Laurel Cropley

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.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $92.00 provided by the Simcoe County Board of Education for processing a freedom of information request for telephone bills.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the $75.00 charge for search time and the $0.20 per page charge for photocopies, finding them reasonable given the volume of records.

However, the $15.00 charge for preparation time was disallowed because the Board failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish its reasonableness.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Management Board Secretariat for a report investigating her management style.

The institution denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6).

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the records were prepared in relation to employment-related matters in which the institution had an interest, specifically its obligation to provide a safe workplace and address performance issues.

The decision to deny access was upheld as the records fell outside the scope of the Act.

A police officer requested access to records concerning allegations made about her to the Internal Affairs Bureau.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3).

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected in relation to an anticipated disciplinary hearing, which constitutes a proceeding relating to employment.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to deny access to records regarding the collection of Retail Sales Tax on beverage alcohol.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 19 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that a legal opinion and portions of other records revealing its contents were exempt under section 19.

Most of the remaining records were found not to contain advice or recommendations and were ordered disclosed.

The public interest override under section 23 was found not to apply.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Kent County Board of Education regarding access to an original test paper.

Following an interim order directing the Board to reconsider its exercise of discretion, the Board agreed to release the original test paper directly to a forensic handwriting expert of the appellants' choice, subject to an undertaking.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's revised decision and considered the matter resolved.

A teacher requested access to his personnel file and a file containing student complaints kept by the school principal under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board denied access to certain records, claiming they were excluded under section 52(3)3 as employment-related matters.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were prepared and maintained by the principal on behalf of the Board in relation to an employment-related matter in which the Board had an interest.

The appeal was dismissed as the records were excluded from the scope of the Act.

A lawyer appealed the Ministry of the Environment's decision to deny access to certain records relating to a grant issued to a company under the Environmental Technologies Program.

The Ministry and the affected company argued the records were exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third party commercial and financial information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained financial and commercial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in undue loss or prejudice significantly the competitive position of the affected party.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellants (a student and her parents) requested access to original test papers under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to have them examined by their own handwriting expert.

The Board denied off-site examination, citing security concerns and section 23(2) of the Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that it has jurisdiction to review the method of access and that section 23(2) permits off-site examination.

The Commissioner ordered the Board to re-exercise its discretion regarding the method of access, taking into account the expert's undertaking to return the records and the fact that the Board had already had the opportunity to have the records tested by its own expert.

The appellants, who were respondents in an ongoing Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) hearing, appealed the OSC's decision to deny access to information in its intelligence files under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the OSC's decision, finding that two records were exempt under section 14(2)(a) as reports prepared in the course of law enforcement, and the remaining three records were exempt under section 14(1)(g) because their disclosure would reveal law enforcement intelligence information.

The OSC properly exercised its discretion under section 49(a) to deny access to the records containing the appellants' own personal information.

The appellant requested access to 911 tapes and police reports relating to the investigation of her son's suicide.

The Halton Regional Police Services Board denied access under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and therefore their disclosure was presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Act.

The appellant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for six manuals used by the Centre of Forensic Sciences.

The Ministry denied access, claiming exemptions for law enforcement, facilitating the commission of an unlawful act, valuable government information, and economic interests.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to meet its onus for any of the claimed exemptions, noting that the Ministry had previously offered to let the appellant view the manuals informally and failed to demonstrate how disclosure would cause the alleged harms.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant sought access to records related to a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) investigation that led to his dismissal.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6).

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected, prepared, and used in relation to employment-related matters in which the Ministry had an interest, satisfying the requirements of section 65(6)3.

The exception in section 65(7)1 did not apply, and the Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to hate crime investigations and prosecutions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 14, 19, 20, and 21 of the Act.

During mediation, the appellant narrowed the request, leaving sections 20 and 21 at issue.

The Inquiry Officer found that individuals acting in their professional or official capacities did not have their personal information protected under section 21, ordering disclosure of those portions.

The Inquiry Officer also rejected the Ministry's claim under section 20 that disclosure would seriously threaten health or safety, noting that much of the information had already been published.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the remaining non-exempt information.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for access to her complaint file with the Professional Standards Bureau of the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(6)3 as they related to employment-related matters.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records were collected and used in relation to an internal police investigation under the Police Services Act, which constitutes an employment-related matter in which the Ministry has an interest.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to certain records related to inmates collecting social assistance.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including solicitor-client privilege under section 19.

The Inquiry Officer found that the remaining records at issue were prepared by or for Crown counsel and contained legal advice, qualifying them for exemption under Branch 2 of section 19.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested information regarding the number of OAG-6 positions in the Ministry, including position titles and how many were bilingual.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under the labour relations and employment-related matters exclusion in section 65(6)3.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were prepared for communications about labour relations in which the Ministry has a legal interest, specifically regarding classification levels and compliance with the Public Services Act.

The Ministry's decision was upheld, and the records were found to be excluded from the Act.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Community and Social Services denying access to severed portions of their psychological records at the Children's Psychiatric Research Institute.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were clinical records compiled in a psychiatric facility in respect of a patient, as defined by the Mental Health Act.

Consequently, the records were excluded from the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(2)(a), and the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant requested access to police records regarding a domestic incident involving herself and her former spouse.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, claiming exemptions including invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that applying the presumed unjustified invasion of privacy to the affected person's name, address, and date of birth would lead to an absurd result, as the appellant was already aware of this information.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose this information, but its decision to withhold the remaining personal information under section 21(1) was upheld.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk for a record relating to a by-law enforcement matter.

The Municipality denied access, and the appellant appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record, a letter from the affected person's counsel regarding commercial use of property, contained the affected person's personal information.

In the absence of factors favouring disclosure, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would result in an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Municipality's decision was upheld.