Marianne Miller

The appellant requested records relating to the financing, design, and construction of sewer and water works in Foleyet since 1985.

The Local Services Board of Foleyet claimed no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed and provided evidence that records should exist.

The Board did not provide representations or evidence of a reasonable search.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Board to conduct a further search and provide an affidavit detailing the steps taken.

The appellant appealed the Township of Cardiff's decision to deny access to correspondence from the Township's solicitor concerning the appellant and a public official.

The Township claimed the records were exempt under section 12 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the appellant's personal information and were subject to common law solicitor-client privilege.

The Officer concluded that the records were exempt under section 38(a) and that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply to section 12.

The Township's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's decision to deny access to portions of their social assistance records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the severed information related to the eligibility for social service benefits of an affected person, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b).

However, the Officer ordered the disclosure of information in two records that had originally been supplied by the appellant, applying the 'absurd result' principle.

The appellant company requested access to police investigation reports and notes regarding an incident where a child fell from a window in a building owned by the appellant.

The Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board denied access under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing exemptions for personal privacy and law enforcement.

The appellant appealed, arguing the information was needed to defend against a potential future civil lawsuit.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Criminal Code.

Therefore, disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Act.

The decision of the Police to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to her corporate and human resources personnel files from the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

The Municipality provided the records but withheld notations made on her resume during a job competition.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the notations were prepared and used in relation to a job competition, which is an employment-related matter in which the Municipality has an interest.

Therefore, the records were excluded from the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)3, and the Municipality's decision was upheld.

A reporter requested access to a report prepared by two City of London police officers regarding an internal investigation into the LaSalle Police Service.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the report was prepared in relation to employment-related matters in which the Police have a legal interest, specifically their obligation to monitor the actions of the force.

As the record met all requirements of section 52(3)3 and did not fall under any exceptions in section 52(4), it was excluded from the scope of the Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board for records relating to his unsuccessful employment applications.

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

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional records should exist.

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

Furthermore, the Inquiry Officer determined that the records fell within the employment-related matters exclusion in section 52(3)3, as they were prepared in relation to a job competition in which the Police had an interest.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The requester sought access to records containing the places of burial or cremation of 20 individuals who died between 1964 and 1983.

The Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee granted access to information regarding one individual who died more than 30 years ago, but denied access to the remaining 19 individuals' information under the personal privacy exemption in section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that the information constituted personal information, that the Cemeteries Act did not authorize the Public Trustee to disclose it, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to police records relating to a criminal investigation into alleged acts of sexual misconduct.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other identifiable individuals.

The Ministry's decision to withhold the records under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was upheld.

The appellant requested records from the Township of Rideau relating to a rezoning issue.

The Township granted partial access, denied access to three records claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and charged a fee.

The appellant appealed the denial of access and the Township's refusal to waive the fee.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Township's decision, finding that the three records were subject to common law solicitor-client privilege and that the appellant failed to demonstrate that dissemination of the records would benefit public health or safety to justify a fee waiver.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board to deny access to records relating to the investigation of public complaints against police officers.

The Police claimed the records were excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under the employment and labour relations exclusion in section 52(3).

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected and used in relation to an employment-related matter in which the Police have an interest.

The decision of the Police was upheld and the records were found to be excluded from the Act.

The appellant requested a copy of a report prepared by the City Solicitor regarding a proposed by-law dealing with the licensing of adult video stores.

The City denied access, claiming the record was exempt under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act due to solicitor-client privilege.

The appellant argued that the City had impliedly waived privilege by referencing the report in other documents and distributing it internally.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record was subject to common law solicitor-client privilege and that the City's conduct did not demonstrate an intention to waive that privilege.

The City's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed GO Transit's decision that no records existed responsive to his request for an agreement or contract between GO Transit and the Ontario Clean Water Agency regarding the use of a road.

The sole issue was whether GO Transit conducted a reasonable search.

The Inquiry Officer found that GO Transit had conducted a reasonable search of 23 files across multiple departments and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Windsor Police Services Board for records relating to his daughter, including whether she was under police protection.

The Police refused to confirm or deny the existence of records responsive to this question under section 14(5) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that disclosing the mere existence or non-existence of such records would reveal personal information and constitute an unjustified invasion of the daughter's personal privacy.

The appellant appealed the Lambton County Board of Education's decision to deny access to records relating to the appointment of supervisory officers.

The Board claimed 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, prepared, maintained, or used in relation to meetings, consultations, discussions, or communications about employment-related matters in which the Board had an interest.

As a result, the records fell within the section 52(3)3 exclusion and the Board's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for an audio tape of a Small Claims Court trial.

The Ministry denied the request on the basis that court records are not in its custody or control.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer applied established precedent to find that the tape is a record in a court file relating to a court action.

Consequently, the Ministry exercises only bare possession, not custody or control, and the record falls outside the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.