Laurel Cropley

The appellant, representing the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Fund, appealed a decision by the Halton Regional Police Services Board denying access to information identifying the owner and insurer of a vehicle involved in a fatal accident.

The Police claimed the information was exempt under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b).

The adjudicator also concluded that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, as the Fund had alternative means to obtain the information through civil discovery processes.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the City of Vaughan for a confidential memorandum from the City Solicitor to the City Council.

The City denied access under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The appellant appealed, arguing the City waived privilege by referencing the advice in a public committee report and under the Planning Act.

The Adjudicator found the record was a privileged communication and that the minimal disclosure of the 'bottom line' of the advice did not constitute an express or implied waiver of privilege.

The City's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Toronto Police Services Board's decision to deny access to records relating to the 1992 bombing of an abortion clinic.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including the law enforcement exemptions.

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

The decision of the Police to deny access under sections 8(1)(a) and (b) was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Peel Regional Police Services Board denying access to portions of police notes and claiming no further records existed regarding a complaint against him.

The adjudicator upheld the severances under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, finding the withheld information was the personal information of a witness compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

The adjudicator also found the police conducted a reasonable search for the requested records and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, a member of the media, appealed a fee estimate of $5,492 provided by the City of Hamilton for processing a freedom of information request regarding fire prevention activities at a specific property.

The Adjudicator reviewed the City's breakdown of search, preparation, and reproduction costs.

Finding that the City overestimated the time required to search electronic databases, review e-mails, and sever records, the Adjudicator reduced the allowable search and preparation time.

The fee estimate was reduced to $1,869.50.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board for a report regarding consulting services for Employee Benefit Programs.

The Board initially denied access under various exemptions, but later claimed the request was frivolous or vexatious under section 4(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that the Board failed to establish that the request was part of a pattern of conduct amounting to an abuse of the right of access, or that it was made in bad faith or for a purpose other than to obtain access.

The Board's decision that the request was frivolous or vexatious was not upheld.

The appellant, an OPP officer, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to certain pages of a brief prepared during an investigation into his activities.

The adjudicator found that the remaining pages at issue did not contain the appellant's personal information, but rather the personal information of other identifiable individuals.

The adjudicator concluded that the records were 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 Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $745 issued by the Ministry of Education and Training for processing a freedom of information request related to the provincial funding formula for public education.

The adjudicator found that the fee estimate for preparation, photocopying, and shipping was calculated in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and its regulations.

The adjudicator also noted that the issue of a fee waiver was premature as the appellant had not yet requested one from the Ministry.

The fee estimate was upheld.

The requester sought access to records related to an application for a permit under the Aggregate Resources Act to operate a pit.

The Ministry of Natural Resources decided to grant partial access, withholding identifying information of community members under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The applicant's owner appealed, objecting to the disclosure of the records under sections 17(1) and 21(1).

The Adjudicator found that the records did not contain personal information of the appellant and did not meet the three-part test for the third party information exemption under section 17(1).

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

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the City of Hamilton for a permit authorizing a construction company to work past 11:00 p.m.

The City responded that no such records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that police and an inspector had told him a permit was issued.

The adjudicator found that the City's search for the records was reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

A Board of Education appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to the criminal investigation and trial of a former teacher convicted of sexual assault.

The Board sought the records to defend itself in civil actions arising from the assaults.

The Adjudicator found that the records contained personal information and that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the teacher and the victims under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as the Board's interest in the records was purely private.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose three press releases, but its decision to withhold the remaining records was upheld.

A requester sought access to inspection reports for an overseas private school from the Ministry of Education and Training.

The Ministry decided to disclose the records, and the school appealed, arguing the records contained trade secrets, commercial, financial, and labour relations information supplied in confidence under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that the records did not contain such information, were not supplied in confidence, and their disclosure could not reasonably be expected to cause the harms specified in section 17(1).

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

The appellant requested access to records from the Waterloo Region District School Board relating to disputes involving a teacher, trespass charges, and civil litigation.

The Board denied access to 80 records under various exemptions.

The Adjudicator found that most records were excluded from the Act under section 52(3) as they related to employment matters in which the Board had an interest.

For the remaining records, the Adjudicator upheld exemptions based on unjustified invasion of personal privacy and solicitor-client privilege, but ordered the disclosure of two records that were factual and administrative in nature.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Management Board Secretariat for copies of two property management contracts between the Ontario Realty Corporation and a third-party company.

The company objected to disclosure, and the institution denied access under the third-party information exemptions in sections 17(1)(a) and (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the contracts contained commercial and financial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the company's competitive position.

The adjudicator upheld the decision to withhold the bulk of the records, but ordered the disclosure of the Request for Proposals portion, which did not meet the exemption criteria.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Toronto for agreements relating to the processing of materials under the blue box program.

The City withheld one agreement under the closed meeting exemption in section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the agreement was the subject of deliberations at an in camera meeting of the Management Committee, and its disclosure would reveal the substance of those deliberations.

The adjudicator also noted that the public interest override in section 16 does not apply to section 6.

The City's decision to withhold the record was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Environment for records relating to environmental concerns at a specific property.

The Ministry disclosed approximately 300 pages but withheld four pages under section 19 of the Act, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The appellant appealed, alleging that the Ministry failed to conduct an adequate search and had tampered with the records.

The adjudicator found the Ministry's search was reasonable and dismissed that portion of the appeal.

Regarding the withheld records, the adjudicator upheld the section 19 exemption for two records containing legal advice and communications for litigation, but ordered the disclosure of the remaining two records, finding them to be purely informational.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Town of Amherstburg Police Services Board for records relating to a complaint made against her.

The Police denied access to the records, citing the personal privacy exemptions under sections 14 and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator upheld the decision to withhold the records, finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the affected persons.

However, the adjudicator found that the Police's search for some of the requested records was too narrow and ordered them to conduct a further search.

The Ministry of the Environment decided to disclose records relating to certificates of approval for crematoria operated by the appellant cemeteries.

The appellant objected to the disclosure, claiming the records contained confidential third-party scientific, technical, and commercial information exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that while the records contained scientific and technical information, the appellant could not reasonably expect confidentiality for information required to be public under the Environmental Protection Act.

For the remaining records, the appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure.

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

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board for his student records from 1956.

The Board conducted multiple searches but could not locate the records, noting that retention guidelines did not exist prior to 1972 and the records were likely destroyed.

The adjudicator found that the Board's search efforts were reasonable in the circumstances and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Toronto Police Services Board for a copy of a suicide note written by his estranged wife 19 years ago.

The Police denied access under sections 14(1) and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The adjudicator upheld the decision, finding that the note was compiled as part of a police investigation into a possible violation of law, and its disclosure was therefore presumed to be an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b).