John Higgins

The appellant, a host township for a proposed landfill site, requested access to records relating to the County's waste management master plan and landfill site search.

The County issued a fee estimate of $8,250 and denied the appellant's request for a fee waiver.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the County failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the search and preparation time claimed in the fee estimate.

Furthermore, the Inquiry Officer ordered a full fee waiver, finding that dissemination of the records would benefit public health and safety regarding the proposed landfill, and that a waiver was fair and equitable in the circumstances.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of Labour relating to accidents, incidents, and environmental matters at a specific building.

The Ministry released a large number of documents but withheld portions under the personal privacy exemption.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search for responsive records was reasonable and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant, a Probation and Parole Officer, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of an investigation report and a witness statement regarding allegations of sexual harassment against him.

The Ministry relied on the invasion of privacy exemption under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while some information was highly sensitive and supplied in confidence, the appellant had a right to know the substance of the complaint and the findings.

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

The appellant requested access to records from the Ministry of the Attorney General relating to allegations that he had committed sexual offences against his children.

The Ministry denied access, relying on exemptions for invasion of privacy and solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were exempt under the solicitor-client privilege exemption, while others were not.

The Inquiry Officer also found that disclosure of certain records would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, but ordered the disclosure of other records with identifying information severed.

A teacher employed by the Carleton Board of Education appealed the Board's decision to deny access to records relating to harassment and other complaints against him.

The Board relied on exemptions for advice to government, third party information, discretion to refuse a requester's own information, and invasion of privacy under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the advice or recommendations exemption did not apply to the records.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's decision to withhold several records on the basis that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of individuals other than the appellant.

The Board was ordered to disclose the remaining records.

The appellant appealed the Guelph Police Services Board's decision to deny access to portions of police reports concerning an investigation into possible violations of law.

The Inquiry Officer found that the undisclosed portions contained the personal information of individuals other than the appellant, and that their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The public interest override in section 16 did not apply.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The requester appealed a decision by the Management Board Secretariat denying access to the names and addresses of all government machines connected to the Internet.

The Secretariat claimed the security exemption under section 14(1)(i) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the security of the government's computer systems and the sensitive data stored within them.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to the service record of a named OPP officer under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry relied on the invasion of privacy exemption in section 21(1).

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the officer's employment and educational history, as well as personal evaluations, and that disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under sections 21(3)(d) and (g).

The appellant failed to establish a compelling public interest under section 23.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

A newspaper reporter appealed the Ottawa Police Services Board's decision to deny access to a police investigation report concerning an incident involving a city councillor.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information and that their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as they were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

The presumption was not rebutted by the public interest override in section 16, given the extent of public disclosure already made by the Board.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

A newspaper reporter appealed the Ottawa Police Services Board's decision to deny access to minutes and audio tapes of a closed meeting regarding a city councillor's conduct.

The Inquiry Officer found that the meeting was properly held in camera under the Police Services Act and that most of the records were exempt from disclosure under the closed meeting exemption in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, portions of the records relating to the appellant's solicitor's submission to the Board were ordered to be disclosed, as they did not reveal the Board's deliberations and their disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The appellant requested the names of individuals who lodged complaints with the City of Toronto's Animal Control Services regarding a particular property.

The City denied access to the complainant's name, address, and telephone number under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that the information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible by-law violation, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b).

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Village of Wellington for records held by the Village's solicitor.

The Village claimed it did not have custody or control of the records under section 4(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that records in a solicitor's custody that belong to the client are under the client's control.

The Village was ordered to review the records in the solicitor's custody using established legal criteria to determine ownership and control, and to issue an access decision for those records.

The appellant appealed the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's decision regarding access to records.

In a previous interim order, the Inquiry Officer ordered the Municipality to determine whether it would exercise its discretion to deny access under section 38(b) of the Act and to provide representations on the factors considered.

The Municipality decided to deny access and provided its representations.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the exercise of discretion, found nothing improper, and upheld the Municipality's decision.

The appellant requested copies of her personnel file, including information related to her employment history and harassment complaints at two correctional facilities.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the undisclosed information contained personal and medical information of other individuals, including inmates.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the information, concluding that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, but ordered the disclosure of one record to which the Ministry no longer objected.

The appellant, an insurance adjuster, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to the results of a blood analysis of an individual involved in a motor vehicle accident.

The Ministry claimed the information was exempt under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the individual had not consented to the disclosure and that the information was compiled as part of a police investigation, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 21(3)(b).

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Northwestern Health Unit under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing that the Health Unit failed to conduct a reasonable search for records concerning a named individual's knowledge of the appellant's sewage system prior to August 1991.

The Health Unit provided an affidavit detailing its search of active and remote files, and noted its three-year document retention policy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Health Unit had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records and upheld the decision.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Halton Regional Police Services Board regarding a request for access to police reports.

The Police indicated that no responsive records existed for certain occurrences, as they were classified as 'unfounded' or 'no report', which do not require the submission of a report.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police provided a reasonable explanation and conducted a reasonable search in the circumstances, upholding the Police's decision.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Peterborough Community Police Services Board to deny access to portions of incident reports relating to occurrences involving the appellant and a neighbour.

The Police relied on the invasion of privacy exemption under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption of an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b).

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

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation relating to the Barnes Exhibition at the Art Gallery of Ontario.

The Ministry and the AGO claimed the records were exempt from disclosure under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third party information.

The Inquiry Officer found that while some records contained commercial or financial information supplied in confidence, the parties resisting disclosure failed to establish a reasonable expectation of harm under part three of the test.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the withheld parts of the records.

The appellant requested access to his social services file from the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

The Municipality denied access to portions of the records, claiming the mandatory privacy exemption under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant also raised Charter arguments regarding access to materials and notification requirements, which the Inquiry Officer dismissed.

The Inquiry Officer found that one record contained only the personal information of others and was exempt under section 14(1).

For the remaining records containing the personal information of both the appellant and others, the Inquiry Officer found that the discretionary exemption in section 38(b) applied, and ordered the Municipality to exercise its discretion regarding disclosure.