Laurel Cropley

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Natural Resources for correspondence relating to a specific court case and the involvement of a former Minister.

The Ministry identified responsive records and charged a fee of $183.60 for search time and photocopying.

The appellant appealed the fee, arguing that the Ministry searched for irrelevant records such as media clippings.

The Inquiry Officer found that while media clippings were not responsive to the request for 'correspondence', the search time expended by the Ministry was reasonable and the fees were calculated in accordance with the Act and Regulation.

The fee was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Borough of East York's decision to deny access to an agreement between the Borough and a financial institution regarding a realty tax installment plan.

The affected party objected to disclosure, claiming the record contained exempt third party information under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while standard clauses in the agreement were not supplied in confidence, the core concepts of the installment plan were supplied in confidence and their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the affected party's competitive position.

The Borough was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the record.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Scarborough for a memorandum from a Development Control Engineer to the City Solicitor.

The City denied access, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the record met the criteria for common law solicitor-client privilege, the City had implicitly waived this privilege by placing the record in a publicly accessible file that had previously been viewed by another member of the public.

The City was ordered to disclose the record to the appellant.

The appellant requested a fee waiver for a freedom of information request regarding the revenues and expenditures of the Townships' Recreation Committee.

The Townships denied the fee waiver.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of financial hardship and that the disclosure of the records would not benefit public health or safety.

The appeal was dismissed and the Townships' decision to deny the fee waiver was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records relating to the appellant held by the Ontario Provincial Police, pursuant to section 14(3) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the disclosure of the requested records, if they exist, could reasonably be expected to reveal law enforcement intelligence information under section 14(1)(g).

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, concluding that disclosing the mere existence or non-existence of such records would communicate information falling under the exemption.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat for correspondence relating to a court decision on aboriginal fishing rights.

The Secretariat denied access to three records, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding the records were confidential communications between a client and legal advisor.

The appellant's argument for a public interest override under section 23 was dismissed because section 23 does not apply to records exempt under section 19.

The appellant submitted a broad request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for all personal information held by the Peel Regional Police Services Board.

The Police advised that no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the Police failed to conduct a reasonable search and improperly destroyed records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police's decision to unilaterally narrow the search to three specific units was reasonable given the appellant's history of broad requests.

The search conducted by experienced employees in those units was deemed reasonable, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to two police complaint files.

The Ministry responded that no additional records existed beyond those already provided.

The appellant appealed, arguing that more records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the steps taken by the Ministry to locate the records, including searches of index systems and consultations with investigators, and concluded that the Ministry's search was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for records relating to the Ministry's reorganization process.

The Ministry provided a fee estimate of $157.56, denied a fee waiver, and withheld one record under the labour relations exclusion in section 65(6) of the Act.

The appellant appealed the fee, the denial of the fee waiver, the adequacy of the search, and the application of section 65(6).

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decisions, finding that the search was reasonable, the fee was properly calculated, financial hardship was not established for a fee waiver, and the withheld record was excluded from the Act as it related to employment-related matters in which the Ministry had an interest.

The appellant, a newspaper reporter, appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to financial records of a publicly-funded health centre under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry and the health centre claimed the records were exempt as third-party financial information supplied in confidence.

The Inquiry Officer found that the financial statements and schedules were exempt under section 17(1)(a) as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the centre's competitive position or contractual negotiations.

However, the covering letters did not contain financial information and were ordered disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer also held that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as disclosure would not serve the purpose of informing the citizenry about government activities.

The requesters appealed the County's decision regarding access to various employment and social assistance files.

The Inquiry Officer determined that recent amendments to the Act excluding labour relations records did not apply retrospectively to requests made before the amendments.

The Officer upheld the County's decision to withhold certain records under the law enforcement exemption and solicitor-client privilege, but ordered the disclosure of other records that did not qualify for privilege.

The County's search for records was found to be reasonable.

The appellants appealed a decision by the Ministry of Community and Social Services denying access to records concerning a private adoption agency and its principals.

The records involved communications with foreign governments and the federal government regarding international adoptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were exempt under sections 15(a) and 15(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as their disclosure would reveal information received in confidence from other governments and could reasonably be expected to prejudice intergovernmental relations.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

A school board appealed a decision by the Management Board Secretariat denying access to a severance agreement of a senior management employee under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The institution claimed exemptions based on solicitor-client privilege, economic interests, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the executed severance agreement was not subject to solicitor-client privilege and its disclosure would not prejudice the government's economic interests.

While the agreement contained personal information, the public interest in scrutinizing the expenditure of public funds on senior employee severance packages outweighed the privacy interests, except for specific personal identifiers and presumed privacy invasions which were ordered severed.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of Order M-835, which denied access to police disciplinary records under section 52(3)1 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant argued that police officers are not 'employees' at common law, and therefore disciplinary proceedings do not relate to 'employment' under the Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while police officers may not be employees at common law, the Police Services Act characterizes their work as employment.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the original decision was correct and declined the request for reconsideration.

The appellant sought access to Ministry of Labour files relating to an occupational disease claim filed by a former university employee.

The Ministry denied access to certain correspondence under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The appellant argued that the employee had published details of her claim on an internet website, creating a public interest in disclosure.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the employee's personal information, including medical and highly sensitive information supplied in confidence.

Although the employee's public posting of some information favoured disclosure, it did not outweigh the privacy protection factors.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override did not apply, as the dispute was primarily private in nature.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant company made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Town of Meaford for records relating to a tendering process for a project.

The Town granted partial access but denied access to certain records under the advice and recommendations exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that portions of the records were exempt under section 7(1) as advice or recommendations, and that certain reference information was exempt under section 10(1) as third party information supplied in confidence.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Town's search for responsive records was not reasonable and ordered a further search.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Board denying access to the amount of pension benefits received by a named individual over a ten-year period.

The Board 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 pension amounts constituted personal information and their disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 21(3)(f).

The Officer also determined that the pension amounts did not qualify as 'benefits' under the exception in section 21(4)(a) and that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The Board's decision was upheld.

The appellant sought access to records concerning a job competition in which he was an unsuccessful candidate.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6).

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected in relation to a job competition, which is an employment-related matter in which the Ministry has an interest.

As a result, the records fell within the section 65(6)3 exclusion and the Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Niagara Regional Police Services Board denying access to portions of a police report regarding a break and enter at the appellant's property.

The Police withheld the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of suspects under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information constituted personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumed unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision to deny access under section 38(b) of the Act.

The appellant, a tenant of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for records concerning her subsidized housing application.

The Ministry granted partial access, and the appellant appealed, arguing that further records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Ministry's search efforts, including an affidavit detailing the file management process, and concluded that the Ministry's search for responsive records was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.