Laurel Cropley

The appellant company requested access to any human rights complaint files made by a specific individual against other companies.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission refused to confirm or deny the existence of such records under section 21(5) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that confirming or denying the existence of the records would reveal personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, constituting an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

A newspaper reporter appealed the Essex County Roman Catholic Separate School Board's decision to deny access to separation agreements and closed meeting minutes concerning two former senior employees.

The Inquiry Officer found that the meeting minutes were excluded from the Act under the labour relations exclusion.

While the separation agreements were subject to the Act, they were exempt from disclosure under the closed meeting exemption because their release would reveal the substance of deliberations from an authorized in-camera meeting.

The public interest override did not apply to this exemption.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to various records relating to complaints of toxic mould in a named building.

The City claimed exemptions under sections 7(1), 10(1), 11, 12, 14, and 38 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third party information exemption under section 10(1) did not apply because the prospect of harm was not established.

The solicitor-client privilege exemption under section 12 was upheld for one record.

The personal information exemptions under sections 14 and 38(b) were upheld for several records, as disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

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

The City was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records to the appellant.

The appellant requested a list of all alarm companies registered with the London Police Services Board.

The Police disclosed the names but withheld the addresses under various exemptions.

In a previous order, the Inquiry Officer ordered disclosure.

An affected alarm company requested reconsideration, arguing a lack of procedural fairness because affected parties were not notified.

The Inquiry Officer agreed to reconsider the order and invited representations from all affected parties.

After considering the representations, the Inquiry Officer found that the addresses were not exempt under sections 8(1) or 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as they are generally in the public realm.

The original order to disclose the addresses was upheld.

The appellant requested access to documents disclosed during his criminal trial from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, citing solicitor-client privilege and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 21(3)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board for records relating to domestic assaults by her husband.

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

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while the records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, applying the presumption against disclosure to information the appellant herself provided or was present for would lead to an absurd result.

The Police were ordered to disclose those portions.

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

The appellant, a sewage hauler, submitted a freedom of information request to the Health Unit for the names, addresses, and approved disposal sites of all licensed sewage haulers in the area.

The Health Unit denied access under the third party information exemption in section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained commercial information, not personal information.

However, the exemption under section 10(1) did not apply because the information was not supplied in confidence, as the Environmental Protection Act requires such certificates of approval to be made available to the public.

The Health Unit was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant submitted a request to the City of Toronto under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to all files in which his name appeared.

The City granted partial access but withheld portions of counselling records containing allegations made by another individual, citing the invasion of privacy exemptions in sections 14(1) and 38(b).

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that the information was highly sensitive, supplied in confidence, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's privacy.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Townships for records relating to a $10,000 compensation payment made to a named individual for an alleged building permit error.

The Townships denied access to the records, citing third party information and invasion of privacy exemptions.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the records contained highly sensitive personal information supplied in confidence, and that the privacy interests outweighed the public interest in disclosure.

The public interest override was not met, as disclosure would not shed light on the operations of the Townships.

The Townships were ordered to disclose only a facsimile cover sheet that contained no personal information.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to OPP occurrence reports and internal investigation reports.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and argued some records were excluded under the Young Offenders Act.

The Inquiry Officer found the records were not YOA records.

Applying the absurd result principle, the Officer ordered disclosure of information the appellant had provided or was present for, while upholding the exemption for other individuals' personal information to protect their privacy.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Human Rights Commission for her entire sexual harassment complaint file, asking that it be transferred to the Ontario Teachers' Federation.

The OHRC disclosed most of the file but withheld 23 pages under the advice or recommendations and invasion of privacy exemptions.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer upheld the exemptions for almost all the withheld records, finding they contained staff recommendations or personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

One page containing purely factual information was ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant, representing the families of two women killed in a motor vehicle accident, requested access to police investigation records including witness statements and photographs.

The Police denied access under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing law enforcement and privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant's clients could not exercise the deceased's access rights as the request did not relate to estate administration.

The law enforcement exemption did not apply as the records were not 'reports'.

However, the privacy exemptions applied to most of the records, except for photographs, a record with no personal information, and information supplied by the requester's client, which were ordered disclosed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the East York Board of Education denying access to computer network user names and newsgroup subscription lists under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board claimed the security exemption under section 8(1)(i).

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's decision, finding that disclosure of the requested information could reasonably be expected to endanger the security of the Board's computer systems and expose students to unwanted information.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the London Police Services Board for a list of registered alarm companies.

The Police disclosed the names but withheld the business addresses, claiming exemptions for third party information and law enforcement.

The Inquiry Officer found that the addresses did not qualify as commercial or financial information under section 10(1) and that their disclosure could not reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or endanger security under section 8(1).

The Police were ordered to disclose the addresses.

The appellant, the president of a private hospital, appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to withhold portions of records relating to the issuance of a private hospital licence in 1985, claiming an invasion of privacy under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant also challenged the reasonableness of the Ministry's search for records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the personal information in the records was already known to the appellant and its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

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

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records in full.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Health for records relating to the funding of defibrillators in Ontario.

The Ministry issued a revised fee estimate of $1785.80 and denied the appellant's request for a fee waiver.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate and the denial of the fee waiver.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the fee estimate, finding it was calculated in accordance with the Act.

The Commissioner also upheld the denial of the fee waiver, as the appellant failed to provide evidence of financial hardship and did not establish that dissemination of the records would benefit public health or safety.

The appellant, a home care provider, sought access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the name and telephone number of an individual who complained to the Ministry of Community and Social Services about her compliance with the Day Nurseries Act.

The Ministry denied access, citing danger to safety and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption of an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b).

The Officer also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as the appellant's interest was essentially private.

The appellant sought access to his fingerprint records from the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police agreed to release the records but required the appellant to attend in person to verify his identity through fingerprint analysis.

The Inquiry Officer found that since the Police had already verified the appellant's identity to their satisfaction before releasing other personal information, the additional requirement of personal attendance for fingerprint analysis was unnecessary and unreasonable.

The Police were ordered to send a copy of the fingerprints to the appellant.

The appellant submitted two freedom of information requests to the Ministry of Finance for records relating to the assessment of his property for municipal realty tax purposes.

The Ministry claimed that no further responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the Ministry's search was inadequate.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search was reasonable for the second request and for the specific 'Notice of Valuation' document in the first request.

However, the Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry interpreted the first request too narrowly by failing to search a database for 'any other shred of evidence' proving the appellant was notified of the original assessment.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct a further search.

The appellant requested access to her deceased husband's OHIP Claims Reference File to determine the cost of his medical treatment and make donations to the hospitals involved.

The Ministry of Health denied access under the personal privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing she had a right of access as the executrix of his estate under section 66(a).

The Inquiry Officer found that section 66(a) did not apply because the request related to the appellant's personal affairs, not the administration of the estate.

The records were found to contain medical history, triggering the presumption against disclosure in section 21(3)(a), and the Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.