John Higgins

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Town of Pickering for records relating to a property ownership dispute and ongoing litigation.

The Town denied access to numerous records, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the request was within the scope of the Act despite the ongoing litigation.

The Commissioner upheld the application of solicitor-client privilege and litigation privilege to the majority of the records, including settlement negotiations and lawyer's briefs.

However, several records consisting of council meeting agendas and by-laws were ordered to be disclosed, as they did not qualify for the privilege exemptions and did not contain exempt third-party or personal information.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Board of Education for the City of Hamilton under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the Board failed to locate records relating to an investigation into alleged human rights violations.

The Board indicated that no new responsive records existed beyond those already provided in response to previous requests.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's internal consultations to determine if new records had been created were sufficient, and that a new full-scale search was not required.

The Board's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested records detailing the expenses of the management team and cellular phone expenses at a psychiatric hospital.

The Ministry of Health provided a fee estimate of $979 and requested a deposit.

The appellant appealed the amount of the fee estimate.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's fee estimate was reasonable and in accordance with the Act and regulations, as it was based on consultations with experienced employees and a review of potentially responsive records.

The fee estimate was upheld.

The appellant requested records regarding hospital maintenance contracts from the Ministry of Health under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry issued an interim access decision and a fee estimate of $705, which the appellant appealed.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the fee estimate, finding that the Ministry properly consulted experienced employees to calculate the estimate and that the projected search, preparation, and photocopying costs were reasonable and in accordance with the Regulation.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision that no responsive records existed for a request seeking statistical information about Ontario Insurance Commission arbitration orders and appeals.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's interpretation of Parts 1 and 2 of the request was overly narrow and ordered a further search for records tracking the total number of appeals from arbitration orders.

However, the Inquiry Officer accepted that the Ministry did not track specific issues in appeals and that responding to Parts 3 and 4 would require creating a new record, finding the search for those parts reasonable.

The appellant requested a list of the names and ranks of all sworn and civilian personnel of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board.

The Police denied access, citing exemptions for invasion of privacy and danger to safety or health.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that disclosing the identities of all police officers could reasonably be expected to seriously threaten their safety or health under section 13 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, particularly for officers required to conceal their identities.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to a police officer's notes and an incident report regarding an arrest at a shopping centre.

The Police claimed the invasion of privacy exemption under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the personal information of individuals other than the appellant, as the appellant was not mentioned in the records.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the records were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Criminal Code, triggering the presumption against disclosure in section 14(3)(b).

The appeal was dismissed and the decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellants requested access to a police incident report regarding a dog attack that caused serious injuries to a young girl.

The Police granted partial access, withholding certain information under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that information pertaining to a commercial kennel where the dog was taken did not qualify as personal information and ordered its disclosure.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision to withhold the personal information of other individuals, including the dog's owners, finding that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy as the information was compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

A police officer appealed the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board's decision to deny access to parts of records relating to a Professional Standards Review Committee investigation.

The Police claimed the records were exempt under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that, with the exception of a municipal address, the undisclosed information consisted of the personal information of other individuals compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

The Police were ordered to disclose the municipal address, but the decision to withhold the remaining information under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for job specifications, physical demands analyses, and salary ranges for several positions within the Ontario Insurance Commission.

The Ministry of Finance granted partial access but claimed no job specification existed for the Commissioner position.

The appellant appealed the reasonableness of the search.

The Inquiry Officer accepted the Ministry's affidavit evidence that a search of human resources files was conducted and no such record was created, concluding the search was reasonable and upholding the Ministry's decision.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Environment and Energy's fee estimate of $1,227.50 for processing a freedom of information request regarding lagoon type sewer systems in Northwestern Ontario.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's calculation, which included 39.25 hours of search time, photocopying, and courier fees, was reasonable and in accordance with the Act and Regulation.

The fee estimate was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to a stayed criminal charge against an individual who allegedly broke into the appellant's home.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 19, 21(1), 49(a), and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were exempt under solicitor-client privilege and personal privacy exemptions, while others did not qualify for these exemptions.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records and parts of records to the appellant.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to portions of police records containing his personal information and claiming no other records existed.

The Police withheld names and job titles of other individuals provided by the appellant during an interview, citing unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that disclosing information originally supplied by the appellant would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy and ordered its disclosure.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the Police's search for records as reasonable.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Finance for records relating to specified pension plans.

The Ministry granted partial access but indicated that certain requested records could not be located.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the missing records ought to exist based on statutory filing requirements.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner reviewed the Ministry's search efforts, which included multiple searches by the responsible Pension Officer and inquiries with the relevant actuary.

The Commissioner found that the Ministry had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate a reasonable effort to identify and locate the responsive records, and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant made multiple freedom of information requests to the Ministry of Transportation for records relating to the Bradford Bypass Environmental Assessment Study.

The Ministry initially claimed the information would be published later, but subsequently provided a report and conducted further searches, locating 143 responsive records.

The sole issue on appeal was whether the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search, supported by affidavits from eight employees, was reasonable and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant requested access to records related to a meeting held with Board staff.

The Board responded that no notes or memoranda were kept by staff during the meeting and no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that responsive records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's search for records was reasonable, relying on affidavits from the Board staff confirming no notes were taken.

The appellant requested records related to a meeting held on April 8, 1993, from the Board of Education for the City of Hamilton.

The Board responded that no notes or memoranda were kept by the staff members who attended the meeting.

The appellant appealed, arguing that it was not credible that no notes were made given the nature of the meeting.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's search for records was reasonable, as the Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator confirmed with the attendees that no notes were taken.

The Board's decision was upheld.

The appellant, a union president, submitted freedom of information requests to Ontario Hydro for records relating to a specific employee's early retirement agreement and termination.

Hydro refused to confirm or deny the existence of the records under section 21(5) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that Hydro could not rely on section 21(5) because disclosure of most of the records would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Officer ordered the disclosure of the records, severing only the employee's name and specific salary dollar amounts, finding that public scrutiny of the early retirement agreement outweighed the privacy interests for the remaining information.

A journalist appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to records relating to investigations into the disappearance and death of a Crown ward.

The Ministry claimed the law enforcement exemption, and the Crown Attorney later raised the right to a fair trial exemption due to ongoing criminal proceedings against four individuals.

The Inquiry Officer allowed the late raising of the fair trial exemption but found that neither section 14(1)(b) nor 14(1)(f) applied, as there was insufficient evidence linking disclosure to interference with the police investigation or the accused's right to a fair trial.

However, the Inquiry Officer found that certain portions of the records contained personal information exempt under section 21(1), and that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply to this exempt information.

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

The appellant appealed the Ministry's refusal to disclose police records relating to their son, which the Ministry claimed were governed by the Young Offenders Act (YOA) and fell outside the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry refused to produce the records to the Information and Privacy Commissioner for review, arguing that the YOA's non-disclosure provisions were paramount.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Ministry to produce the records, holding that the Commissioner has the jurisdiction and statutory obligation to determine the preliminary issue of whether the records actually fall within the scope of the YOA, and that ordering production for this limited purpose does not conflict with the YOA.