Mumtaz Jiwan

The requester appealed a decision by the Ministry of Natural Resources denying access to records showing the exact amount of monies expended on hunting and hunting-related activities during the 1992-1993 fiscal year.

The Ministry claimed the records did not exist because its financial and accounting system did not separately identify expenditures relating exclusively to hunting.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry provided a reasonable explanation as to why the records did not exist and was satisfied that the Ministry's search for responsive records was reasonable.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to certain records relating to an assault complaint against the appellant.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision to withhold the records under the personal privacy exemption, found the search for records was reasonable, and denied the request to correct personal information, though ordering that a statement of disagreement be attached to the record.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to records relating to his deceased brother, including records of a 1973 hit-and-run accident and property records.

The Police stated that the requested financial information was not contained in their files and that relevant occurrence reports had been purged in accordance with their Records Retention Schedule.

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

The appellant requested copies of all complaints about a septic system on a specified property from the Simcoe County District Health Unit.

The Health Unit initially denied access but later disclosed all 13 responsive records during mediation.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional responsive records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Health Unit had made a reasonable effort to identify and locate records responsive to the request, and upheld the Health Unit's decision.

The appellant appealed the Toronto Board of Education's response to a freedom of information request for records held by the Board's solicitors.

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

However, the Board failed to adequately identify the responsive records in its decision letter, effectively denying access without providing sufficient information for the appellant to make an informed decision on whether to seek a review.

The Board was ordered to issue a new decision letter complying with the Act.

The appellant appealed the Town of Oakville's decision to deny access to records relating to property negotiations with a development company.

The Town claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including the closed meeting exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records, which included a staff report and an agreement, would reveal the actual substance of deliberations of in-camera meetings authorized by statute.

The decision of the Town to deny access under section 6(1)(b) was upheld.

The appellants appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to parts of records relating to a wildlife centre's funding and status, claiming the advice or recommendations exemption under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellants also claimed additional records must exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the substantive advice and recommendations in the records were properly exempt, but the headings identifying options were not and must be disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the Ministry's search for records as reasonable.

The requester appealed a decision of the Windsor Police Services Board granting partial access to three police occurrence reports and a statement.

The Police withheld portions of the reports under the invasion of privacy exemptions in sections 38(b) and 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information constituted personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The Inquiry Officer held that the presumption in section 14(3)(b) applied even though no charges were laid in two of the incidents, and upheld the Police's decision to deny access.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to a letter from a Deputy Minister to a First Nation regarding commercial fishing rights.

The Ministry claimed the record was exempt under section 18(1)(e) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, as it contained positions and plans intended to be applied to future negotiations.

The Inquiry Officer found that the four-part test for the exemption was met and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access.

The appellant requested access to a by-law occurrence report and the identity of the complainant from the City of Nepean.

The City granted partial access but withheld the complainant's name, address, and telephone number under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that the by-law enforcement process qualifies as a law enforcement matter and that the complainant's identity is protected as a confidential source under section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester appealed Ontario Hydro's decision to deny access to a list of user accounts with Unix-to-Unix Copy Program (UUCP) addresses.

Ontario Hydro claimed the record was exempt under the security exemption in section 14(1)(i) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that disclosure of the user account names could lead to unauthorized access to Ontario Hydro's internal computer systems, thereby endangering the security of a system established to protect items for which protection is reasonably required.

The requester appealed Ontario Hydro's decision to deny access to an agreement for the sale of synthetic gypsum to a third party company.

Hydro attempted to raise additional discretionary exemptions late in the appeals process, which the Inquiry Officer refused to consider due to lack of extenuating circumstances.

Applying the three-part test for third party information under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Inquiry Officer found that only specific portions of the agreement containing pricing and business arrangements were supplied in confidence and could reasonably cause competitive harm if disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the remaining portions of the agreement.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to deny access to minutes of a meeting attended by representatives of various provincial and federal revenue ministries regarding tax assessing policies.

The Inquiry Officer found that portions of the record were exempt under section 17(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they contained taxpayer-specific information.

The remaining portions, except for a few paragraphs, were found exempt under section 15(a) as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice intergovernmental relations.

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

A requester sought access to records regarding dealings between the Ministry of Natural Resources and a non-profit continuing education centre.

The Ministry decided to grant partial access, and the Centre appealed, arguing the records contained third party commercial information exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that Record 20 was responsive to the request and that the Centre failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure.

The Ministry's decision to disclose the records was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to portions of records relating to timber licences.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 17(1) (third party information), and 19 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were exempt under section 13(1), while others did not meet the requirements and were ordered disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the application of section 17(1) to certain records containing confidential commercial information, and section 19 to records containing legal advice.

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

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Health for her health records, including version codes and billing information.

The Ministry disclosed some records but severed portions containing the personal information of other individuals.

The appellant appealed, arguing the severed records should relate to her and that additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the severed information was not responsive to the request as it contained billing information of other individuals.

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

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Environment and Energy's decision to deny access to a letter relating to the appellant's application for a sewage system and use permit.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the letter contained highly sensitive personal information of the affected person and other identifiable individuals, and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access.

The appellant requested a copy of their jobsOntario application from the Peel Board of Education.

The Board advised that the requested record did not exist.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's search for the records, which included checking its own files and contacting another jobsOntario broker, was reasonable in the circumstances.

The Board's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Education and Training's decision to transfer a freedom of information request to the Peel Board of Education, arguing that the Ministry should have responsive records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search for records prior to the transfer was reasonable, as the requested records related to the jobsOntario Training program, which are maintained directly by individual brokers rather than the Ministry.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

A requester sought access to records relating to financial assistance provided by the Ontario Development Corporation and Northern Ontario Development Corporation to a lumber company.

The Ministry of Economic Development and Trade denied access to numerous records, claiming the third party information exemption under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer applied the three-part test for section 17(1) and found that while all records contained commercial or financial information, only certain records were 'supplied' in confidence and met the harms test.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the majority of the records, with a few exceptions upheld as exempt.