Laurel Cropley

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Town of Milton for a report regarding an Ontario Municipal Board decision.

The Town denied access, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations and solicitor-client privilege.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the report primarily contained a synopsis of the decision and did not qualify as advice or recommendations.

Furthermore, the Town failed to provide evidence that the record was created for litigation or intended for legal counsel, so solicitor-client privilege did not apply.

The Town was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant sought access to a letter that initiated an investigation into her competence by the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The Public Guardian denied access under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the authors' personal privacy.

The appellant also requested access to the representations of the other parties during the inquiry.

The Inquiry Officer denied the request for representations, finding no right of access under section 52(13).

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Public Guardian's decision to withhold the record, finding that the information was highly sensitive, supplied in confidence, and its disclosure would unfairly expose individuals to harm.

The public interest override in section 23 was found not to apply.

The appellant, a pedestrian struck by a police car, requested access to the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) file concerning the accident.

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

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the SIU's final investigation reports were exempt as law enforcement reports.

Certain correspondence and memoranda were exempt under solicitor-client privilege.

Personal information of other individuals compiled during the investigation was exempt as an unjustified invasion of privacy.

However, the Ministry was ordered to disclose administrative records, lab reports, and portions of documents that did not fall under these exemptions.

The appellant made requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to the Township's General Accounts.

The Township disclosed the accounts with some information severed, later claiming the invasion of privacy exemption.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found the appeal was timely because the initial disclosure did not include a proper decision letter.

The Inquiry Officer declined to consider new discretionary exemptions raised late by the Township.

Ultimately, the Inquiry Officer upheld the severance of names of individuals but ordered the disclosure of the remaining information, including pension fund contributions and legal services details.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Environment and Energy's decision to grant only partial access to records relating to an Environmental Technologies Program grant awarded to a third party company.

The Ministry and the company claimed the withheld information was exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third party commercial information.

The Inquiry Officer found that some of the information did not meet the harms test under section 17(1) and ordered it disclosed, but upheld the exemption for the remaining information.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Natural Resources for correspondence relating to two property lots.

The Ministry granted partial access but withheld certain records under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant appealed, arguing the records were relevant to concerns about property values.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information of affected third parties and were unrelated to the appellant's concerns.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $504.34 for a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Community and Social Services regarding social contract days and payroll records.

The Inquiry Officer first determined that the labour relations exclusion in section 65(6) of the Act did not apply.

The Inquiry Officer then found that some of the requested records contained the appellant's personal information, meaning search and preparation fees could not be charged for those specific records.

The fee estimate was adjusted to $481.94 to reflect the correct calculation for search time, photocopying, and shipping.

The appellant sought access to the names of witnesses in a police report regarding an industrial accident in which he was injured.

The Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board denied access to one witness's name, citing law enforcement and privacy exemptions.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the information was compiled during a law enforcement investigation and its disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellants requested access to police records relating to a fire at their residential property.

The Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board denied access to several records, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that one record qualified as a law enforcement report and was exempt.

For the remaining records, portions containing third-party personal information were exempt as an unjustified invasion of privacy, while portions relating solely to the appellants or their consenting daughter were ordered disclosed.

Two health care services companies submitted freedom of information requests to the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton for portions of successful proposals submitted by two competing companies in response to a Request for Proposals (RFP).

The municipality decided to disclose the records.

The competing companies appealed, arguing the records contained proprietary commercial information supplied in confidence and were exempt under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the appeals, finding that given the municipality's clear and public policy regarding the disclosure of awarded contracts, the appellants could not have held a reasonable expectation of confidentiality.

The appellant sought access to records held by the Ontario Insurance Commission regarding an investigation into her employment practices as an insurance agent.

The OIC denied access to the records, claiming exemptions for law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that an Investigations Request form was not exempt and ordered its disclosure.

However, the Investigation Report, a Legal Review Request, and records containing the personal information of other individuals were found to be exempt.

The Inquiry Officer also determined that the OIC's search for responsive records was reasonable.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing relating to the cancellation of a non-profit housing project.

The Ministry disclosed some records but withheld others under various exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including advice or recommendations, Cabinet records, and solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry properly applied the exemptions to the withheld records, except for one record which the Ministry was ordered to disclose.

The appellant requested records relating to a joint proposal submitted by a third party in response to a request for proposals for the disposal of residual solid waste.

The Municipality granted access to most records but withheld certain financial and commercial information under section 10(1)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained commercial and financial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the third party's competitive position or interfere with its negotiations, particularly regarding a pending landfill application.

The Municipality's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested copies of contracts between the Toronto Board of Education and various companies regarding the acquisition of a Human Resources and Financial Information Management System.

The Board and the third-party companies objected to disclosure under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing the records contained confidential commercial information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the contracts were the product of negotiations and therefore the information was not 'supplied' to the Board within the meaning of section 10(1).

The Board was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Peterborough Community Police Services Board denying access to portions of records relating to his arrest for criminal harassment.

The Police withheld information under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that the police codes were properly exempt under section 38(a) and 8(1)(l), and that the disclosure of the remaining withheld information would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b).

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search for additional records.

The appellant requested information from the Ministry of the Attorney General relating to two complaint files in the office of the Police Complaints Commissioner.

The Ministry denied access to certain pages, claiming exemptions for advice and recommendations, law enforcement, invasion of privacy, and discretion to refuse the requester's own information.

The Inquiry Officer declined to consider a late-raised discretionary exemption and found that while a duty report was exempt under the invasion of privacy provision, the remaining records did not qualify for the law enforcement exemptions and must be disclosed.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a workplace harassment investigation conducted by the Ministry of Community and Social Services regarding complaints the appellant made against another employee.

The Ministry granted partial access but withheld certain records under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer considered whether disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 49(b).

The Inquiry Officer found that while the names of the respondent and affected persons, as well as their statements, were generally exempt, the appellant was entitled to an adequate degree of disclosure regarding the allegations and the direct response to the complaint.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the respondent's name where it appeared in certain records, as well as specific portions of the investigation report and the respondent's statement, while the decision to withhold the remaining personal information was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a named police officer, including any current or past complaints made against the officer.

The Orangeville Police Services Board refused to confirm or deny the existence of such records under section 14(5) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that the records, if they existed, would relate to an investigation under the Police Services Act and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

Furthermore, disclosing the mere existence or non-existence of the records would reveal personal information about the officer and constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Toronto for letters sent to a City Councillor, which the Councillor had read from during a Council meeting.

The City denied access, claiming the records were the Councillor's personal constituency records and not in the City's custody or control.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that a municipal councillor is not an 'officer' of the municipal corporation when acting as a representative of constituents.

Furthermore, applying the established factors for custody and control, the Commissioner concluded the City had no authority to compel the production of the records, nor were they integrated with City records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Human Rights Commission for his complete human rights complaint file, specifically seeking the 'final Commissioner's report'.

The OHRC disclosed most of the file but withheld certain records under the advice and recommendations, law enforcement, and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The appellant appealed the exemptions and the adequacy of the search.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the exemptions to most of the withheld records, finding they contained advice, law enforcement reports, or personal information of others.

However, portions of two records containing only the appellant's personal information were ordered disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer also found the OHRC's search for the final report was reasonable.