Marianne Miller

The appellant submitted a 24-part access request to the City of Hamilton under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The City failed to issue a decision letter within the 30-day statutory timeframe and did not claim a time extension, resulting in a deemed refusal.

The City explained that it was dealing with a high volume of work and reduced staff due to an upcoming amalgamation.

The adjudicator ordered the City to issue a decision letter to the appellant by June 30, 2000, without recourse to a time extension.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Town of Amherstburg for reports and documentation pertaining to buy-outs for two former police chiefs and the criteria for the Municipal Restructuring Fund.

The Town claimed that no such records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that a reasonable search was not conducted.

The adjudicator found that the appellant provided a reasonable basis for concluding that responsive records might exist, such as original employment contracts and communications with the Police Services Board.

The Town was ordered to conduct a further search for these records and to provide the appellant with a copy of the responsive information contained in the 1998 application to the Municipal Restructuring Fund.

The appellant, representing the Nuclear Awareness Group, appealed the Ministry of the Environment's decision to deny access to records relating to radioactive waste stored at the Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for Cabinet records and intergovernmental relations.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had custody of the records and upheld the application of the exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer also determined that while there is a compelling public interest in nuclear safety, it did not clearly outweigh the purpose of protecting the free flow of confidential information from federal agencies to the Ministry.

The appellant made a 19-part access request to the City of Hamilton regarding a specific property, company, and individual.

The City responded to parts 1-11 but denied parts 12-19, claiming they were frivolous and vexatious under section 4(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The City argued the request was part of a pattern of conduct amounting to an abuse of the right of access, made in bad faith, and for a purpose other than to obtain access, stemming from the appellant losing title to the property through a municipal tax sale.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City failed to establish reasonable grounds for its claims, noting that a single prior request did not constitute a pattern of conduct, and that seeking information to potentially use against the City in another forum does not mean the request was made for a purpose other than to obtain access.

The City was ordered to make an access decision for parts 12-19.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $4,500 issued by the Health Unit for a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The request sought 20 years of records relating to approved sewage disposal sites.

The appellant argued that the information should be provided without a fee pursuant to section 19 of the Environmental Protection Act.

The Inquiry Officer rejected this argument but found the Health Unit's estimated search time of two minutes per record to be unreasonable.

The Inquiry Officer reduced the estimated search time to one minute per record, resulting in a revised fee estimate of $2,250.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of Order P-1505, arguing that the records did not contain personal information, an agreement permitted disclosure, and the record was in the public domain.

The Inquiry Officer declined the request, finding that it did not fit within any of the grounds for reconsideration set out in the IPC's policy, such as a fundamental defect in the adjudication process, a jurisdictional defect, or a clerical error.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to records containing personal information.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under several sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including section 49(b) (unjustified invasion of personal privacy).

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, related to eligibility for social service benefits, and described individuals' finances.

As the appellant's personal information was inextricably intertwined with that of other individuals, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant requested a fire department inspection report for a building they currently own.

The City of Toronto granted access to the report but redacted the name and address of the addressee, claiming the personal information exemption under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the redactions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the redacted information constituted personal information and that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

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

A police officer requested access to an internal investigation report regarding a complaint he had made.

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

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the report was prepared in relation to consultations and communications about employment-related or labour relations matters in which the Police have a legal interest.

The appellant submitted multiple freedom of information requests to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for records relating to a co-operative housing development.

The Ministry and several affected third parties objected to disclosure, claiming exemptions under sections 17(1) and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that certain records contained personal information exempt under section 21(1).

Additionally, some records contained third party commercial and financial information supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive positions of the third parties, qualifying for exemption under section 17(1).

The appellant's argument for a public interest override under section 23 was dismissed.

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

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to various police records and photographs concerning himself.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including sections 8, 9, 14, 15, 38, and 50.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police conducted a reasonable search for the textual records.

However, the Officer rejected the Police's reliance on sections 15(a) and 50(2) to deny access to the photographs, ordering the Police to review them for mandatory exemptions.

The Officer ordered the disclosure of one page containing CPIC information, finding no reasonable expectation of confidentiality under section 9(1)(d), but upheld the application of section 38(b) to withhold the remaining records as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to a police report relating to a specific vehicle involved in a named investigation.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police provided sufficient evidence to establish that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement investigation into stolen vehicles.

The decision of the Police to deny access was upheld.

The appellant, a former inmate, requested access to an Accident & Injury Report and other records relating to an alleged assault by fellow inmates.

The Ministry granted partial access, claiming exemptions under sections 21 and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the remaining information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the presumption against disclosure in section 21(3)(b) applied to information compiled during a police investigation, but that applying it to information provided by the appellant or in his presence would lead to an absurd result.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the information provided by the appellant and the decision to withhold the remaining information was upheld.

The appellant union submitted a freedom of information request to the Town of Dryden for records relating to security costs during a telephone company strike.

The Town claimed no responsive records existed because the request was made one day after the strike began and all security arrangements had been made verbally.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the Town had conducted a reasonable search in the circumstances and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant requested the name of an individual who filed a zoning by-law complaint against them with the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk.

The Municipality denied access under the law enforcement exemption.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the record contained personal information of both the appellant and the complainant.

The Commissioner determined that the information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

As the presumption was not rebutted, disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Town of Oakville for copies of test and interview results related to a job competition.

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

On appeal, the adjudicator applied a three-part test and found that the records were collected, prepared, maintained, or used in relation to employment-related matters in which the Town had an interest.

Consequently, the records fell within the section 52(3)3 exclusion and were outside the scope of the Act.

The Town's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested a correction of his personal information contained in another individual's parole file, or alternatively, that a statement of disagreement be attached.

The Ministry refused the correction but attached the statement of disagreement.

The appellant appealed the refusal to correct the information.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records reflected the views and information gathered by professionals and could not be considered inexact, incomplete, or ambiguous simply because the appellant disagreed with them.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board for specific media releases.

The Police initially stated the records had been purged in accordance with their retention by-law, but later located three media releases in a different branch and disclosed them.

The appellant appealed, arguing more records should exist.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search for the records and upheld their decision.

The appellant, representing the family of a deceased individual shot by police, appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to portions of a Special Investigations Unit (SIU) file.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant failed to establish they were the deceased's personal representative under section 66(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Final Investigative Report was held to be exempt under the law enforcement exemption in section 14(2)(a).

The remaining records were exempt under section 21(1) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, given they were compiled during an investigation into a possible violation of law.

A union requested access to a forensic auditor's report regarding the City of Scarborough's Works and Environment Department.

The City denied access, and the union appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the report was prepared in relation to meetings and discussions about employment-related and labour relations matters in which the City had an interest.

Consequently, the record was excluded from the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)3, and the appeal was dismissed.