Laurel Cropley

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to his 1984 prosecution for fraud.

The records consisted of witness statements and correspondence between the Crown Attorney and the Director of Crown Attorneys.

The adjudicator found that the witness statements were exempt from disclosure as their release would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

However, the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of two of the three letters, finding they did not qualify for exemption under solicitor-client privilege or as advice or recommendations.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Environment for correspondence regarding a salt storage problem.

The Ministry provided some records but the appellant appealed, arguing that additional records must exist.

The Adjudicator reviewed the affidavit of the Environmental Officer detailing the search efforts and concluded that the Ministry's search for responsive records was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a disabled person, made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to his application for employment as a police officer with the Peel Regional Police Services Board.

The Police denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under section 52(3).

The adjudicator found that the records were collected, prepared, maintained, or used in relation to employment-related matters in which the Police have an interest.

Consequently, the records fell within the section 52(3)3 exclusion, and the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

A newspaper reporter appealed the Sudbury Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to a list of 10 licensed establishments identified in a joint study as accounting for half of all impaired drivers who had their last drink in a licensed establishment.

The Police claimed the third party information exemption under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that the record contained commercial and scientific information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the competitive position of the establishments under section 10(1)(a).

The Adjudicator also found that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, as the Police and establishments had already taken steps to address the study's findings.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for testimonials and magazine articles provided by a hair care centre proprietor during a consumer complaint investigation.

The Ministry denied access to the testimonials under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the adjudicator found that the records contained the personal information of the proprietor and that their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(g) of the Act.

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

The appellant appealed a decision by the Port Hope Police Services Board denying access to portions of records relating to an alleged assault against the appellant.

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

The Adjudicator upheld the decision to withhold information under section 38(b), finding that its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy as it was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

However, the Adjudicator found that the Police failed to conduct a reasonable search for other records identified by the appellant and ordered a further search.

An employee appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services' decision to deny access to a grievance report and duty roster sheets.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under the labour relations exclusion.

The adjudicator found that the records were collected, maintained, and used by the Ministry in relation to proceedings before the Grievance Settlement Board, which relate to labour relations.

The appeal was dismissed and the Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ontario Human Rights Commission for records relating to her complaint file.

After viewing the records, the appellant claimed that certain records were missing.

The Adjudicator found that the Commission's search for responsive records was reasonable and that clerical errors explained the discrepancies in the record index.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Village of Grand Bend's decision to deny access to records concerning a share purchase transaction and settlement of litigation.

The Village claimed the records were exempt under section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they would reveal the substance of deliberations of a closed meeting.

The adjudicator found that the records met the three-part test for the closed meeting exemption, as they were considered during an authorized in camera meeting regarding land acquisition and litigation.

The adjudicator also held that the public interest override in section 16 does not apply to records exempt under section 6.

The Village's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Toronto Police Services Board for records relating to an employment background check.

The Police denied access to portions of the records, citing exemptions for relations with other governments and invasion of privacy.

The Adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, finding that the withheld information was either received in confidence from other government agencies (including CPIC data) or compiled as part of law enforcement investigations into other individuals, the disclosure of which would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant requested a videotape of a breathalyser test from the Toronto Police Services Board.

The Police claimed the record no longer existed, despite it having been used at the appellant's trial shortly before the request.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the Police's record retention practices were disturbing and compromised the integrity of the access process, the search conducted for the missing videotape was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Meaford Thornbury Police Services Board's decision to deny access to various occurrence reports and an audio tape under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police claimed exemptions under sections 8 (law enforcement) and 14 (invasion of privacy).

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the records were properly exempt under sections 14(1) and 38(b) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

However, three occurrence reports contained information provided by the appellant or recorded in their presence, making the privacy exemption inapplicable.

The Inquiry Officer also rejected the Police's law enforcement exemption claims for these three reports, finding no evidence of ongoing matters or that the records qualified as 'reports'.

The Police were ordered to disclose the three reports.

The appellant, the sister of a deceased individual, appealed a decision by the Windsor Police Services Board denying access to a police report regarding her brother's sudden death.

The Police claimed the records were exempt under the invasion of privacy provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant did not qualify as the deceased's personal representative under section 54(a) of the Act.

Furthermore, the records were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $6500 provided by the Peel District School Board for processing a freedom of information request for records relating to real estate transactions.

The Board based its estimate on an invoice from its lawyers, who held the records and conducted a sample search.

The Inquiry Officer found that while retrieval and photocopying costs were allowable, the time spent by the lawyers reviewing records for disclosure was not an allowable charge under the Act.

The Inquiry Officer reduced the allowable processing time to half an hour per file and did not uphold the total estimated fee of $6500.

The appellant appealed the Liquor Control Board of Ontario's decision to deny access to portions of records relating to a Request for Proposals for carrier services.

The LCBO claimed the third party information exemption under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the scoring sheets were generated by the LCBO and did not reveal information supplied by the third parties, ordering their disclosure.

However, the pricing summaries were found to reveal confidential commercial information supplied by the third parties, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice their competitive position, and were held to be exempt.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decisions regarding multiple freedom of information requests for records relating to the requester.

The Inquiry Officer found that court records were not in the Ministry's custody or control and thus not subject to the Act.

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

Regarding specific exemptions, the Officer ordered the disclosure of certain records that did not qualify as advice or recommendations or solicitor-client privilege, while upholding the Ministry's decision to withhold other records under exemptions for solicitor-client privilege and unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the York Regional Police Services Board for access to records concerning herself.

The Police denied access in part based on the invasion of privacy exemption.

The appellant subsequently requested correction of her personal information and appealed the denial of access, the failure to correct, and the adequacy of the search.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police's search was reasonable and that they could delay the correction decision until the access appeal was resolved.

The Officer also found that the presumption of unjustified invasion of privacy did not apply to information provided by or known to the appellant, ordering partial disclosure.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Insurance Commission for copies of rate filings made by 13 insurance companies and whether those companies claimed confidentiality under section 17 of the Act.

The OIC denied access to the records under section 17(1) and did not respond to the second part of the request.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the OIC's decision that the rate filings were exempt as third party commercial information and trade secrets supplied in confidence.

However, the Inquiry Officer found that the OIC failed to respond to the second part of the request and ordered it to issue a decision on that issue.

The successful bidder requested a reconsideration of Order P-1503, arguing that the Inquiry Officer erred by not considering the financial harm that would result from releasing reference checks to a competitor under section 17(1).

The Inquiry Officer declined the request, noting that the records failed the second part of the three-part test (supplied in confidence), making it unnecessary to consider the harms portion of the test.

The request did not meet any of the grounds for reconsideration set out in the IPC's policy.

The appellant appealed the quantum of a $290.70 fee estimate provided by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for processing a freedom of information request for food and beverage receipts.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Municipality's breakdown of search time, preparation time, and photocopying costs under the pre-1996 version of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Finding the estimated times and costs to be reasonable and calculated in accordance with the Act and Regulation, the Inquiry Officer upheld the fee estimate.