Laurel Cropley

The appellant, a CUPE tri-local committee, appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to certain records related to funding and internal correspondence regarding four agencies.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were responsive to the request and not excluded from the Act under section 65(6) because the Ministry did not have a legal interest in the agencies' labour relations.

However, the Officer upheld the exemption of salary information under section 21(1) as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, and exempted other records under section 17(1) because their disclosure would significantly interfere with the agencies' ongoing labour negotiations.

The appellant submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for their complete master file regarding disability benefits.

The Ministry granted full access to the 160-page file, but the appellant appealed, claiming additional medical reports from 1978 should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search was reasonable, noting that the requested documents pre-dated the appellant's 1988 application and were likely held by the Federal Government in Canada Pension Plan files.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of police officers' notes and witness statements relating to a motor vehicle accident.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the personal information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption against disclosure in section 21(3)(b).

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to a Sheriff's report and a witness statement regarding an investigation into a bailiff company.

The Inquiry Officer denied the requester's preliminary requests for oral representations and an exchange of representations.

On the merits, the Inquiry Officer found that portions of the records contained only the requester's personal information or non-personal information and ordered them disclosed.

However, the remaining portions contained intertwined personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold these portions under the invasion of privacy exemption, finding that the public interest override did not apply as the requester's interest was personal rather than public.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Toronto for environmental reports regarding a specified property.

The City denied access under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the records contained third party information.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the records contained technical and scientific information, they were not supplied in confidence, nor could their disclosure reasonably be expected to result in the harms specified in section 10(1).

The City was ordered to disclose the records to the appellant.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to final investigation reports regarding sexual assaults in correctional facilities.

The Ministry initially claimed the mandatory personal information exemption under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and later raised discretionary exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer permitted the late raising of exemptions due to the unique circumstances of the appeal.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained highly sensitive personal information and that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 21(1).

Although the Ministry failed to search for records relating to youth facilities, no further search was ordered because those records would also be exempt.

The appellant sought access to records from the Ministry of the Attorney General relating to attempts to have him charged with spreading hate propaganda.

The Ministry denied access to various records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, solicitor-client privilege, and danger to safety or health.

The Inquiry Officer allowed the Ministry to raise discretionary exemptions late due to the lack of prejudice.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the exemptions for advice or recommendations and solicitor-client privilege, finding the records were prepared by Crown counsel for legal advice or were draft responses for the Attorney General.

However, the Inquiry Officer rejected the danger to safety or health exemption, noting the hate propaganda materials were already published and known to the appellant.

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

The appellant, a former employee of Fanshawe College, appealed the College's decision to deny access to records relating to an Ombudsman's investigation.

The College claimed the records were exempt under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and contained the personal information of the College's Chair and lawyer.

The Inquiry Officer found that professional information is not personal information, and that the records did not meet the criteria for either branch of the solicitor-client privilege exemption because they were communications with a third party and there was no evidence of contemplated litigation.

The College was ordered to disclose the records in full.

The appellants appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to portions of a letter written to the Public Complaints Commission by a named individual.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 49(b) and 21(3)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation under the Police Services Act, triggering the presumption against disclosure in section 21(3)(b).

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

The appellant sought access to records relating to a natural gas explosion that injured her and destroyed a neighbouring property.

The Ministry denied access under the law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that two of the records were exempt as their disclosure would interfere with an ongoing law enforcement investigation into the cause of the explosion.

However, a handwritten press release was ordered disclosed as it did not contain personal information and its release would not interfere with the investigation.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for his complete correctional file.

The Ministry disclosed most of the records but withheld two names and a telephone number on a request form, claiming exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the exemptions and argued that more records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information was properly exempt under sections 14(2)(d) and 49(a) as it related to the supervision of a person under correctional control.

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

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested access to a police occurrence report regarding her arrest.

The Waterloo Regional Police Services Board granted partial access, withholding portions under various exemptions including section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the withheld information contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The appellant requested records detailing the legal costs incurred by the Town of Richmond Hill in its dealings with an adult entertainment parlour.

The Town provided some records but claimed exemptions for others and stated no further records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing more records should exist for the period prior to 1996.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Town's search, which included reviewing active, inactive, and destroyed records indices, was reasonable, noting that older records had been destroyed in accordance with the Town's retention by-law.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of Order P-1438, which upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to records under section 65(6) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant argued that the Inquiry Officer improperly declined jurisdiction to rule on Charter arguments and improperly exercised discretion.

The Inquiry Officer denied the reconsideration request, finding no fundamental defect in the adjudication process or jurisdictional defect, and noting that new evidence or submissions do not meet the threshold for reconsideration.

A Correctional Officer appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to an internal security report regarding workplace incidents.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(6).

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected and used in relation to meetings and communications about an employment-related matter in which the Ministry had an interest.

As none of the exceptions in section 65(7) applied, the records were excluded from the scope of the Act and the Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to police reports regarding an altercation and assault investigation in which he was involved.

The Niagara Regional Police Services Board granted partial access but withheld portions containing the personal information of the other driver and a witness.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the withheld information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law (assault under the Criminal Code).

Therefore, its disclosure was presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and it was properly exempt under section 38(b).

The appellant, a former employee of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, appealed a decision denying him access to correctional operational records related to his employment.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6) because they were maintained for proceedings before the Grievance Settlement Board and the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The appellant also argued that section 65(6) violated his equality rights under section 15(1) of the Charter by preventing him from proving racial discrimination.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records fell within the section 65(6) exclusion and that the provision did not have a discriminatory effect under the Charter.

The appellant requested records from the Ontario Insurance Commission regarding complaints against a specific individual and an insurance company concerning 'vanishing premium' policies, to assist in a class action.

The OIC denied access citing invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that records containing only the appellant's personal information must be disclosed, but upheld the exemption for records containing the personal information of others, as they were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The public interest override did not apply as the appellant's interest was essentially private.

The appellants submitted a freedom of information request for a letter written by an adoption practitioner concerning their proposed adoption of two children.

The Ministry denied access under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the anonymous referee's personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the letter contained highly sensitive personal information supplied in confidence.

Balancing the appellants' interest in fairness against the referee's privacy interests, the Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption for the specific allegations and identifying information, but ordered the disclosure of the remainder of the record.

The appellant, an insurer defending the estate of a deceased insured in a motor vehicle accident lawsuit, requested access to a police officer's notes and witness statements regarding the accident.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access to portions of the records under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the records were compiled as part of a police investigation into possible violations of law, and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b).