Laurel Cropley

The appellant requested access to information in a Family Support Plan case file.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to several records, citing exemptions for invasion of privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained highly sensitive personal information of other individuals, including financial and employment history, the disclosure of which would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant requested access to his Family Support Plan case file from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The Ministry denied access to certain records, claiming exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including section 49(b) (unjustified invasion of personal privacy).

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained highly sensitive personal and financial information of other individuals supplied in confidence, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of their privacy.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for police records relating to a motor vehicle accident in which her husband was killed.

The Ministry denied access, citing law enforcement, right to a fair trial, and invasion of privacy exemptions.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while some portions of the records contained personal information of other individuals and were exempt from disclosure under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Ministry failed to establish that disclosure of the remaining information would interfere with a law enforcement matter or deprive a person of a fair trial under section 14(1).

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

The appellant, an unsuccessful candidate in a job competition, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to the interview scores of the other candidates.

The Inquiry Officer found that the scores constituted personal information and that their disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as they were subject to the presumption against disclosure for personnel evaluations in section 21(3)(g).

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for correspondence and a financial audit regarding a Community Resource Centre.

The Ministry located some records but the appellant appealed, arguing that more records should exist, specifically a letter from June 1994.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Ministry's representations and an affidavit from the program co-ordinator detailing the search efforts.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of Health pertaining to a housing project for adults with physical disabilities.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, economic interests, and third party information.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner reviewed the records and found that only a small portion qualified for exemption under section 17(1) as third party information, and certain pages qualified under section 13(1) as advice or recommendations.

The Ministry failed to establish that section 18(1)(e) applied to any of the records.

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

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board that no records existed pertaining to a tape-recorded interview from 1986.

The appellant claimed to have observed the police officers taping his interview.

The Police conducted a search and contacted the officers involved, who indicated that a reel-to-reel recorder was never in use during the investigation.

The Inquiry Officer found that the efforts made by the Police to locate the requested records were reasonable and upheld the decision.

A union and its President appealed Ontario Hydro's decision to deny access to the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of approximately 40,000 members of the Pension and Insurance Fund of Ontario Hydro.

The appellants sought the information to communicate with members regarding the administration of the Pension Plan and ongoing litigation.

The Inquiry Officer found that the requested records contained personal information 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, as the employees had a reasonable expectation of confidentiality.

The appeal was dismissed and Ontario Hydro's decision was upheld.

The appellant, a former member of Council, appealed the Township of Osprey's decision to deny access to its 1994 monthly telephone bills.

The Township claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for invasion of privacy and third party information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the telephone numbers did not constitute personal information and that the billing information was not supplied in confidence by third parties.

The Township was ordered to disclose the records in their entirety.

The appellant appealed the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's decision to deny access to two draft letters under the advice or recommendations exemption in section 7(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that Record 1, a covering letter, did not contain advice or recommendations and ordered its disclosure.

Record 2, a draft letter reflecting a suggested course of action, was found to qualify for the exemption and was withheld.

An insurance company appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to records relating to a fire investigation.

The police claimed the records were exempt under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The insurance company argued the records were necessary to defend a civil action brought by the affected person.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the police decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption against disclosure, and that the public interest override did not apply to a private litigation interest.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission for all costs incurred in relation to a lockout.

The Commission disclosed aggregate figures for two parts of the request but withheld the total contract expenses paid to an outside security firm, claiming the third party information exemption under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Commission improperly narrowed the scope of the request to only aggregate figures and ordered it to issue a new decision regarding detailed cost records.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the total contract amount was not exempt under section 17(1) because it was negotiated rather than supplied, and there was insufficient evidence of harm, ordering its disclosure.

The appellant sought access to records concerning the costs and investigation of two named individuals.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access, claiming exemptions under sections 13(1), 14(1)(a), 14(1)(f), and 14(2)(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records did not qualify for exemption under sections 13(1), 14(1)(a), or 14(1)(f), as they contained purely factual information and the Ministry failed to establish a reasonable expectation of harm to a fair trial or law enforcement matter.

However, portions of the records containing detailed information about the supervision of an individual in custody were found to be exempt under section 14(2)(d).

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

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records concerning the investigation and prosecution of two named individuals.

The records included Critical Issue Sheets and cost information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Critical Issue Sheets were exempt under solicitor-client privilege.

However, the Ministry failed to establish that disclosure of the cost information could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or deprive a person of the right to a fair trial.

The exact salaries of three lawyers were found to be exempt as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

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

The appellant sought access to records held by the Ministry of the Attorney General pertaining to two named individuals.

The Ministry denied access to 37 records, claiming exemptions for advice and recommendations, law enforcement, right to a fair trial, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that portions of the records contained personal information and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy, upholding the exemption in part.

However, the Inquiry Officer rejected the Ministry's claims for advice and recommendations and solicitor-client privilege, ordering the disclosure of the remaining records.

The appellant requested the name of the government official who referred the payment of his fine to a debt collection agency.

The Ministry of the Attorney General indicated that no such record exists because the referral was generated automatically by a computer program (ICON) without human input.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search for responsive records was reasonable and upheld the decision that no responsive records exist.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision denying access to records relating to a court action.

The Inquiry Officer found that records contained in a court file are not in the custody or control of the Ministry and are therefore not subject to the Act.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Ministry conducted a reasonable search for responsive records outside the court file.

The Ministry was ordered to provide a new decision regarding one part of the request where it had not previously communicated its search results to the appellant.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision denying access to an 'Information' regarding an assault charge.

The Ministry claimed the document was a court record not in its custody or control.

The Inquiry Officer found that the courts are not institutions under the Act and that the Ministry's administrative possession of court files does not amount to custody or control.

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

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested access to records relating to an OPP investigation in which he was the complainant, specifically seeking the Crown brief and witness statements.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access, citing several exemptions including solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the Crown brief and a related letter from Crown counsel were prepared in contemplation of litigation and thus exempt under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) and section 49(a) (discretion to refuse requester's own information) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Transportation regarding a freedom of information request for a draft letter dated January 27, 1995.

The Ministry provided partial access to the finalized February 3 memorandum but stated the draft no longer existed.

The sole issue was whether the Ministry conducted a reasonable search for the draft record.

Based on affidavits from the Director and the Consultant confirming the draft was destroyed after the final version was completed, the Inquiry Officer found the search was reasonable and upheld the Ministry's decision.