Laurel Cropley

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Human Rights Commission regarding an access to information request for his human rights complaint file.

The appellant alleged that certain records were missing from the file and questioned the reasonableness of the Commission's search.

The Adjudicator found that the Commission had made reasonable efforts to identify and locate the requested records, noting that the file had been searched multiple times by a knowledgeable employee.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Municipality of Clarington for records relating to the passage of an adult entertainment by-law.

The Municipality granted access to most records but withheld a 20-page draft by-law under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The appellant appealed, arguing that privilege was waived because the draft was circulated among municipal officers and council.

The adjudicator found that the draft by-law was a confidential communication prepared by a solicitor for the purpose of providing legal advice, and thus protected by solicitor-client communication privilege.

Furthermore, circulating the record among the Municipality's elected officials and employees did not constitute waiver, as they collectively form the 'client'.

The Municipality's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General for records relating to his unsuccessful application to the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(6)3 as employment-related matters in which it had an interest.

The Adjudicator found that while the records related to an employment matter, the Ministry failed to establish a legal interest that was reasonably capable of being engaged, as there was no evidence of a human rights or other complaint.

The records were therefore subject to the Act, and the Ministry was ordered to issue an access decision.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care regarding a freedom of information request.

During the inquiry, the Ministry and the affected party submitted representations and requested that they be withheld from the appellant.

The Adjudicator found that large portions of the Ministry's representations and the entirety of the affected party's representations did not meet the confidentiality criteria and ordered them to be shared with the appellant.

The appellant appealed the PGT's denial of access to records pertaining to his father's estate.

During the inquiry, the PGT submitted representations, including a 'Confidential Facts and Evidence' document, and requested that it be withheld from the appellant.

The Adjudicator found that the PGT's generalized claim of confidentiality was insufficient and ordered that the non-highlighted portions of the document be shared with the appellant, as they did not reveal the substance of the exempt records or qualify for confidentiality.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General for police records relating to the death of her mother.

The Ministry withheld portions of the records as non-responsive, and denied access to the remainder under various exemptions including invasion of privacy and law enforcement.

The adjudicator found that the appellant failed to establish she was the personal representative of her mother's estate.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold most of the records under the invasion of privacy exemptions (sections 21(1) and 49(b)) and the law enforcement exemption for police ten-codes (section 14(1)(l)).

However, the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of a witness signature on an authorization form signed by the appellant, applying the 'absurd result' principle.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Toronto for a complete copy of his employment and medical files to assist in civil litigation arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The City denied access, claiming the records fell outside the jurisdiction of the Act under section 52(3)3.

The adjudicator found that the records were collected, prepared, maintained, and used by the City in relation to meetings, consultations, discussions, or communications about employment-related matters in which the City has an interest, specifically regarding workplace accommodation and recovery of WCB/WSIB advances.

The adjudicator upheld the City's decision, concluding the records are excluded from the Act.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Thunder Bay for records relating to parking violations on a specific residential street.

The City denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, law enforcement, and unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that while some records contained personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation and were exempt under sections 14(1) and 38(b), the City failed to establish that the remaining records qualified for the advice or recommendations exemption or the law enforcement exemptions.

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

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Toronto Police Services Board for his full file relating to a specific court matter.

The Police located responsive records but denied access to most of them, citing exemptions including danger to life or safety, facilitating the commission of an unlawful act, and unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the Police conducted a reasonable search for records and upheld the decision to withhold the records under sections 38(a) and 38(b) of the Act.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the City of Toronto for records relating to his tenure as President of a community recreation centre.

The City granted partial access, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy, and charged a fee while denying a fee waiver.

The appellant appealed, alleging a conflict of interest by City staff processing the request.

The Adjudicator found no conflict of interest that interfered with the decision-making process.

The Adjudicator upheld the application of the invasion of privacy and solicitor-client privilege exemptions, and most of the advice or recommendations exemptions.

The Adjudicator reduced the fee by disallowing search and preparation costs since the request involved the appellant's personal information, but upheld the photocopying fee and the denial of the fee waiver.

The appellant sought access to police records relating to a motor vehicle accident in which his son died.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General denied access to certain records, including a witness statement and police officers' notes, citing the personal privacy exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On reconsideration of Order PO-1757, the Adjudicator found that the appellant was aware of the witness's identity, meaning the witness's personal information could not be severed.

The Adjudicator concluded that the records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b).

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for access to a Crown Attorney's file relating to a criminal matter in which she was the complainant.

The Ministry denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for solicitor-client privilege and unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator found the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The adjudicator ordered the disclosure of certain records, including police notes containing information originally provided by the appellant, and post-litigation records not subject to privilege.

The Ministry's decision to withhold the remaining records, including opinion work product and sensitive medical information of the affected person, was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General for police records relating to the motor vehicle accident in which his son died.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, citing the personal privacy exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that while the records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, applying the privacy exemption to the body of a witness statement would lead to an absurd result because the appellant was already aware of the information.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the body of the witness statement, but the remaining personal information was properly withheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for a copy of a complaint filed against him by an OPP officer.

The Ministry provided partial access to an incident report but withheld portions under the law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions.

The Adjudicator found that the withheld information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation into a possible violation of the Criminal Code.

Consequently, 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 was upheld.

The appellant, an employee of the City of Toronto, requested access to his examination papers and the marking key from a promotional job competition.

The City denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)3 as employment-related matters in which the City had an interest.

The adjudicator upheld the City's decision, finding that the records were prepared in relation to meetings about an employment-related matter and that the City had a reasonable prospect of its legal interests being engaged due to the possibility of a grievance.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for his deceased father's complete personnel file from the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Ministry denied access to certain records, citing the invasion of privacy exemption under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained medical and employment history, the disclosure of which is presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under sections 21(3)(a) and (d) of the Act.

The adjudicator rejected the appellant's argument that applying the presumption would lead to an absurd result, as the appellant was not aware of the particular contents of the records.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Toronto for access to her employee health file.

The City denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Act under section 52(3)3 as they related to employment-related matters in which the City had an interest.

The adjudicator found that the records were collected and used in relation to meetings and discussions about accommodating the appellant's medical condition, which is an employment-related matter.

The adjudicator also found the City had a continuing legal interest in the matter due to potential human rights complaints.

The City's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Toronto Police Services Board for his personal file regarding his unsuccessful candidacy for a Police Constable position, specifically seeking the reasons for his permanent exclusion from future employment.

The Police denied access to certain records, claiming exemptions including law enforcement intelligence information.

The Adjudicator found that while the background check itself was a human resources function, the specific information withheld was obtained through the Police's intelligence gathering function and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal law enforcement intelligence information.

The Adjudicator ordered the disclosure of non-exempt portions of one record but upheld the decision to withhold the remaining information under section 8(1)(g) of the Act.

The requester, a solicitor representing the estate and family of a deceased individual killed in a motor vehicle accident, appealed the Peel Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to a motor vehicle collision report.

The requester claimed access under section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as the deceased's personal representative.

The Adjudicator found that the requester did not provide evidence of authority to act as the personal representative and that the request, intended for a wrongful death lawsuit, did not relate to the administration of the estate.

The Adjudicator further held that the record was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The requester sought access to records relating to the relocation of a stream at a waste disposal site.

The Ministry of Natural Resources decided to disclose certain records.

Two affected parties appealed the decision, claiming the records contained scientific and technical information supplied in confidence and were exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that while some records contained technical information, the appellants failed to establish that the information was supplied in confidence.

The appeal was dismissed and the records were ordered disclosed.