Laurel Cropley

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to an incident involving contraband drugs and ammunition at a detention facility.

The Inquiry Officer found that several records contained personal information and were exempt under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer also upheld the application of the advice and recommendations exemption under section 13(1) for certain documents.

However, the Officer rejected the Ministry's claim that disclosure would jeopardize facility security or facilitate escape under sections 14(1)(j) and (k).

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

The appellant requested records relating to the police investigation of a fatal motor vehicle accident involving their child.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access to portions of the records, citing personal privacy exemptions.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant requested records relating to a police professional standards branch file and a complaint to the Police Complaints Commissioner.

The Police disclosed some records but denied access to others, citing various exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld records contained personal information and that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other individuals under section 38(b).

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the application of section 15(a) to a publicly available court transcript and section 38(a) to the appellant's own personal information.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The requester appealed the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board's decision to deny access to portions of records relating to their arrest and incarceration.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information constituted personal information.

The Officer upheld the application of the section 38(b) personal privacy exemption for information relating to other individuals, as it was compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

However, the Officer ordered the disclosure of a psychiatric assessment report relating solely to the requester, finding that the Police failed to establish that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the requester's health under section 38(d).

The appellant requested access to police records relating to the death of his wife.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denied access, citing personal privacy exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled during an investigation into a possible violation of law, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

A requester sought access to records relating to a company's applications to relocate its laboratory and specimen collection centres.

The Ministry of Health decided to disclose the records, and the company appealed, claiming exemptions under section 17 (third party information) and section 21 (personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that information revealing proposed locations and the company's status was supplied in confidence and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause competitive harm, thus qualifying for exemption under section 17(1).

Additionally, prior work experience of an employee in one record was found to be personal information exempt under section 21.

The Ministry was ordered to withhold the exempt portions and disclose the remainder.

The requester appealed a decision of the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, which claimed that no records responsive to a request for written notes and memos from a specific date existed.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police's search, which included checking the named officer's notebook, was reasonable in the circumstances and upheld the Police's decision.

The appellant requested access to an inventory of all computer equipment and fax machines owned or operated by the Ministry of Natural Resources.

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

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the Ministry established a clear and direct linkage between the disclosure of the specific information and the alleged harm, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the security of a building or a system.

The County of Hastings received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a copy of a proposal submitted by a consulting firm, including references.

The County granted partial access, withholding the references under section 14(1).

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the names, titles, addresses, and telephone numbers of the references constituted their personal information under section 2(1).

The Officer further concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, and upheld the County's decision to deny access under section 14(1).

The appellants sought access to the name of an individual who complained to the Ministry of Community and Social Services that an unlicensed day nursery was being operated on the appellants' premises.

The Ministry denied access to the complainant's name and telephone number under the personal privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Day Nurseries Act, and its disclosure is presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant appealed the College's response to a freedom of information request.

In an interim order, the Inquiry Officer ordered the College to conduct a further search for responsive records and provide detailed affidavits.

The College submitted three affidavits detailing the searches conducted and explaining the file maintenance practices.

The Inquiry Officer found that the College had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records and concluded that the search was reasonable.

The appellants submitted requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records containing their personal information.

The City responded that it had no such files, relying on a previous search conducted for a different request relating to a specific property address.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City's reliance on the previous search was unreasonable because it failed to specifically search for 'personal information' as defined in the Act.

The City was ordered to conduct a further search and issue a new decision letter.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs received a freedom of information request for records relating to an investigation into the Township of Arthur.

The Ministry denied access to certain records, claiming they contained personal information.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the records, which consisted of observations and notes submitted by municipal councillors, were provided in their professional capacities and did not constitute their personal information.

However, some specific references to identifiable individuals in the community were found to be personal information and were ordered severed before disclosure.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Metropolitan Separate School Board for a specific 'Ministry confirmation' referenced in a previous letter.

The Board provided an internal memorandum summarizing a conversation with Ministry counsel and a subsequent letter from that counsel confirming the memorandum's accuracy.

The appellant appealed, arguing the records were not responsive and the Board should have stated no records exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records provided were fully responsive to the request as they represented the confirmation the Board had referred to, and upheld the Board's decision.

The appellant requested a security guard's report and a list of dates their personal file was accessed from Sheridan College.

The College provided one report but claimed no other report existed and that it did not track file access dates.

The appellant appealed, arguing the search was inadequate.

The Inquiry Officer found that the College failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as detailed affidavits from the employees who conducted the search, to prove it had conducted a reasonable search.

The College was ordered to conduct a further search and provide detailed affidavits.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Metropolitan Separate School Board for records relating to meetings conducted on external premises and the associated expenses.

After receiving a fee estimate, the appellant narrowed the request to view specific accounts.

The appellant subsequently appealed, arguing that the records provided contained accounting inconsistencies and that further records must exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant's concerns related to accounting accuracy rather than the existence of additional records, and concluded that the Board's search for responsive records was reasonable.