Laurel Cropley

A requester sought access to a company's application for a Certificate of Approval to operate a soil recycling facility and the related Ministry file.

The Ministry decided to grant full access to the records.

The company appealed the decision, arguing the records contained exempt third party information under sections 17(1)(a) and (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the company failed to establish a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure, as required by the third part of the exemption test.

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

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for records indicating that the Ontario Provincial Police Anti-Rackets Branch was unaware of investigations by other police agencies.

The Ministry responded that no such records existed.

The appellant appealed, challenging the reasonableness of the search.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the Ministry had conducted a reasonable search by knowledgeable staff in locations where the records might reasonably be located.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for documents referred to in a previous letter to a Crown Attorney.

The Ministry responded that it did not have custody or control of the requested documents.

On appeal, the sole issue was whether the Ministry conducted a reasonable search.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed an affidavit from the Crown Attorney detailing the search of the relevant file and the background of the matter.

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

The appellant appealed a decision by the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board denying access to records relating to his placement in a witness protection program.

The Police claimed no responsive records existed in their custody and transferred the request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police took all reasonable steps to locate the records, including contacting the OPP who confirmed custody of the documents, and upheld the Police's decision.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board regarding a freedom of information request.

In a previous interim order, the Police were ordered to conduct a further search for responsive records relating to specific groups and provide a detailed affidavit.

The Police provided an affidavit from a detective in the Intelligence Services Unit detailing the search steps, retention practices, and explaining that the specified groups did not qualify for inclusion in the intelligence data bank.

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

The appellant requested records from the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto regarding WCB claims related to video display terminals (VDTs).

The Municipality provided a fee estimate and the appellant requested a fee waiver under section 45(4)(c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing dissemination would benefit public health or safety.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Municipality's decision not to waive the fees, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate that disseminating the records would yield a public benefit or contribute meaningfully to the understanding of the issue.

The appellant requested records from the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto regarding union staff granted leave without pay.

The Municipality provided a fee estimate and the appellant requested a fee waiver, arguing that dissemination of the records would benefit public health or safety under section 45(4)(c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer applied the four-factor test from Order P-474 and found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that dissemination would benefit public health or safety.

The Municipality's decision not to waive the fees was upheld.

The appellant requested a fee waiver for records relating to involuntary terminations of union and management staff.

The Municipality denied the fee waiver.

The appellant appealed, arguing that dissemination of the records would benefit public health or safety.

The Inquiry Officer found insufficient evidence to demonstrate a benefit to public health or safety and upheld the Municipality's decision not to waive the fees.

The appellant requested records relating to an unsuccessful job competition with the Ministry of Health.

The Ministry withheld interview notes, reference checks, and a scoring summary sheet, claiming exemptions for personal information and evaluative material.

The Inquiry Officer found that the interviewers' notes and names were provided in a professional capacity and did not qualify as their personal information, ordering their disclosure.

One reference check was ordered disclosed with consent, while the other was found to meet the four-part test for exemption under section 49(c) as evaluative material provided in confidence.

A requester sought records from the Ministry of Environment and Energy relating to a recycling company.

The Ministry decided to grant partial access, and the company appealed, arguing the records contained confidential commercial information exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while some records contained commercial information, the company failed to establish that the information was supplied to the Ministry in confidence.

The appeal was dismissed and the Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision that no responsive records existed regarding a 1986 incident involving criminal charges against his former landlady.

The Ministry provided evidence that the Crown Brief had been returned to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board and subsequently shredded in accordance with their seven-year retention schedule.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had conducted a reasonable search and upheld the decision.

L'appelant, un employé de la Direction de l'alphabétisation, a demandé l'accès à un mémorandum contenant des allégations de conflit d'intérêts.

Le Ministère du Procureur général a refusé l'accès en invoquant plusieurs exceptions.

La responsable de l'enquête a conclu que le document contenait des renseignements personnels d'autres employés et que sa divulgation constituerait une atteinte injustifiée à leur vie privée en vertu de l'article 49(b) de la Loi sur l'accès à l'information et la protection de la vie privée.

La décision du Ministère a été maintenue.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to a 13-page memorandum containing allegations of conflict of interest against employees of the Literacy Branch of the Ministry of Education and Training.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13(1), 19, and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the memorandum contained personal information of individuals other than the appellant, relating to their performance and conduct.

The adjudicator concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1), as the information was highly sensitive and supplied in confidence.

The public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of Health relating to complaints of physical or sexual abuse by staff at a psychiatric facility.

The Ministry proposed to grant partial access but refused to waive the $147 fee.

The appellant appealed the fee waiver refusal, arguing that dissemination of the records would benefit public health or safety.

The Inquiry Officer applied a four-factor test and found that the records related directly to a public health and safety issue concerning vulnerable institutionalized patients, and that dissemination would yield a public benefit.

The Ministry was ordered to waive the fee.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's deemed refusal to provide access to requested records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry failed to respond within the 30-day statutory timeframe and did not request a time extension.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to comply with sections 26 and 28(7) of the Act and ordered the Ministry to issue a decision letter within 14 days.

The appellant appealed the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board's decision that no responsive records existed regarding his request for intelligence squad files.

The appellant, a political activist, suggested specific areas to search, such as 'Red Squad' and 'Anti-war Demonstrators'.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as detailed affidavits, to demonstrate that a reasonable search was conducted.

The Police were ordered to conduct a further search focusing on the areas identified by the appellant and to provide detailed affidavits explaining their search process and retention schedules.

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

The Police denied access to portions of the records and photographs, citing personal privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant could not exercise her deceased husband's right of access because her request did not relate to the administration of his estate.

The Officer upheld the Police's decision to withhold records containing only the deceased's personal information under section 14(1), as they were compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

For records containing both the appellant's and the deceased's information, the Officer ordered disclosure of the appellant's information and required the Police to provide representations on their exercise of discretion under section 38(b) for the remaining portions.

The appellant requested access to the successful bid relating to a request for proposals for press clipping and media monitoring services.

The Ministry of Environment and Energy denied access to portions of the proposal submitted by Mediascan Canada Inc., relying on 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 withheld information, which included unique procedures, cost estimates, and client references, met the three-part test for exemption as its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice Mediascan's competitive position.

The Ministry's decision was upheld, except for one appendix which Mediascan consented to disclose.

The appellant requested records from the Public Complaints Commissioner relating to complaints against several police officers.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board granted partial access, withholding information under the invasion of privacy and published information exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that disclosure of certain portions of the appellant's statements and record of arrest would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy and ordered their disclosure.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the exemptions for the remaining records, including court transcripts, but ordered the Police to advise the appellant of the location where the transcripts could be obtained.

The appellant requested records from the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board relating to his arrest, specifically the information supplied to a justice of the peace to support an arrest warrant.

The Police withheld portions of two supplementary reports under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that the withheld information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy.

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