Mumtaz Jiwan

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for records relating to applications made to the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal.

The Ministry disclosed 556 pages of records, and an additional five pages following a second search during mediation.

The appellant appealed, asserting that additional internal correspondence and memoranda must exist.

The adjudicator held an oral inquiry, which the appellant did not attend.

The adjudicator found that the Ministry provided sufficient evidence of a thorough and reasonable search by experienced staff in the appropriate areas, and dismissed the appeal.

The requester appealed a deemed refusal by the Ministry of Health to provide a decision on an access request for an audit report.

The Ministry failed to issue a decision within the statutory 30-day period and missed a subsequent agreed-upon deadline.

During mediation, the Ministry initiated third-party notification, further delaying the process.

Given the lengthy delays, the adjudicator ordered the Ministry to issue a final decision on access by June 23, 1999, without recourse to further time extensions.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Casino Corporation's decision to deny access to records relating to a financial settlement with a third party over a cancelled teletheatre operation at Casino Windsor.

The Adjudicator found that some records were exempt as cabinet records, third party commercial information, and information prejudicial to the Corporation's economic interests.

The public interest override did not apply.

The Corporation was ordered to disclose four records that did not meet the exemption criteria, while the decision to withhold the remaining records was upheld.

The appellant requested access to police investigation records relating to the murder of her brother by an individual who subsequently committed suicide.

The Ministry denied access to medical and psychological assessment records of the perpetrator under the personal privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the records contained highly sensitive medical information compiled during a criminal investigation, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator also held that the appellant's desire to use the records for a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons did not constitute a compelling public interest under section 23.

The Ministry's decision was upheld, save for five pages containing no personal information.

An employee of the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board requested access to her personal information relating to her long-term disability benefits and return to work.

The Board denied access to 13 records, claiming they fell outside the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)3.

The adjudicator found that while the records related to an employment matter, the Board failed to establish a sufficient legal interest, as there was no pending or reasonably foreseeable grievance or legal action.

The records were ordered to be processed under the Act.

The appellant, a member of the media, appealed the Ontario Casino Corporation's decision to deny access to a settlement agreement regarding a cancelled teletheatre at the Windsor Casino.

The Corporation claimed exemptions under section 18(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing disclosure would prejudice its economic interests and competitive position in ongoing negotiations for a third casino complex.

The adjudicator upheld the Corporation's decision, finding that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice its economic interests and that the appellant failed to establish a compelling public interest under section 23 that would override the exemption.

A requester sought access to correspondence and submissions from a named tourist organization to the Ministry of Natural Resources.

The Ministry granted partial access, and the third party appealed, arguing the records were exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that only a portion of one record contained commercial information supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to result in similar information no longer being supplied.

The Ministry was ordered to withhold that portion and disclose the remaining records.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Management Board of Cabinet to deny access to records relating to the privatization of services provided by the Ontario Realty Corporation.

The Board claimed the records were exempt under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as cabinet records.

The Adjudicator restated the test for section 12(1)(c) and found that all the records at issue qualified for exemption under sections 12(1)(a), (b), (c), or the introductory wording of section 12(1).

The decision of the Board was upheld.

The appellant sought access to an intake form completed by his former spouse and filed with the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The Ministry denied access under sections 19, 21(1), 49(a), and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that certain factual information about the child and the appellant's own personal information must be disclosed, as disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy and the information was not subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The Ministry's decision to deny access to the remaining highly sensitive personal information of the former spouse was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of the Attorney General denying access to a one-page letter from his former spouse's lawyer to the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The Ministry claimed the record was exempt under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the record contained only the personal information of the former spouse relating to her eligibility for social services or welfare benefits.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, concluding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(c) of the Act.

The requester appealed the Ontario Insurance Commission's decision to deny access to records relating to an investigation of an insurance agent.

The adjudicator refused to allow the OIC to raise a late discretionary exemption.

The adjudicator found that some records were exempt as law enforcement reports under section 14(2)(a) and others were protected by solicitor-client privilege under section 19.

However, the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of several records that did not meet the requirements for the law enforcement exemptions claimed.

The adjudicator also upheld the OIC's decision to withhold personal information of third parties under section 21(1).

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to Mohawk College for records relating to grievance and arbitration costs.

The College issued a revised fee estimate of $341 for search time, based on the $55 hourly rate charged by its external law firm whose articling students conducted the search.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate.

The Adjudicator upheld the fee estimate, finding that the College was permitted to recoup costs specified in an invoice from the law firm, and ordered the College to issue an access decision on the remaining items for which fees were waived.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' response to a Freedom of Information request for his entire family benefits file, arguing that additional notes to file should exist.

The adjudicator found that the Ministry had conducted a reasonable search for the requested records, supported by declarations from employees and the social worker.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested access to their own personal information from the Halton Regional Police Services Board.

The Police disclosed most of an occurrence report but withheld a small entry containing a numerical code, claiming exemptions for invasion of privacy and law enforcement.

The Adjudicator found that the withheld portion was the appellant's own personal information, as it contained the investigating officer's opinion about the appellant.

The Adjudicator rejected the invasion of privacy exemption because the record only contained the appellant's information.

The law enforcement exemptions were also rejected because the occurrence report did not qualify as a 'report' under the Act, and there was insufficient evidence that disclosure would expose the officer to civil liability.

The Police were ordered to disclose the withheld portion.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of the Environment regarding a freedom of information request, arguing that additional responsive records should exist.

The adjudicator reviewed the Ministry's search efforts, which included multiple searches of district files and consultations with relevant staff.

The adjudicator concluded that the Ministry had made a reasonable effort to identify and locate records responsive to the request and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant requested access to a videotaped statement he gave to the Halton Regional Police Services Board following his arrest.

The Police denied access, claiming the record was excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)1 because it was used in a disciplinary hearing regarding the arresting officers.

The Adjudicator found that the record was collected, maintained, and used in relation to a proceeding before another entity relating to the employment of a person.

The appeal was dismissed as the record fell outside the scope of the Act.

The Toronto Licencing Commission appealed a decision by the Toronto Police Services Board denying access to records relating to sexual assault charges against a taxi driver.

The Commission sought the records to determine whether to revoke the driver's licence.

The Adjudicator found that section 32(f)(ii) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act did not apply to an access request under Part I. The Adjudicator upheld the Police's decision to deny access under section 14(1), finding that the records were compiled for a law enforcement investigation and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Adjudicator also found that the public interest in disclosure did not outweigh the purpose of the exemption.

The appellant requested access to eight policy and procedure manuals used by the Centre of Forensic Sciences.

The Ministry granted partial access and charged a fee of $132.20, including $15 for search time.

The appellant appealed the search fee and the Ministry's refusal to waive the fee on public health and safety grounds.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding the $15 search fee reasonable and concluding that the dissemination of the highly technical information in the manuals would not benefit public health and safety.

The appellant sought access to records relating to a background investigation conducted during her application for employment with the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6)3.

The adjudicator found that the records were collected and used in relation to employment-related matters 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 submitted a freedom of information request to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for copies of all its rules, policies, and procedures.

The Board provided its Policy Manual, an Information Booklet, and a copy of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing the records were not responsive to his request.

The adjudicator applied the test for responsiveness, finding that the records provided were reasonably related to the request and therefore responsive.

The appeal was dismissed.