Laurel Cropley

The appellant appealed a decision by the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board to deny access to portions of two investigation reports involving the appellant.

The Police claimed exemptions under sections 38(b), 8(2), and 38(a) 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, and its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services requested a reconsideration of Order P-1044, which had ordered the disclosure of certain police investigation records relating to a motor vehicle accident.

The Inquiry Officer found a jurisdictional defect in the original order's failure to consider the section 14(1)(a) law enforcement exemption independently from other subsections.

Upon reconsideration, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure of the records prior to the related Highway Traffic Act trial could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter.

The records were therefore found to be exempt under sections 14(1)(a) and 49(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant sought access to the severance agreement between the City of Orillia and its former fire chief.

The City denied access, claiming the closed meeting exemption under section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that disclosure of the agreement would reveal the actual substance of the deliberations of an in-camera meeting.

The public interest override in section 16 was found inapplicable to section 6 exemptions.

The appellant, a teacher, submitted access requests to the Board of Education for the City of Hamilton for the credentials of several other teachers to support a complaint before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board denied access on the basis that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information relating to employment and educational history, and that disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also held that the public interest override did not apply, as the appellant's interest was primarily private.

The Board's decisions were upheld.

The appellant, a teacher, submitted an access request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for lists of the Board's probationary staff appointments.

The Board disclosed the records but severed the teachers' names under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the recent amendments to the Act under Bill 7 did not apply retrospectively to the request.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's decision, finding that the disclosure of the names would reveal employment history, constituting a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy.

The public interest override did not apply as the appellant's interest was essentially private.

The appellant appealed a decision by the York Regional Police Services Board denying access to portions of records relating to the drowning death of his brother.

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

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that the records were compiled during a law enforcement investigation, which triggered the presumption of an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Act.

The appellant requested copies of 911 calls she made to the police regarding an unwanted guest at her workplace.

The police denied access, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the records contained the appellant's own personal information and that denying access to information she provided herself would be an absurd result.

The Commissioner also found that the 911 tapes did not constitute a 'report' under the law enforcement exemption and that there was insufficient evidence to show disclosure would expose anyone to civil liability.

The police were ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant requested copies of proposals submitted in response to a Request for Proposals for Collision Reporting Centre Facilities.

The Police disclosed some records but denied access to others under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing third-party interests.

The successful bidder objected to disclosure, claiming the records contained trade secrets and commercial information supplied in confidence.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the records contained commercial information supplied in confidence, the successful bidder failed to demonstrate that disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in the harms outlined in section 10(1).

The Police were ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board regarding a request for records of investigations into the appellant's involvement in street gangs or organized crime between 1980 and 1982.

Following an interim order, the Police conducted a further search and provided representations, including applicable retention schedules showing the records would have been destroyed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the steps taken by the Police to search for the records were reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the Town of Gravenhurst's decision to deny access to portions of records relating to a comprehensive zoning by-law under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The records included waterfront property usage surveys, correspondence, and circulation lists.

The Inquiry Officer found that information regarding future business plans in the surveys qualified as exempt third-party commercial information under section 10(1)(c).

The Officer also upheld the Town's decision to withhold personal information, including names, addresses, and telephone numbers of private individuals and inactive businesses, under the personal privacy exemption in section 14(1).

The City of Orillia raised a preliminary objection that an appeal under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was filed outside the mandatory 30-day time limit.

The appellant had mailed the appeal within 30 days of receiving the City's decision, but it was received by the Commissioner's office after the deadline.

The Inquiry Officer held that the effective date for making an appeal is the date of mailing, not the date of receipt.

The preliminary objection was dismissed, and the City was ordered to produce the responsive records for the inquiry.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Environment and Energy for submissions relating to two Environmental Registry items concerning municipal waste incinerators.

The Ministry denied access under section 22(a) of the Act, claiming the records were already publicly available, and denied the appellant's request for a fee waiver.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's system of access did not make the records publicly available as contemplated by section 22(a), as it sought to charge fees without the independent review provided by the Act.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to deny the fee waiver, finding that waiving the estimated $350 fee would shift an unreasonable burden to the institution, especially given the appellant's refusal to view the records to narrow the request.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board regarding a request for records of investigations into his alleged involvement in street gangs or organized crime between 1980 and 1982.

The Police claimed no such records existed but located two other occurrence reports, granting partial access and withholding the rest under the personal privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision to withhold the information, finding its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

However, the Officer found the Police's evidence regarding the reasonableness of their search for the gang-related records insufficient and ordered them to conduct a further search.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to withhold four records relating to his complaint against an insurance adjuster, claiming the invasion of privacy exemption under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the personal information of both the appellant and the insurance adjuster, making section 49(b) the relevant exemption.

The Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the adjuster's privacy, as the records related to a complaint challenging his professional performance.

However, because the Ministry did not provide representations on its exercise of discretion under section 49(b), the Officer ordered the Ministry to provide written representations on the factors it considered.

The appellant association submitted a freedom of information request to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) for records relating to the adoption of new beer prices.

The LCBO denied access to a one-page memorandum from the Director of Economic Policy and Planning to senior management, claiming the advice or recommendations exemption under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the memorandum was primarily factual and did not contain a suggested course of action that would ultimately be accepted or rejected.

The exemption did not apply, and the LCBO was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to three proposals submitted in response to a request for proposals for consulting services.

The City relied on the third party information exemption under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained financial, technical, and commercial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive positions of the affected parties.

The decision to withhold the records was upheld, except for portions of one proposal that the affected party consented to disclose.

The appellant requested access to resumes submitted for the positions of Regional Review Chairperson and Committee members.

The Regional Municipality denied access under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that the resumes contained employment and educational history, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(d), which could not be rebutted by public scrutiny factors.

The requesters appealed the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to records relating to investigations into allegations of fraud and elder abuse at a residential care facility.

The Police claimed the law enforcement exemption, arguing that although the original investigations were closed, a coroner's investigation into deaths at the facility resulted in the reopening of the police investigations.

The Inquiry Officer found that while a coroner's investigation itself does not qualify as a law enforcement matter, the police's authority to reinvestigate Criminal Code allegations does.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement matter and upheld the decision to deny access.

An insurance adjuster appealed the City of Toronto's decision to partially deny access to a fire department report under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the names of the building superintendent and Fire Marshall investigator, finding that information provided in a professional capacity does not qualify as personal information.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision to withhold the remaining information, concluding that it was highly sensitive personal information and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant, an exotic dancer who sustained an injury at a private event held at a facility owned by the Town of Milton, requested the name and address of the individual who rented the facility in order to pursue a civil claim.

The Town denied access under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that disclosure of the applicant's name was necessary for a fair determination of the appellant's rights under section 14(2)(d), outweighing privacy interests, but upheld the decision to withhold the address.