John Higgins

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for the coroner's report and medical records of a deceased individual involved in a motor vehicle accident that also killed the appellant's wife and daughter.

The Ministry denied access under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained the deceased's personal information, including medical history and information compiled during a police investigation, which are subject to presumed unjustified invasions of privacy under sections 21(3)(a) and (b).

The presumptions were not rebutted, and the records were entirely exempt from disclosure.

The appellant sought access to a witness statement regarding a motor vehicle accident investigated by the OPP.

The Ministry denied access under law enforcement and privacy exemptions.

After the Notice of Inquiry was issued, the affected person's counsel provided an unsevered copy of the record to the appellant's counsel.

The appellant refused to withdraw the appeal, wishing to pursue it as a matter of principle.

The Inquiry Officer found the appeal moot, as the appellant already possessed the record through legitimate means, and dismissed the appeal.

A Board of Education appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to records from a police investigation into allegations against a teacher.

The teacher was fired and the matter was referred to a Board of Reference.

The Police denied access citing personal privacy and solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer found the records contained sensitive personal information of the teacher, children, and parents, and were exempt under section 14(1) as they were compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

The Officer also held that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, as the Board of Reference has independent statutory powers to subpoena the records if necessary, and the privacy interests of the children outweighed the public interest in disclosure under the Act.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Environment and Energy for records relating to a job competition and a demand for a medical examination.

The Ministry disclosed some records, but the appellant appealed, claiming additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search for responsive records, which included multiple offices and human resources departments, was reasonable in the circumstances and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant, a sod supply company, appealed the City of Oshawa's decision to partially deny access to records relating to two sod supply contracts.

The City withheld purchase order numbers, budget information, terms of delivery, and pricing information under the third-party information exemption in section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer applied the three-part test for the exemption and found that only the unit prices of the other bidders met all three parts of the test.

The City was ordered to disclose the remaining information, including total bid prices and the appellant's own bid information.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board for photographs of the K-9 and Motorcycle Patrol Units.

The Police denied access, citing the personal privacy and law enforcement exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the photographs contained the personal information of the officers, including their race and sex.

As no factors favouring disclosure were established, the photographs were held to be exempt from disclosure under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Environment and Energy seeking to determine whether a named individual was a civil servant or public servant within the meaning of the Public Service Act.

The Ministry advised that it had no responsive records.

The appellant appealed, arguing the Ministry failed to conduct a reasonable search.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the Ministry had conducted a reasonable search of its computer systems and manual personnel files dating back to 1978, which confirmed the individual was never a Ministry employee.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of the Attorney General relating to a job competition in which he was an unsuccessful candidate.

The Ministry denied access to the resumes, covering letters, interview answers, and scores of the other candidates under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (invasion of privacy).

The appellant appealed and argued that the public interest override in section 23 applied.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information and that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under various presumptions in section 21(3).

The Inquiry Officer also found that the appellant failed to establish a compelling public interest in disclosure under section 23.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $787.90 issued by the Durham Regional Police Services Board in response to a request for police records relating to the appellant.

The Inquiry Officer found that under section 45(2) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, fees cannot be charged for access to records containing the requester's own personal information.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Police to recalculate the fees based on a record-by-record analysis, rather than a page-by-page analysis, and upheld a fee estimate of $161 for records that did not contain the appellant's personal information.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's response to a freedom of information request for correspondence related to his prosecution.

The Ministry relied on decision letters from three previous requests submitted by the appellant two months prior.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's reliance on its previous searches and decision letters was reasonable, as the requests sought essentially the same information and no new records were likely created in the interval.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Health for records relating to applications by a company to relocate its laboratory and specimen collection centres.

The Ministry withheld parts of the records as non-responsive, and claimed exemptions under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) and section 17(1) (third party information) for other records.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that section 10(1) permits withholding non-responsive parts of records, the section 19 exemption applied to legal advice memoranda, and the section 17(1) exemption applied to proposed location information that could prejudice the third party's competitive position.

The appellant, an employee of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, requested a complete copy of his personnel file.

The Ministry granted partial access but withheld portions containing the personal information of other individuals, arguing they were not responsive.

The Inquiry Officer found the records were responsive because they were located in the appellant's personnel file.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the information under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the other individuals.

A requester sought access to specific pages of the annual returns submitted by life insurance companies to the Ontario Insurance Commission.

One of the life insurance companies appealed the decision to disclose its information, claiming the third-party information exemption under section 17(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the records contained financial information, they were not supplied in confidence, either explicitly or implicitly.

Furthermore, the appellant failed to establish a reasonable expectation of prejudice to its competitive position or interference with negotiations.

The appeal was dismissed and the records were ordered disclosed.

The Ontario Insurance Commission received a freedom of information request for specific pages of the annual returns submitted by life insurance companies.

The appellant, one of the affected companies, objected to the disclosure of its information under the third party information exemption in section 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the record contained financial information, it was not supplied in confidence and disclosure could not reasonably be expected to cause the alleged harms.

The appeal was dismissed and the records were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ontario Insurance Commission for records relating to their mediations, arbitrations, and appeals.

The OIC granted full access to the located records, but the appellant appealed, arguing that more records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the OIC's search for responsive records was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances, and upheld the OIC's decision.

The appellant sought access to police records relating to an investigation that led to their arrest.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services granted partial access but withheld duty reports, witness statements, and notebook extracts under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the duty reports met the three-part test for the law enforcement exemption and that disclosing the witness statements and notebook extracts would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other individuals.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Board of Education for the City of Hamilton for a list of probationary secondary school teachers hired over the last seven years.

The Board initially directed the appellant to publicly available minutes, but during mediation, located and disclosed lists for 1992, 1993, and 1994 with names redacted.

The appellant appealed, arguing the Board ought to have more responsive records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the request was proper under the Act and that the Board's search for responsive records was reasonable in the circumstances.

The Board's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Board of Education's response to a freedom of information request for records relating to her union activities.

The Board claimed it had already provided all documents in her personnel file.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's search for records relating to requests for time off was reasonable, but its search for other records relating to union activities was not, as such records would not necessarily be in a personnel file.

The Board was ordered to conduct a further search.

The appellant requested her complete personnel, employee relations, and legal services files from the Board of Education for the City of Hamilton relating to her grievance proceedings.

The Board granted partial access, claiming exemptions for solicitor-client privilege and evaluative material.

The Inquiry Officer allowed the late appeal and refused to consider new discretionary exemptions raised late by the Board.

The Officer upheld the exemption for solicitor-client privilege for one record but ordered the disclosure of other records, finding they did not qualify as third-party information or evaluative material.

The Officer also found the Board's search for legal records inadequate and ordered a further search.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to withhold five pages of a policy document regarding the licensing of specimen collection centres.

The Ministry claimed the pages were exempt from disclosure under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they contained advice or recommendations.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld pages merely set out alternative courses of action and possible consequences without identifying a preferred option.

Following previous orders, the Inquiry Officer held that such options do not constitute advice or recommendations.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the withheld pages.