Laurel Cropley

The appellant requested the complete police file regarding a fire in which her father died.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denied access to parts of a Homicide and Sudden Death Report and a Supplementary Report, citing exemptions for facilitating the commission of an unlawful act and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police failed to justify the section 8 exemption but upheld the section 14(1) exemption for personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The Police were ordered to disclose portions of the records that did not contain personal information.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board to deny access to parts of her personal information contained in police records.

The Police withheld information relating to other individuals under the invasion of privacy exemption, and information from the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) under the relations with other governments exemption.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that the disclosure of the other individuals' personal information would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy as it was compiled during a law enforcement investigation, and that the CPIC information was received in confidence from the RCMP.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $5,790 issued by the Halton Board of Education for processing a freedom of information request for records relating to a publication.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Board's calculation of search, preparation, and photocopying charges.

The Officer disallowed charges for search time and certain preparation tasks, and corrected the photocopying rate.

The final allowable fee was reduced to $3,480.

The appellant appealed a decision denying access to a letter written by the Deputy Chief of Police to the Marathon Police Services Board regarding the appellant's potential hiring.

The Town of Marathon claimed the record was exempt under the closed meeting exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board had the authority to hold an in camera meeting, the meeting took place in camera, and disclosure of the letter would reveal the substance of the deliberations.

The exception for matters considered in a public meeting did not apply.

The Town's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Halton Board of Education regarding an access request for her personal information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The sole issue was whether further responsive records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that a submission to the Standing Committee contained only statistical data and was not responsive.

Based on affidavits detailing the search efforts, the Inquiry Officer concluded the Board conducted a reasonable search and upheld the Board's decision.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Environment and Energy for records relating to the investigation and prosecution of the appellant concerning a private sewage system.

The Ministry responded that records responsive to three parts of the request did not exist.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer reviewed sworn affidavits from the Ministry detailing the search efforts.

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

The appellant requested a copy of an annual examination report relating to a named credit union from the Ministry of Finance.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained financial and commercial information supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of the credit union.

The record was held to be exempt under section 17(1), and the Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to charges against his son, alleged threats against witnesses, and allegations against his other son.

The Ministry granted partial access to some records but claimed no records existed for the other parts of the request.

The appellant appealed, arguing more records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search was not reasonable, as it only searched the personal files of one Assistant Crown Attorney and failed to contact another prosecutor or search other locations.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct a further search and issue a decision letter for additional records located at the police department.

The appellant, representing the Canadian Union of Public Employees, appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to withhold portions of an ambulance service's budget report under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed the severed information, which included detailed budget figures and call volumes, was exempt as third party information under section 17.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information was financial and commercial, supplied in confidence, and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the ambulance service's competitive position and labour negotiations.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to internal complaint investigations under the Police Services Act.

The Ministry relied on the invasion of privacy and law enforcement exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the personal 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 Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry's decision to deny access under section 49(b) was upheld.

The appellant, an accounting firm, appealed the Ministry of Health's decision regarding a request for records relating to the calculation of a 'utilization discount' applied to its client's revenue.

The appellant argued that the Ministry's search for records was incomplete.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search for audit reports was reasonable, but its search for records relating to physician referrals was not.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct a further search for the physician referral records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board seeking records to confirm whether he was under police surveillance.

The Police refused to confirm or deny the existence of such records under section 8(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that if such records existed, they would qualify for exemption under section 8(1)(a) as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter, and that confirming their existence or non-existence would communicate exempt information.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of Environment and Energy relating to a recycling company.

The Ministry granted partial access, withholding portions of three records under the third party information exemption in section 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the severances and claimed that the Ministry failed to conduct a reasonable search for additional records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the severed information met the three-part test for exemption under section 17(1) and that the Ministry had conducted a reasonable search.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to portions of records relating to a refusal to consent to prosecute a gas company.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the records qualified for exemption under section 19 as they were prepared by Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice.

However, two pages did not qualify under either section 19 or 13(1) and were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Finance to deny access to records relating to the Pension Benefits Act.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under section 17(1) (third party information) and section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third party information exemption did not apply to the remaining portions of Record 13 and ordered them disclosed.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to Records 1 through 12 and other portions of Record 13, finding they were prepared by Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice and were exempt under section 19.

The public interest override in section 23 was found not to apply to section 19 exemptions.

The appellant requested access to records concerning renovations made to a specific residential property.

The City of York denied access, citing the personal information exemption under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the names, addresses, and telephone numbers on the building permits and applications constituted personal information and were exempt from disclosure as their release would be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

However, the remaining technical information and drawings did not qualify as personal information and were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board for information relating to police computer systems, radio frequencies, and equipment inventories.

The Police refused to confirm or deny the existence of records relating to an alleged computer system transmission failure under section 8(3), and denied access to the remaining items under section 8(1).

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that confirming the existence of the transmission failure records would communicate exempt information, and that disclosure of the radio frequency and computer service information could reasonably be expected to facilitate the commission of an unlawful act or hamper the control of crime.

The appellant sought access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to records relating to a sexual harassment complaint made against her, including witness interview notes and correspondence from the complainant's solicitor.

The Ministry denied access to these specific records under section 49(b), citing the protection of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the witness statements were highly sensitive and supplied in confidence, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the other individuals involved.

The appellant submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of the Attorney General for court records dating from 1953 and 1954.

The Ministry conducted searches and determined that no responsive records existed in its custody or control, having transferred older records to the Archives of Ontario.

The appellant appealed, arguing the search was inadequate.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the Ministry had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate it made a reasonable effort to identify and locate the requested records.

The requester appealed a decision by the Durham Regional Police Services Board denying access to portions of police records relating to an incident involving the requester.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information qualified as personal information of the requester and other identifiable individuals.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the presumption of an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) applied, as the information was compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

The decision of the Police to withhold the records under section 38(b) was upheld, with the exception of two lines inadvertently withheld.