Laurel Cropley

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Kingston for the names of agencies accepting workfare placements.

The City denied access, citing exemptions for personal privacy and economic interests.

The adjudicator found that disclosing the agency names could lead to the identification of individual social assistance recipients, constituting personal information.

The adjudicator concluded that disclosure would be a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Although there was a compelling public interest in the workfare program, it did not clearly outweigh the privacy interests of the vulnerable individuals involved.

The City's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellants requested access to their adoption file, including information regarding anonymous complaints made about their suitability as adoptive parents.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services denied access to portions of the records under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected persons' privacy.

The adjudicator found that the records contained the personal information of both the appellants and the affected persons.

Balancing the factors under section 21(2), the adjudicator concluded that the affected persons' expectation of confidentiality significantly outweighed the appellants' interest in disclosure, upholding the exemption for most of the records but ordering the disclosure of one severable record.

The appellant, a former auxiliary member of the Sudbury Regional Police Service, requested access to her personnel file under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police denied access, arguing the records fell outside the Act's jurisdiction under sections 52(3)1 and 3, which exclude records relating to labour relations or employment.

The Adjudicator found that auxiliary police officers are volunteers and are not engaged in 'employment' within the meaning of the Act.

Consequently, the records fall within the jurisdiction of the Act, and the Police were ordered to issue an access decision.

A member of the media appealed the Town of Lindsay's decision to deny access to records detailing the severance package of a retired municipal employee.

The Town claimed exemptions under sections 6(1)(b) (closed meeting) and 14(1) (invasion of privacy) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that the records revealed the substance of deliberations of in-camera council meetings properly held under the Municipal Act to discuss personal matters and labour relations.

The Adjudicator also held that the public interest override in section 16 does not apply to the closed meeting exemption in section 6.

The Town's decision was upheld.

The appellants made a freedom of information request to the Thunder Bay Police Service for records relating to the sudden death of their son.

The Police disclosed some records but withheld others, citing the invasion of privacy exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the withheld records contained the personal information of the deceased son and other identifiable witnesses.

The adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, concluding that the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to Ontario Hydro for records relating to the energy consumption and billing of a property she had purchased, following a dispute with the previous owners who reclaimed the property.

Hydro denied access to portions of the records under the personal privacy exemption.

The adjudicator found that the records contained the personal information of both the appellant and the previous owners.

However, because the previous owners had already provided the appellant with copies of some of the hydro bills in the context of their dispute, applying the privacy exemption to withhold those same records would lead to an 'absurd result'.

Hydro was ordered to disclose the portions of the records that related to the time period the appellant was in possession of the property.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Management Board of Cabinet for copies of all bids tendered for a specific project.

The institution granted partial access but withheld the names of proposed subcontractors under the third party information exemption in section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the denial of access.

The adjudicator found that while the subcontractor names constituted commercial information, they were not supplied in confidence and there was no detailed and convincing evidence of a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure.

The institution was ordered to disclose the subcontractor names to the appellant.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Town of Ajax for records relating to by-law and building complaints at two properties.

The Town denied access to portions of the records, citing law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions.

The adjudicator found that the records contained personal information and upheld the Town's decision to withhold the identity of the by-law complainant under the law enforcement exemption for confidential sources.

The adjudicator also found that disclosing the building permit information of the affected persons would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy given the highly sensitive nature of the ongoing neighbour dispute.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for records relating to a church fire.

The Ministry denied access, citing law enforcement exemptions, as the Ontario Fire Marshal and Toronto Police Service were conducting an ongoing investigation into the fire, which was linked to a homicide.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records fell within the definition of 'law enforcement' and that their disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with the ongoing police investigation.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) for records relating to himself and six corporations.

The OSC denied access to certain records, citing various exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) and the Securities Act.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Adjudicator determined that the attachments at issue were obtained pursuant to an investigation order under section 11 of the Securities Act.

As a result, section 16 of the Securities Act applied, which prevails over the Act pursuant to section 67(2).

The Adjudicator upheld the OSC's decision to withhold the attachments and ordered the OSC to issue a formal decision letter regarding the remaining attachments.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Toronto Police Services Board for records relating to his unsuccessful application for the position of Police Constable.

The Police 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 they had an interest.

The adjudicator found that while the records related to an employment matter, the Police did not have a legal interest capable of being engaged, as the Police Services Act public complaint mechanism is not intended for human resources complaints by unsuccessful job applicants.

The adjudicator also found that the Police conducted a reasonable search for a missing test score sheet.

The Police were ordered to issue an access decision for the records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Environment for records relating to a complaint that his company was pumping water in contravention of the Ontario Water Resources Act.

The Ministry withheld the complainant's name under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the non-disclosure violated his section 7 Charter rights to know his accuser.

The Adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the complainant's name was personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Adjudicator also held that the right to disclosure under section 7 of the Charter does not apply to freedom of information requests, and that informer privilege protects the complainant's identity.

A member of the media made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Environment for records relating to abatement efforts concerning a company's coke oven emissions.

The Ministry decided to grant partial access.

The company appealed, arguing that certain records were exempt under the third party information exemption in section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that a portion of one record was not responsive to the request.

Applying the three-part test for section 17(1), the adjudicator determined that four records contained technical or commercial information supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the company's competitive position or contractual negotiations.

These records were ordered withheld.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision to disclose the remaining records, finding they did not meet the requirements for exemption.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Strathroy Public Utilities Commission for minutes of in-camera meetings and work orders relating to a hydro problem on his property.

The P.U.C. denied access to the meeting minutes under section 6(1)(b) of the Act.

The adjudicator upheld the P.U.C.'s decision, finding that the records revealed the substance of deliberations of meetings properly held in camera under the Municipal Act due to potential litigation.

The adjudicator also found the P.U.C.'s search for work orders to be reasonable.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's fee estimate of $985 for responding to a freedom of information request regarding the Canadian Blood Information System.

The Ministry's estimate included search, preparation, and photocopying costs for records located in the Negotiations Secretariat and the Public Health Branch.

The adjudicator found the Ministry's search time estimate for the Negotiations Secretariat to be excessive and reduced it, while upholding the remaining estimates.

The total fee estimate was revised to $940.

The appellant, an inmate in a maximum secure institution, requested information from the Ministry of Health regarding payments to lawyers.

The Ministry assessed a fee of $405.

The appellant requested a fee waiver based on financial hardship but refused to provide detailed financial records.

The Ministry denied the fee waiver.

The Adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the appellant failed to provide adequate evidence of his total financial position to discharge the burden of proof for financial hardship, and that dissemination of the records would not benefit public health or safety.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Northwest Catholic District School Board for records relating to a letter of concern she wrote about a school employee.

The Board denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under the employment-related matters exclusion in section 52(3)3.

The adjudicator upheld the Board's decision, finding that the records were collected in relation to an employment-related matter in which the Board had a legal interest, as there was a reasonable prospect the employee would contest the Board's actions.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Toronto Police Services Board for records relating to her complaint of sexual assault.

The Police denied access to the records, citing various exemptions including the unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Adjudicator found that while much of the information was exempt as it was compiled during a law enforcement investigation and was highly sensitive, applying the exemption to information the appellant herself provided to the police would lead to an absurd result.

The Police were ordered to disclose the appellant's own statements and information she provided, while the decision to withhold the remaining records was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Community and Social Services for records relating to a job competition, including interview questions, answers, and seniority dates.

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

The adjudicator found that while the records related to an employment matter, the Ministry failed to establish a reasonable prospect that its legal interests would be engaged, as there were no active human rights complaints or relevant grievances.

The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to issue an access decision under the Act.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to records relating to a birth registration under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 19 (solicitor-client privilege) and 49(b) (invasion of privacy).

The Adjudicator found that while most records were protected by solicitor-client privilege, the Ministry had waived privilege over certain correspondence by disclosing it to outside parties.

The Adjudicator also found that disclosure of some records would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy, while others would not.

The appellant's request for continuing access under section 24(3) was denied because the records were not of a type produced in a series.

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