, advice and recommendations, invasion of privacy, and information published or available.

The Ministry also charged a fee and denied a fee waiver.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of exemptions to some records but ordered others disclosed.

The fee was reduced by disallowing preparation time, and the decision not to grant a fee waiver was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board's decision to deny access to portions of a police report regarding an alleged assault on the appellant.

The Police claimed exemptions under sections 14(1) and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that section 14(1) did not apply because the records contained the appellant's personal information.

Applying section 38(b), the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of information that did not constitute the personal information of identifiable individuals, as well as information supplied by the appellant to the Police.

The decision to withhold certain personal information of witnesses and occupants under the presumption in section 14(3)(b) was upheld.