Laurel Cropley

The appellant, an insurance adjuster, requested access to records relating to an Office of the Fire Marshal investigation into a commercial fire.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General denied access to the records, claiming exemptions for law enforcement, personal privacy, third party information, and solicitor-client privilege.

The adjudicator found that all records were responsive to the request.

Certain records containing witness statements were found to be exempt under the personal privacy exemption.

The adjudicator rejected the application of the third party information exemption, finding insufficient evidence of reasonable expectation of harm.

Two records were found to be exempt under solicitor-client privilege, while the remaining claims for privilege were rejected.

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

The appellant sought access to his Family Responsibility Office (FRO) file under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, citing exemptions for law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, and unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that most of the withheld information contained highly sensitive personal information of the appellant's ex-wife, supplied in confidence, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The adjudicator also upheld the application of solicitor-client privilege to legal opinions and related notes.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose only one minor administrative entry.

The appellant submitted multiple freedom of information requests to the City of Vaughan regarding a grading dispute and by-law enforcement.

The City refused to process the latest requests, claiming they were frivolous or vexatious, part of a pattern of conduct amounting to an abuse of the right of access, and made in bad faith or for a purpose other than to obtain access.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the City failed to establish that the requests were frivolous or vexatious.

The Commissioner ordered the City to process the requests and issue access decisions.

The appellant submitted freedom of information requests to the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation for an independent audit report and staff responses regarding allegations of staff misconduct.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Act under the labour relations and employment-related matters exclusion in section 65(6)3.

The adjudicator found that the records were prepared in relation to meetings, consultations, discussions or communications about employment-related matters in which the Ministry had an interest.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision that the Act does not apply to the records.

The College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario appealed a decision by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care denying access to records regarding a proposed regulation submitted by the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 12, 13, 17, 19, and 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator allowed the Ministry to raise a late discretionary exemption claim.

The Adjudicator found that the affected party, a corporation, did not qualify for personal privacy protection.

Various records were found to be exempt under the cabinet records, advice or recommendations, and solicitor-client privilege exemptions, while others were ordered disclosed because they did not meet the criteria for exemption or were reasonably severable.

The appellant appealed Ontario Hydro's decision denying access to records relating to its exemption from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Ontario Hydro claimed the records were exempt under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege).

The Adjudicator found that Ontario Hydro conducted a reasonable search for records.

However, the Adjudicator determined that Ontario Hydro was not an agent of the Crown and did not share a solicitor-client relationship with the Ministry.

Furthermore, any privilege that might have existed was waived when the records were provided to the Ministry.

The Adjudicator ordered the disclosure of the records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Energy, Science and Technology for records pertaining to the exemption of Ontario Hydro's successor companies from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for cabinet records, advice or recommendations, and solicitor-client privilege.

The adjudicator upheld the application of the solicitor-client privilege exemption for several e-mails and notes, and the cabinet records exemption for briefing documents and slides.

The adjudicator found that some records claimed under the advice or recommendations exemption were merely suggested responses for public queries and ordered their disclosure, while upholding the exemption for a meeting note.

The adjudicator also determined that the public interest override did not apply to the exempt records.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board for all records pertaining to her son.

The Board disclosed some records but withheld others, claiming exemptions for closed meetings, law enforcement, third party information, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The adjudicator found that the Board failed to establish the application of the closed meeting, law enforcement, and third party information exemptions.

The adjudicator upheld the application of the personal privacy exemption to certain records but found that withholding others would result in an absurdity.

Finally, the adjudicator determined that the Board's search for responsive records was unreasonable and ordered a new search.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to his criminal prosecution.

The Ministry denied access to most records, claiming exemptions including solicitor-client privilege and unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

On appeal, the adjudicator allowed the Ministry to raise a late discretionary exemption claim.

The adjudicator found that while 'opinion' work product in the Crown brief remained privileged after the termination of the litigation, 'ordinary' work product did not.

The adjudicator ordered the disclosure of the non-privileged records, subject to the severance of the personal information of other individuals to protect their privacy.

A requester sought access to information regarding a 1999 tender award for utility restoration and pavement repairs from the City of Windsor.

The company awarded the tender objected to the disclosure of the tender purchase order and the cost of the contract, arguing it would prejudice its competitive position under section 10(1)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that while the information was commercial and financial, the company failed to establish that it was supplied in confidence or that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in competitive harm.

The City's decision to disclose the records was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of the Environment regarding a request for records relating to a Drive Clean complaint file.

The appellant argued that additional records should exist in the possession of a named company contracted by the Ministry.

The adjudicator found that the Ministry had custody of the records and that its search for responsive records was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted two requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to police investigations concerning himself, including a videotaped interview.

The Police granted partial access and withheld the remaining portions under various exemptions, including sections 38(a) and 38(b).

The Adjudicator found that the withheld portions of the written records were exempt under section 38(b) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

However, the Adjudicator ordered the disclosure of the videotape, finding that withholding it would result in an absurd result since the appellant provided the information in the first place, and it did not qualify as a law enforcement report under section 8(2)(a).

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Natural Resources for construction drawings and related documents concerning a proposed watercourse diversion.

The Ministry and affected third parties objected to disclosure under sections 17(1) (third party information) and 21(1) (personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the records did not contain personal information, as they related to property and individuals in their professional capacities.

Furthermore, the records did not qualify for the third party information exemption because they were not supplied in confidence and there was no reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records, subject to severing the property owner's name and home address.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Durham Regional Police Services Board for an incident report relating to allegations of a sexual assault against her.

The Police provided partial access but withheld information relating to the accused and other individuals under the personal privacy exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, finding that the withheld information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law and its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Act.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Brantford Police Services Board for records relating to incidents from 1996 and a complaint against a police officer.

The Police withheld 150 pages, claiming they were excluded from the Act under sections 52(3)1 and 52(3)3 as employment-related records, and withheld portions of 26 pages under section 38(b) to protect personal privacy.

The Adjudicator found that the 150 pages were not excluded under section 52(3) because the proceedings were completed and the Police no longer had a legal interest in the matter.

The Adjudicator ordered the Police to issue an access decision for those 150 pages.

However, the Adjudicator upheld the decision to withhold the portions of the 26 pages, finding that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other individuals involved in the investigation.

In an appeal regarding a freedom of information request for records pertaining to the exemption of Ontario Hydro's successor companies from the Act, Ontario Hydro requested that portions of its representations be withheld from the appellant.

The Adjudicator found that certain paragraphs would reveal information exempt under section 12 of the Act and should be withheld, but ordered the disclosure of other paragraphs containing factual information already known to the appellant.

The appellant, a former police officer, appealed the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to various occurrence reports and police files in which he was named.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for law enforcement and unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Adjudicator found that the Police conducted a reasonable search for missing records.

The Adjudicator upheld the decision to withhold most of the records under section 38(b) as they related to a suicide investigation and contained highly sensitive personal information.

However, the Adjudicator ordered the disclosure of the appellant's own witness statements and certain factual recordings, finding that withholding them would lead to an absurd result and that the law enforcement exemptions did not apply.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Sault Ste.

Marie Police Services Board for records relating to the investigation into her son's death.

The Police denied access to a cassette tape from the son's answering machine under the personal privacy exemption (s. 14(1)).

The appellant appealed, arguing she owned the tape and had provided it to the Police.

The Adjudicator found that the tape contained the personal information of the callers and the deceased, but not the appellant.

The Adjudicator held that the information was compiled during a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption against disclosure under s. 14(3)(b).

Furthermore, the 'absurd result' principle did not apply because the appellant did not have direct, first-hand knowledge of the tape's contents.

The decision of the Police to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General for an OPP report regarding a criminal investigation into the conduct of RCMP and Windsor Police officers.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the report, citing the personal privacy exemption.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the withheld information constituted personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and its disclosure would result in a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b) of the Act.

The appellant appealed the Township of King's decision to deny access to records concerning a proposed estate residential development.

The Township claimed the records were exempt under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act due to solicitor-client privilege.

The adjudicator found that most of the records were confidential communications subject to privilege.

However, the adjudicator determined that the Township had expressly waived privilege over one record by discussing its contents in detail during a committee meeting and disclosing the minutes.

The Township was ordered to disclose that single record, while its decision to withhold the remaining records was upheld.