Laurel Cropley

The appellant, a former employee of a service provider for the Ontario Lottery Corporation (OLC), appealed the OLC's access decision, arguing that additional records pertaining to his dismissal should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the OLC's search for records in the Network Administrator's office and for a specific tape recording was reasonable.

However, the search was found to be unreasonable regarding other potential records, such as written notes of phone conversations with the OLC 'Hotline'.

The OLC was ordered to conduct a further search for these specific records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of an operational review report of the Thistletown Regional Centre.

The Ministry claimed the records contained personal information regarding allegations of sexual harassment, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

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

The Officer also found that while some portions contained highly sensitive personal information exempt under section 21(1), other portions reflecting management's approach to the allegations did not contain personal information and must be disclosed.

The appeal was partially granted.

A company appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board to deny access to portions of a police investigation file concerning an employee suspected of fraud.

The company argued that a supervisor involved in the matter had implicitly consented to disclosure by initiating civil litigation against the company.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner rejected this argument, finding that civil discovery and freedom of information operate under different schemes.

The Commissioner upheld the Police's decision to withhold most of the records, as they contained personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation, the disclosure of which is presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

Minor portions not containing personal information were ordered disclosed.

The appellant, an instructor at the College, requested access to records relating to a harassment investigation conducted against him.

The College denied access to portions of the interviewers' notes, citing exemptions for solicitor-client privilege, danger to safety or health, and invasion of privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the College's decision to withhold witness names and identifying information to protect personal privacy, as well as one page subject to solicitor-client privilege.

However, the Commissioner ordered the disclosure of notes relating to the substance of the complaint, finding that the appellant's right to adequate disclosure outweighed privacy concerns.

The appellant submitted requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for his and his wife's employment and General Welfare Assistance files.

The County failed to provide a written access decision for the first request and completely ignored the second request, resulting in a deemed refusal.

The appellant also complained that the copies provided were illegible.

The Inquiry Officer issued an interim order requiring the County to provide a proper decision letter in accordance with the Act and urged the County to provide legible copies or allow the appellant to examine the original records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision that no records existed regarding the results of a dye test related to an environmental prosecution.

The Ministry provided an affidavit from the Prosecution Officer confirming that the premises were inaccessible and no dye test was conducted.

The Inquiry Officer found the Ministry's search for responsive records to be reasonable and denied the appeal.

A newspaper reporter requested records from the Ministry of the Attorney General relating to an anti-racism training course for provincial prosecutors.

The Ministry denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, third party information, and personal privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered partial disclosure, finding that some records did not qualify as advice or recommendations, the third party information was not supplied in confidence, and disclosure of certain personal information would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

A public body appealed the decision of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board to deny access to portions of a sudden death report concerning an individual who died on the public body's property.

The Police claimed the withheld information was exempt under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information, including a police code, was responsive to the request and qualified as personal information.

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

The requester appealed the City of Kingston's decision to deny access to a portion of their general welfare assistance file under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The withheld information consisted of notes identifying a confidential informant who provided information leading to an investigation of the requester's eligibility for social assistance.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City was not required to notify the informant under section 21, as it did not intend to disclose the information.

Furthermore, the Inquiry Officer held that the information was exempt from disclosure under sections 8(1)(d) and 38(a) because it related to a law enforcement matter and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal the identity of a confidential source.

The City's decision was upheld.

The requester made 36 separate access requests to the Town of Penetanguishene under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Town claimed a 213-day time extension for each request, arguing that the volume of requests would unreasonably interfere with its operations, and further alleged that the requester's actions constituted an abuse of process.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the requester's conduct did not amount to an abuse of process.

The Commissioner also held that section 20(1)(a) of the Act requires each request to be considered separately, and that the Town could not rely on the cumulative effect of multiple requests to justify a time extension.

The Town was ordered to issue access decisions within 30 days.

The requester sought access to records relating to dock work completed by the appellant.

The Ministry of Natural Resources granted partial access, withholding some personal information under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant objected to the disclosure of the remaining records, arguing they were exempt under section 17(1) (third party information).

The Inquiry Officer found that the information was not supplied in confidence and did not meet the test for exemption under section 17(1).

However, the Inquiry Officer found that some of the records contained personal information whose disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 21(1), and ordered those portions withheld.

The Ministry's decision to disclose the remaining records was upheld.

The appellant appealed the City of Orillia's decision to deny access to a severance agreement between the City and its former Fire Chief.

The City claimed the record was exempt under the closed meeting exemption in section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the agreement was considered and approved during in camera meetings of the Committee of the Whole Council, which were properly closed to the public under the Municipal Act.

Consequently, disclosure would reveal the substance of the Committee's deliberations.

The public interest override in section 16 does not apply to section 6.

The City's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Finance regarding an access to information request for documents related to a transfer of shares and a cheque payment.

The Ministry claimed no further responsive records existed.

The sole issue was whether the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry took reasonable steps to locate responsive records by reviewing the relevant Ontario Securities Commission and Registration files.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to portions of records concerning the Consumer/Survivor Development Initiative and to charge a fee of $522.50.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 17(1) (third party information) and 21(1) (invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the third parties' banking information, finding that the section 17(1) exemption did not apply.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold personal information, including salaries and home addresses, under section 21(1).

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

The requester appealed the College's decision to deny access to a letter requesting a psychiatric assessment of the requester.

The College claimed the record was exempt under the solicitor-client privilege and the discretion to refuse a requester's own information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the letter was prepared at the request of the College's legal counsel for a litigation brief regarding ongoing and contemplated litigation with the requester.

The record was therefore exempt under sections 19 and 49(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and the College's decision was upheld.

The appellant, a former employee of the Toronto Board of Education, sought access to records relating to her sexual harassment complaint and the subsequent investigation.

The Board denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, third party information, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that records held by independent consultants were not in the Board's custody or control.

The Officer ordered the disclosure of the complaint summary and portions of the Fact-Finder's report that did not identify witnesses, finding that the appellant's interest in adequate disclosure outweighed privacy concerns.

The Board's search for records was deemed reasonable.

The Township of Roxborough received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a detailed statement of severance payments made to two former employees.

One former employee objected to the disclosure, arguing it would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Township decided to grant access, and the former employee appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that while some specific salary information constituted a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy and was exempt, the remaining information in the severance agreement was subject to disclosure due to the public interest in scrutinizing the expenditure of public funds and ensuring public confidence in the institution.

The appellants requested records from the school board regarding the decision to withdraw their child's Educational Assistant and a suggestion to transfer the child to another school.

The Board provided some records, but the appellants appealed, arguing more should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found the Board's search regarding the transfer suggestion was reasonable, as it was merely a verbal suggestion.

However, regarding the Educational Assistant, the Officer ordered the Board to conduct a further search for records used to place the student in a lower needs category and to issue an access decision for those records and five newly discovered records.

The appellant appealed the Board of Education's decision that no records existed responsive to a request for reports of discussions or meetings between Board employees and union officials regarding grievance matters.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Board's representations, which included an affidavit from the Manager of Employee Relations detailing the search efforts.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's search for records was reasonable and denied the appeal.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to a one-page memorandum signed by seven individuals, which the appellant believed contained allegations about her.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained highly sensitive personal information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected persons' personal privacy.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.