Laurel Cropley

An insurance claims adjuster appealed a decision by the Durham Regional Police Services Board to deny access to records relating to an alleged criminal incident at a Youth Home.

The Police denied access under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and that disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under sections 14(3)(a), (b), and (h).

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $416 provided by the City of Hamilton for processing a freedom of information request for Fire Department records.

The adjudicator reviewed the City's calculations for search time, preparation time, and photocopying costs.

The adjudicator found the search time estimate reasonable but slightly adjusted the preparation time calculation.

The adjudicator also ordered the City to allow the appellant to view any records that do not require severing before charging for photocopies.

The fee estimate was reduced to $404.90.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Hamilton for Fire Department records relating to three properties.

The City provided a fee estimate of $1057.50 for search, preparation, and photocopying.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate, arguing it was excessive and requesting a fee waiver.

The adjudicator upheld the fee estimate, finding that the City's calculations for search time, preparation time, and photocopying were reasonable and in accordance with the Act and Regulation.

The adjudicator also found that it was not reasonably practicable to allow the appellant to view the original non-severed records prior to photocopying, but ordered the City to allow viewing of any records that did not require severing.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for records relating to an investigation of a housing authority tenant.

The Ministry denied access to the records under the personal privacy exemption in 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 highly sensitive financial and employment information of the tenant and his spouse, the disclosure of which would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

A requester sought access to site evaluation reports and Certificates of Approval for various sites from the Ministry of the Environment.

The Ministry decided to disclose the records, but a third-party engineering company appealed, arguing the records contained trade secrets and technical information supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which would prejudice its competitive position under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that while the records contained technical information supplied in confidence, the company failed to establish a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure, noting that much of the information was already publicly available or routinely disclosed.

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

An insurance company, acting on behalf of an insured involved in a fatal motor vehicle accident, requested access to police investigation records, including witness statements and occurrence reports.

The Police denied access, citing exemptions for law enforcement reports and unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Adjudicator found that portions of the records containing the personal information of witnesses and the deceased were exempt from disclosure as their release would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy.

Furthermore, a two-page occurrence report was found to be a formal report prepared in the course of law enforcement and was exempt.

However, the remaining records, which were merely descriptive, did not qualify as reports and were ordered to be disclosed to the appellant.

The appellant, an unsuccessful bidder for a consulting services contract, made a freedom of information request to the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board for reports regarding the selection of a benefits consultant.

The Board denied access, claiming the records were excluded under the labour relations provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, or alternatively exempt under provisions relating to closed meetings, economic interests, and third-party information.

The adjudicator found that the records did not fall within the labour relations exclusion and were not exempt under the closed meeting or economic interests exemptions.

However, the adjudicator found that specific details of the successful bidder's business plan were exempt as third-party commercial information.

The Board was ordered to disclose the remaining portions of the records.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Finance for records relating to a company's compliance with the Corporations Tax Act and the discontinuation of a Business Corporations Act proceeding.

The Ministry denied access to certain computer printouts under the tax information exemption in section 17(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator upheld the exemption, finding the records contained information obtained on a tax return or gathered to determine tax liability.

The adjudicator also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply and that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) denying access to records relating to himself and six corporations compiled during OSC investigations.

The OSC claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for advice or recommendations, law enforcement, relations with other governments, and invasion of privacy.

The adjudicator ordered the OSC to produce certain withheld attachments to determine if they fell outside the Act's jurisdiction due to the Securities Act.

The adjudicator also found that some records were exempt as personal information or law enforcement reports, while ordering the disclosure of other records that did not meet the exemption criteria.

The appellant sought access to police notes and reports regarding an alleged assault against him at a high school.

The Halton Regional Police Services Board denied access to portions of the records, citing exemptions for invasion of privacy and law enforcement.

The adjudicator upheld the police's decision, finding that the withheld information contained personal information of other individuals compiled during a law enforcement investigation, and its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy.

The adjudicator also found that the public interest override did not apply, as the appellant's interest was primarily private.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Toronto for various employment and labour relations files.

The City denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Act pursuant to section 52(3)1.

The adjudicator found that the records were collected, prepared, maintained, or used by the City in relation to ongoing legal proceedings concerning the appellant's employment.

Consequently, the records met the three-part test under section 52(3)1 and were excluded from the Act's jurisdiction.

The City's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a multi-part request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of Finance for records relating to property assessment complaints and compliance with various orders.

The Ministry denied access to certain sales data under section 22(a) on the basis that it was publicly available for purchase, and stated no further records existed for other parts of the request.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that certain parts of the request were questions rather than requests for records, the Ministry's search for records was reasonable, and the sales data was exempt under section 22(a) as it was available through a regularized system of access.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board for the handwritten notes of an officer who investigated a motor vehicle accident in which the appellant was injured, including witness names and statements.

The Police granted partial access but withheld portions containing a witness statement and identifying information under the personal privacy exemption.

The adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, finding that the withheld 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 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to a specific street address where a restaurant was located.

The Brantford Police Services Board granted partial access but withheld portions of the records under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

On appeal, the adjudicator found that the withheld information contained the personal information of identifiable individuals compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The adjudicator upheld the police's decision to withhold the information under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Education and Training for records relating to a specific job competition.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Act under section 65(6)3.

The adjudicator found that the records were collected in relation to an employment-related matter in which the Ministry had an ongoing legal interest, as the appellant had expressed continued dissatisfaction, had an outstanding grievance, and might pursue a human rights complaint.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, concluding the records were excluded from the Act.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to the 1992 fire bombing of an abortion clinic.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the law enforcement provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that the records related to an ongoing law enforcement investigation and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with the investigation.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The Ministry of the Attorney General received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to hate crimes and hate propaganda.

The Ministry denied access to several records, citing exemptions for personal information and danger to health or safety.

On reconsideration, the Adjudicator found that while some information related to individuals in their professional capacity, other information qualified as personal information.

The Adjudicator also held that disclosure of records containing hate propaganda could reasonably be expected to seriously threaten the health or safety of minority groups, and thus upheld the application of the section 20 exemption to those records.

The appellant appealed the Township of West Lincoln's decision to deny access to a letter sent by Township staff to the Township solicitor requesting a legal opinion.

The appellant claimed the Township had waived solicitor-client privilege by reading a portion of the opinion at a meeting.

The adjudicator found that the Township did not waive privilege, as it only provided a minimal degree of public disclosure regarding the 'bottom line' of the advice.

The adjudicator also found the Township's search for records was generally reasonable, but ordered the Township to issue a decision regarding one specific statement or meeting minutes identified during the appeal.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $97.90 issued by the Ministry of Finance for processing a freedom of information request.

The adjudicator found that the request involved both personal information and general records.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's calculation of $90.00 for three hours of search time and $0.40 for photocopying, but disallowed the $7.50 charge for preparation time as the Ministry provided no representations to justify it.

The total allowable fee was reduced to $90.40.

The appellant, a former civilian employee of the Waterloo Regional Police Service, requested access to all information relating to her in the possession of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

The Municipality denied access to some records, claiming they were excluded under section 52(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, or exempt under sections 12 and 14.

The Adjudicator found that section 52(3) did not apply because the related legal proceedings had been settled 14 years prior.

However, the Adjudicator upheld the application of solicitor-client privilege and personal privacy exemptions to several records, ordering the disclosure of the remaining records.

The Adjudicator also found the Municipality's search for an alleged audio tape to be reasonable.