Laurel Cropley

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Township of Osnabruck seeking records about the official status of commercial hunting operations and site-specific rezoning procedures.

The Township provided copies of the zoning by-law and stated that no other responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional records, such as written legal advice, should exist.

The adjudicator found that the Township had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records and upheld the Township's decision.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Environment and Energy's decision that no responsive records existed for a request seeking handwritten notes taken by Ministry staff at meetings regarding the Dufferin County Waste Management Master Plan.

The Ministry provided evidence that while notes were taken, they were routinely destroyed once permanent records were published or during routine file purging.

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

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to a Transport Canada Safety Survey regarding its air fleet.

The Ministry relied on exemptions for economic interests and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the economic interests exemption did not apply, as the Ministry failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of harm.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the personal privacy exemption to portions of the records containing performance evaluations of identifiable individuals.

The public interest override was found not to apply.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services' deemed refusal to respond to a Freedom of Information request for records pertaining to a Coroner's Council preliminary investigation.

The Ministry failed to respond within the prescribed 30 days, did not request a time extension, and failed to provide a decision letter despite numerous follow-ups from the Appeals Officer.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Ministry to issue a decision letter within 15 days without recourse to a time extension.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Durham Regional Police Services Board denying access to portions of two police officers' notebooks relating to an incident involving the appellant.

The Police withheld the information under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that the withheld information contained the personal information of other individuals compiled during a law enforcement investigation, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant requested access to a police officer's notebook for a specific date.

The Police granted partial access, withholding some information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, claiming additional records existed.

During mediation, the appellant withdrew her objection to the denial of access, leaving the reasonableness of the search as the sole issue.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police had taken all reasonable steps to locate the responsive records and upheld the decision.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $64.00 provided by the Ministry of Environment and Energy for responding to a freedom of information request for a list of employees who had knowledge of the appellant's sewage system prior to 1990.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Ministry's breakdown of the estimated search time and photocopying costs and found them to be reasonable and consistent with the Regulation.

The Ministry's fee estimate was upheld.

The appellants appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to their complaints about O.P.P. officers' misconduct.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 49(a), 14(1)(g), 14(2)(a), and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that a report regarding a search of the appellants' residence qualified for the law enforcement exemption under section 14(2)(a).

The remaining records, consisting of witness statements and occurrence reports, were found to be exempt under section 49(b) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested copies of minutes from general meetings for Plant Services at the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital for the past five years.

The Ministry of Health responded that no such records exist.

The appellant appealed, claiming the records did exist.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the affidavits detailing the Ministry's search efforts and concluded that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate the responsive records.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, who was shot by a police officer, requested the address and phone number of a witness to the shooting to assist in a civil action.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access, citing the invasion of privacy exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the requested 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 21(3)(b) of the Act.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to deny access to a Special Examination Report concerning a trust company.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including the law enforcement exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the report was prepared during a special examination under section 183 of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, rather than a routine inspection under section 184.

Therefore, the report qualified for the law enforcement exemption under section 14(2)(a) and the Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

A former employee of the City of Oshawa appealed the City's decision to deny access to records relating to the position of City Manager and a forensic accounting investigation that led to the employee's termination.

The Inquiry Officer found that the internal investigation did not qualify as a 'law enforcement' matter under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, several records were found to be exempt under solicitor-client privilege, either as confidential communications or as records prepared in contemplation of litigation.

The draft by-law exemption was applied strictly to actual drafts, not to staff comments, and the advice exemption was applied only to specific suggested courses of action.

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

The requesters, who were defendants in a civil action brought by the family of a deceased individual, sought access to records filed by the family with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

The Board denied access to three records under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption for two of the records (the applications for compensation), finding they contained highly sensitive personal, medical, and financial information.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the third record (an Interim Order), finding that it was relevant to the assessment of damages in the civil action and its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The appellant appealed the Board of Education's response to a freedom of information request for computer-based files concerning her employment as an occasional teacher and union representative.

The appellant alleged that additional records should exist on computer disk.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the affidavits provided by the Board detailing its search efforts, including the review of computer diskettes and inquiries with relevant staff.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the Board's search for responsive records was reasonable in the circumstances and upheld the Board's decision.

The appellant sought access to witness statements and interview notes from a workplace harassment investigation in which he was the respondent.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission denied access under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that disclosure of the records would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the complainant and witnesses, as the records contained sensitive personal information and their disclosure could unfairly expose the individuals to harm.

The appellant requested floor plans of the Ontario Insurance Commission's storage area for mediation, arbitration, and appeals files.

The OIC denied access under the security exemption in section 14(1)(i) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that releasing the floor plans could reasonably be expected to endanger the security of a building or system established to protect sensitive personal information.

The appellant sought access to records relating to a Health Disciplines Board review of a complaint against a doctor who performed surgery on her adult daughter.

The Ministry of Health denied access to a portion of a handwritten note, citing the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the record contained highly sensitive personal information relating to the daughter's medical treatment, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Environment and Energy for records relating to the Alexandria Landfill site.

The Ministry disclosed responsive records, but the appellant appealed, arguing that more records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the affidavits of Ministry staff detailing their search efforts and concluded that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The Ministry received a request for information relating to the requester's appointment to a Police Services Board.

The Ministry initially withheld portions of a record but later decided to grant full access.

An affected person appealed the decision to disclose, arguing the record contained his personal information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the affected person's comments were provided in a professional capacity and did not constitute his personal information.

The Ministry's decision to release the record was upheld.

The requester appealed a decision of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to a Crown Brief on the basis that the record did not exist.

The sole issue was whether the Police conducted a reasonable search.

The Inquiry Officer accepted the affidavit evidence of the Police detailing their search efforts across multiple divisions and offices, concluding that the search was reasonable despite the record not being located.

The decision of the Police was upheld.