Laurel Cropley

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission denying access to records relating to his human rights complaints.

The Commission claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for law enforcement, advice or recommendations, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were exempt under the law enforcement and advice or recommendations exemptions, while others did not qualify and were ordered disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Commission conducted a reasonable search for records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to parts of records relating to a power of attorney she holds for a named individual.

The Ministry relied on the advice or recommendations and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that a memorandum qualified for exemption as advice or recommendations under section 13(1) and section 49(a).

The Inquiry Officer also found that disclosure of an occupation therapy consultation report and a request for investigation would constitute an unjustified invasion of the named individual's personal privacy under section 49(b).

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to forward a freedom of information request to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board.

The request sought information in Crown files pertaining to a charge against two named individuals.

The Ministry determined it no longer had custody of the records, as the Crown Brief had been returned to the Police upon completion of the matter.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that it was obliged to forward the request to the Police under section 25(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant requested access to information relating to dispute resolution procedures and training materials from the Ministry of Finance.

The Ministry granted access but provided a fee estimate of $72.10.

The appellant requested a fee waiver based on financial hardship, which the Ministry denied.

The appellant appealed the denial.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a claim for a fee waiver based on financial hardship.

However, since the appellant indicated he no longer wanted a copy of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, the Ministry was ordered to amend its fee estimate to exclude the cost of providing that document.

The Ministry's decision not to grant a fee waiver was otherwise upheld.

The appellant requested access to various documents relating to an incident and subsequent events from the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Municipality granted partial access, withholding some records as non-responsive and claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations and invasion of privacy.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that several records were non-responsive.

For the responsive records, the Officer determined that highly sensitive personal information of other individuals was exempt from disclosure under section 38(b) as an unjustified invasion of privacy.

However, other personal information was ordered disclosed.

The Officer also rejected the Municipality's claim that a record was exempt under section 38(a) and section 7(1), finding it contained factual observations rather than advice or recommendations.

The Municipality was ordered to issue a new decision for certain responsive records and disclose the non-exempt information.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Finance for records within the Ontario Insurance Commission.

After receiving the records, the appellant appealed, claiming two investigative reports were missing.

The Ministry provided affidavits explaining that such reports are typically returned to the insurer and not retained in the mediation file, and confirmed the reports were not in their possession.

The Inquiry Officer found the Ministry's search to be reasonable and upheld the decision.

The Ministry of Health failed to respond to six freedom of information requests within the 30-day time limit, resulting in deemed refusals.

The Ministry subsequently claimed time extensions, citing voluminous records and limited resources.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to provide sufficient evidence that the time extensions were reasonably invoked, noting that the Ministry had compromised the integrity of the access process by claiming extensions four weeks after decisions should have been issued.

The Ministry was ordered to issue final decisions by a specified date and was prohibited from charging processing fees other than photocopying charges.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to the denial and subsequent reversal of his re-appointment to a Police Services Board.

The appellant argued that more records should exist and that severed portions of a record were responsive.

The Inquiry Officer found that the severed portions did not relate to the appellant and were not responsive.

The Inquiry Officer also concluded that the Ministry's search for responsive records was reasonable, as the appointments were political and there was no requirement to document the decisions.

The appellant sought access to police records relating to the death of her husband.

In an interim order, the Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the personal information of both the appellant and the deceased, requiring analysis under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and directed the Police to provide representations on their exercise of discretion.

The Police refused, maintaining that section 14 applied and declining to exercise discretion under section 38(b).

The Inquiry Officer held that the Police could not forestall a decision by refusing to respond, conducted an independent review, and ordered the disclosure of the records, finding that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant submitted a multi-part request to the Ministry of Health for access to his personal information located at a psychiatric hospital.

The Ministry located 51 responsive records but advised that no documents were found relating to several parts of the request.

The appellant appealed, arguing more records should exist based on a previous human rights complaint.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to contact the specific employee who provided information to the human rights investigator, and therefore did not conduct a reasonable search.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct a further search.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of the Attorney General's Family Support Plan office relating to a payment dispute with her ex-husband.

The Ministry denied access to 17 pages, citing solicitor-client privilege and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the withheld information was either highly sensitive personal information of the ex-husband or protected by solicitor-client privilege.

However, portions of a log indicating dates of correspondence were ordered disclosed as they were neither highly sensitive nor confidential.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services relating to his appointment and subsequent denial of re-appointment to a Police Services Board.

After the Ministry granted access to located records, the appellant claimed more records should exist, specifically facsimiles containing feedback about him.

The Ministry conducted further searches and located no additional records in the disputed areas.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search for responsive records was reasonable and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant, representing a pharmacists' association, appealed the Ministry of Health's claim that no records existed in response to a request for documentation on savings achieved in pharmacy fees under Social Contract legislation.

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

The Inquiry Officer reviewed affidavits from Ministry staff detailing searches in the Drug Programs Branch and the Negotiations Secretariat.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the Ministry's search was reasonable and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant, counsel for the respondents in a human rights complaint, submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Human Rights Commission seeking records relating to the transfer of the complaint investigation to a special task force.

The Commission denied access to several records, citing exemptions for invasion of privacy, advice or recommendations, and law enforcement.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the invasion of privacy exemption for most records, finding they contained personal information of the complainant and an employee.

The advice or recommendations exemption was upheld for a case disposition sheet.

The law enforcement exemption was not established.

The Commission was ordered to disclose one sentence from an internal transfer memo.

The appellant, a former employee, requested copies of all records containing her personal information related to her grievance proceedings.

The Municipality denied access, relying on solicitor-client privilege and litigation privilege.

The Inquiry Officer found that the majority of the records were prepared by counsel for use in litigation and were therefore exempt.

However, four pages relating to the access request itself were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant, an employee of the Literacy Branch, appealed the Ministry of Education and Training's decision to deny access to an internal audit report regarding conflict of interest allegations.

The Ministry relied on several exemptions, including the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the report contained the personal information of the appellant and other identifiable individuals.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure of the information would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as it related to employment history and was highly sensitive.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Education and Training's decision to deny access to an internal audit report regarding conflict of interest allegations against individuals in the Literacy Branch.

The Ministry relied on several exemptions, including the invasion of privacy exemption under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information of identifiable individuals, primarily Ministry employees subject to the investigation.

As no factors favouring disclosure or a compelling public interest override were established, the record was found to be entirely exempt under section 21(1).

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Health for records relating to a hospital redevelopment project.

The Ministry located 20 responsive records.

The appellant appealed, arguing that more records should exist and that he should be permitted to review the Ministry's files to determine responsiveness himself.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the search was reasonable and conducted by experienced employees, and that the Act does not permit requesters to independently review an institution's records to assess responsiveness.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's response to a freedom of information request for personal information relating to his dealings with the Sudbury Small Claims Court.

The appellant argued that more records should exist, including unrecorded personal opinions of court staff.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Act only applies to recorded information and does not require the creation of records.

The Officer concluded that the Ministry had conducted a reasonable search and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant, the mother of a missing person, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to police occurrence reports and witness statements relating to the OPP investigation into her son's disappearance.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under the invasion of privacy provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that certain requested reports either did not exist or had been destroyed pursuant to retention schedules.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the Ministry conducted a reasonable search for the records and that the withheld information was compiled during a law enforcement investigation, making its disclosure an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.