John Higgins

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.

The appellants appealed a decision by the Ministry of the Attorney General denying access to a record under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The record was a memorandum prepared by a Police Complaints Commissioner investigator regarding the appellants' allegations of police misconduct.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information and qualified as a report prepared in the course of law enforcement under section 14(2)(a).

Consequently, the record was exempt from disclosure under section 49(a), and the Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant corporation sought access to Prosecution Approval and Prosecution Information forms completed by the Ministry of Labour in connection with an explosion.

The Ministry denied access, citing several exemptions including solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were prepared for Crown counsel in contemplation of litigation and for use in giving legal advice.

The records were therefore exempt from disclosure under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant corporation requested access to Prosecution Approval and Prosecution Information forms completed by the Ministry of Labour in connection with an industrial accident.

The Ministry denied access under several exemptions, including solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records were exempt under Branch 2 of section 19 of the Act because they were prepared for Crown counsel in contemplation of litigation and for use in giving legal advice.

The appellant corporation submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Labour for records relating to an ongoing investigation into a workplace burn accident.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the law enforcement exemption under section 14(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's investigation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act met the definition of a law enforcement matter and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with the ongoing investigation.

The Ministry's decision to withhold the records was upheld.

The appellant, an occasional teacher, appealed the Board of Education's response to her request for records relating to her union activities under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant alleged that additional responsive records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's search efforts were reasonable, noting that the appellant failed to provide specific information about the records to the Board as required by section 36(1)(b) of the Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Board of Education for the City of Hamilton for a copy of her file from the Board's legal services department.

The Board denied access to three records, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Board's decision, finding that the records were confidential written communications between a solicitor and client directly related to seeking or giving legal advice, and thus exempt under sections 12 and 38(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of a public complaint filed against him.

The Ministry withheld the information under the personal privacy exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the complainant and other individuals.

The appellant, a contracting company, appealed the Toronto Transit Commission's decision to deny access to unit prices and subcontractor lists contained in tender packages submitted by a competing contracting company.

The TTC claimed the information was exempt under the third party information exemption in section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the TTC's decision to deny access to the unit prices, finding that their disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the affected party's competitive position.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the subcontractors' names, finding that the third part of the exemption test was not met for that information.

The requesters appealed a decision of the Ontario Human Rights Commission regarding an access to information request for human rights complaint files.

The sole issue on appeal was whether the institution conducted a reasonable search for statistical information and actuaries' reports that the requesters believed existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the institution's steps, which included reviewing the files and contacting the former coordinator and the investigating officer, were reasonable in the circumstances.

The institution's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed a fee estimate of $540 charged by the Fort Frances-Rainy River Board of Education for a freedom of information request regarding transportation costs.

The Board claimed the fee was for 18 hours of search and preparation time, plus administration time.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board failed to provide sufficient information to justify the search, preparation, and administration time.

The fees were not upheld, except for a $0.20 charge per photocopy, and the Board was ordered to refund the balance of the deposit and provide access to the records.

The requester sought records from the Ministry of Community and Social Services regarding investigations into the unreported disappearance and subsequent death of a Crown ward from a group home.

The Ministry initially denied access under the law enforcement exemption and later claimed the records were protected by the Young Offenders Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Young Offenders Act did not apply because the individual was deceased.

The Inquiry Officer permitted the late raising of the right to a fair trial exemption but not another law enforcement exemption.

Ultimately, the Inquiry Officer ordered partial disclosure, finding that some information was exempt to protect the privacy of individuals and the fair trial rights of those criminally charged in connection with the death, while other information about the Ministry's investigation and the disappearance was ordered disclosed in the public interest.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to records concerning investigations into the disappearance and death of a Crown ward.

The Ministry initially claimed exemptions under the Young Offenders Act (YOA) and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

The Inquiry Officer found that the YOA non-disclosure provisions did not apply because the young person was deceased.

The Officer permitted the late raising of the right to a fair trial exemption (s. 14(1)(f)) but denied the late raising of another discretionary exemption.

Ultimately, the Officer ordered partial disclosure, finding that some information was exempt under the invasion of privacy (s. 21(1)) and fair trial (s. 14(1)(f)) provisions, while other information relating to the Ministry's investigation and the Crown ward's disappearance must be disclosed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Thunder Bay District Health Unit for particulars regarding a by-law infraction complaint made against their residence.

The Health Unit denied access to the handwritten complaint letter, citing law enforcement and privacy exemptions.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the handwritten complaint contained the personal information of the complainant and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, a typewritten copy of the complaint, which did not identify the author, was ordered to be disclosed.

The requester appealed the Toronto Board of Education's decision to extend the time for responding to a freedom of information request by approximately three months.

The Board claimed the extension was necessary due to a large number of records and the need for external consultations.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claims under section 20(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The time extension was not upheld, and the Board was ordered to issue a decision letter within seven days.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to the funding of Project 80, a police investigation into municipal corruption.

The Ministry claimed that parts of one record were non-responsive and that another part was exempt under the law enforcement exemption in section 14(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's decision to withhold parts of the first record as non-responsive was unreasonable and ordered its disclosure.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the part of the second record under section 14(1)(b), finding that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement investigation.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to the funding of Project 80, a police investigation into municipal corruption.

The Ministry claimed that certain parts of the records were non-responsive and that others were exempt under the law enforcement exemption in section 14(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some of the withheld information was responsive and ordered its disclosure, while upholding the Ministry's decision that other parts were non-responsive.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the application of the law enforcement exemption to information pertaining to travel arrangements for investigators.

A newspaper reporter appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services' decision to deny access to financial information regarding a joint-forces police investigation into child pornography.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 14(1)(a) (law enforcement) and 14(1)(f) (right to a fair trial) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing that disclosure of the investigation's cost could prejudice the fair trial of individuals charged.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of harm, noting that the cost of an investigation is generally irrelevant to guilt or innocence and would not logically interfere with a fair trial.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the funding information.

The appellant appealed the Toronto Board of Education's interim access decision and fee estimate for a request seeking trustee expense records and an alpha cheque register.

The Inquiry Officer affirmed the use of an interim access decision where records are unduly expensive to produce for review, but found that a time extension could not be claimed at the interim stage.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Board's revised fee estimate of $10,896.80 and upheld a reduced fee estimate of $8,183.40, plus an optional $915 for cross-referencing, disallowing charges for time spent transporting records and returning documents to files.

The requester appealed the Board of Education's interim access decisions and fee estimates regarding requests for trustee expense records and an alpha cheque register.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board should have issued final access decisions rather than interim ones, as the records were not unduly expensive to produce for a decision.

The fee estimate for photocopying was upheld, but the Board was ordered to revise its fee estimate for preparation time to reflect only the pages expected to require severances.