John Higgins

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Finance for individual tax returns of persons remitting tobacco taxes.

The Ministry denied access under section 17(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, not the denial of access, but the adequacy of the Ministry's decision letter, arguing it failed to provide a detailed description of the records, their number, and dates.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Commissioner has jurisdiction to consider the adequacy of a decision letter.

However, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the Ministry's letter met the requirements of section 29(1)(b) of the Act, as it clearly indicated the responsive records and explained the applicable exemption, allowing the appellant to make an informed decision on whether to appeal.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $120.00 provided by the Ministry of Community and Social Services for processing a freedom of information request.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the search and record preparation charges.

The Ministry was ordered to issue a final access decision without charging a fee.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denying access to portions of records relating to an investigation into the appellant's sexual harassment complaint.

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

During the inquiry, the Ministry withdrew its reliance on the exemption because the information was submitted by the appellant and some was publicly available.

The Inquiry Officer found no mandatory exemptions applied and ordered the Ministry to disclose the records.

The appellant requested access to the entire contents of a file relating to their complaint under the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Program.

The Management Board Secretariat granted partial access, withholding the remainder under the personal privacy exemptions in sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the denial and claimed additional records existed.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the privacy exemptions to most of the withheld records, finding that they contained the personal information of other individuals, including witness statements and job competition records.

However, the Officer ordered the disclosure of certain records where personal identifiers could be severed, and found that the Secretariat's search for records was reasonable.

The Ministry of Natural Resources received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a workplace harassment investigation report concerning the requester.

The Ministry denied access, citing exemptions for advice or recommendations and personal privacy.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the report did not contain advice or recommendations under section 13(1).

However, the report contained personal information of the complainant and witnesses.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of information essential to the fair resolution of the complaint, but upheld the exemption under section 49(b) for the remaining personal information of other individuals to protect their privacy.

The appellant, a former employee of the Toronto Board of Education, appealed the Board's decision to deny access to various records relating to his employment, grievances, and Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) matters.

The Board claimed exemptions under sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were exempt under solicitor-client privilege (section 12), advice or recommendations (section 7), and published information (section 15).

However, the law enforcement, third-party information, and health and safety exemptions were not upheld.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Board's search for records was unreasonable and ordered a further search, including a search for records under the Board's control but in the custody of its solicitors.

The appellant sought access to records relating to three actions filed with the Ontario Court of Justice involving the Ministry of Health and a mental health centre.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to numerous records, claiming exemptions under sections 19, 21, and 65(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that section 65(2)(b) did not apply as the records lacked clinical purpose.

However, the Officer upheld the application of section 19 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege) for most records, while ordering the disclosure of records that lost privilege upon the completion of litigation.

The Officer also upheld the application of sections 21 and 49(b) to protect the personal privacy of individuals other than the appellant.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied a freedom of information request for interview questions and ideal answers from two job competitions, claiming the records were exempt under section 18(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as commercial or technical information.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the records did not relate to the buying, selling, or exchange of merchandise or services, nor did they belong to an organized field of applied sciences or mechanical arts.

Consequently, the records did not qualify as commercial or technical information.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for correspondence and investigation documents relating to a missing court file.

The Ministry initially denied the request, stating court records were not subject to the Act.

After the appellant clarified she sought non-court records, the Ministry conducted searches and disclosed some records.

The appellant appealed, arguing more records should exist and questioning whether the Ministry should have transferred the request to the Archives of Ontario.

The Inquiry Officer found the Ministry's search was reasonable and accepted its explanation for not transferring the request under section 25(1) of the Act.

The appellant requested information from the City of London regarding a claim for compensation for damage to his compact disk player and an in camera municipal council meeting where the claim was discussed.

The City denied access to certain records under the advice or recommendations exemption in section 7(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that portions of two records qualified for exemption under section 7(1) and were properly withheld under section 38(a).

However, the Inquiry Officer found that the City's search for records relating to the Board of Control and Municipal Council meetings was unreasonable and ordered a further search.

The requester appealed the City of Ottawa's decision to deny access to a Memorandum of Agreement detailing the severance benefits of a former senior official.

The City claimed the personal privacy exemption under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the record contained personal information, the public interest in scrutinizing the City's activities and ensuring public confidence outweighed the affected person's privacy interests for most of the agreement.

The City was ordered to disclose the agreement, with the affected person's name and certain employment history details severed.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat's decision regarding a freedom of information request for research reports and maps relating to specific aboriginal bands and land claims.

The Secretariat granted partial access but claimed no additional records existed for the remaining parts of the request.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the detailed affidavits outlining the Secretariat's search efforts and concluded that the search was reasonable.

The Secretariat's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed the Corporation of the Improvement District of Gauthier's failure to issue a decision within the 30-day time limit under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act regarding a request for property tax records.

During mediation, the District conducted searches and disclosed some records, stating no further records existed.

The sole issue was whether the District conducted a reasonable search.

The Inquiry Officer found that the District's two searches of its alphabetical tax files and assessment rolls were reasonable and upheld the District's decision.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to an incident that resulted in his arrest.

The Police disclosed some records but withheld others under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and stated that other records had been destroyed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the Police had not conducted a reasonable search for the records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search and upheld their decision.

The Ministry of the Attorney General, on behalf of the Office of the Public Trustee, denied access to portions of minutes from the Advisory Committee of the Public Trustee on Investments, citing the advice or recommendations exemption under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained factual information and discussions, but did not constitute advice or recommendations on a suggested course of action.

The exemption under section 13(1) did not apply, and the Public Trustee was ordered to disclose the records.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Transportation's decision to extend the time limit for responding to a freedom of information request by 39 days.

The Ministry claimed the extension was necessary under section 27(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act because the request necessitated a search through a large number of records, and meeting the original time limit would unreasonably interfere with its operations.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding the time extension reasonable in the circumstances.

The requester appealed the City of Scarborough's decision denying access to a single-page letter on the basis that the record did not exist in its files.

The sole issue was whether the City conducted a reasonable search.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City's reliance on extensive searches conducted for a previous, related request, along with additional searches in the relevant department, constituted a reasonable search.

The City's decision was upheld.