Mumtaz Jiwan

The requester appealed the Town of Pickering's failure to respond to a freedom of information request regarding a landfill site.

The Town subsequently issued a notice extending the time to respond by 64 days, claiming the request necessitated a search through a large number of records.

The Inquiry Officer found the extension unreasonable, noting the Town provided no evidence of how its operations would be unreasonably interfered with and had issued the notice after the initial 30-day period expired.

The Town was ordered to respond by a specified date and prohibited from charging fees other than for photocopying.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to records relating to a racing incident under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under section 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and section 19 (solicitor-client privilege).

The Inquiry Officer found that several records were exempt under section 19 as they were prepared by Crown counsel for legal advice.

However, the Inquiry Officer rejected the application of section 13(1) to the remaining records, finding they contained factual information or were draft letters not revealing a suggested course of action.

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

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Labour's decision denying access to copies of invoices on the basis that the requested records did not exist.

The sole issue was whether the Ministry's search for the records was reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer found that the search was reasonable, noting that the appellant had explicitly instructed the Ministry not to contact the specific agency where the records might logically be located.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Simcoe County District Health Unit's decision to deny access to portions of a complaint form, a sewage permit, and a hand-drawn map related to a septic tank installation.

The Health Unit relied on the law enforcement exemption, which the Inquiry Officer rejected due to a lack of evidence of an ongoing investigation.

However, the Inquiry Officer found that disclosing the names of third parties in the records would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer also accepted the Health Unit's explanation that no soil analysis report existed because the soil sample was never tested, concluding that a reasonable search had been conducted.

The Health Unit was ordered to disclose the records with the third-party names severed.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to portions of a vaccine supply agreement with a laboratory under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry and the laboratory claimed the withheld portions contained third party commercial and financial information exempt under section 17(1).

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the information was supplied in confidence and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the laboratory's competitive position, satisfying the three-part test for exemption.

However, some portions were not 'supplied' and were ordered disclosed.

The requester's claim of a public interest override under section 23 was dismissed.

The Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation received a freedom of information request for records relating to the proposed expansion of the Metro Toronto Convention Centre.

The request was transferred to the Convention Centre, which decided to grant access to two letters from a third-party company.

The company appealed the decision, arguing the records were exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they contained commercial information supplied in confidence that would prejudice its competitive position.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the appeal, finding that the information reflected negotiated terms rather than information "supplied" by the company, and that there was no evidence it was supplied in confidence or that disclosure would cause the alleged harms.

The Convention Centre was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant filed a freedom of information request for records relating to a harassment complaint they had filed against another individual.

The municipality granted partial access, withholding certain information under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (unjustified invasion of personal privacy).

The Inquiry Officer found that while witness names and identifying information were highly sensitive and supplied in confidence, information directly addressing the substance of the complaint and the findings must be disclosed to the appellant.

The municipality was ordered to disclose the specified portions of the records.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board to deny access to a letter entered as an exhibit at an internal disciplinary hearing of a police officer.

The Police relied on the invasion of privacy exemption under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information of identifiable individuals other than the appellant, and that its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) because it was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the law.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Thunder Bay Police Services Board's decision to deny access to witness statements, occurrence reports, and correspondence related to an investigation of a specific incident involving the appellant.

The Police relied on exemptions for danger to safety or health and invasion of privacy.

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 a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The decision of the Police to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to the 1993 percentage salary increases for each employee group or position in the Village of Tweed, as well as the total cost of increasing the employer-paid portion of employee benefits.

The Village denied access, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the total increased cost of benefits and the percentage salary increases allocated to positions did not qualify as personal information about identifiable individuals under section 2(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Village was ordered to disclose the information.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $236.50 provided by the London Police Services Board for processing a request for receipts of beverage and food purchases.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the fee estimate under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Finding no evidence to justify the eight hours of search time claimed, the search charges were disallowed.

The preparation time was reduced to 30 minutes, while photocopying and shipping costs were allowed.

The appellant requested access to a list of all Ontario physicians and the total number of laboratory tests ordered by each during a twelve-month period.

The Ministry of Health denied access under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the records contained personal information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the number of tests ordered by identified physicians constituted personal information and that factors under section 21(2) weighed against disclosure.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for her personal information held by the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's Treasury and Corporate Personnel departments.

After receiving partial access, the appellant appealed, arguing that additional responsive records should exist, including her medical file and training course confirmations.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the affidavits from the Municipality's Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinators detailing their search efforts.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Municipality had conducted a reasonable search by knowledgeable staff in locations where the records might reasonably be located, and upheld the Municipality's decision.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Kingston Police Services Board, which claimed that no records existed in response to a request for correspondence from the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services regarding a specific incident.

The sole issue was whether the Police conducted a reasonable search.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the affidavit of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator detailing the search efforts and concluded that the Police had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to a draft report on natural areas and old growth forests.

The Ministry claimed the report was exempt under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as advice or recommendations.

The Inquiry Officer found that while parts of the report contained advice or recommendations, the entire report fell under the mandatory exception in section 13(2)(h) for reports containing the results of field research undertaken before the formulation of a policy proposal.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record in its entirety.

The appellant appealed the $25 fee charged by the City of North Bay for processing a freedom of information request for building records, as well as the City's refusal to waive the fee.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City failed to provide sufficient evidence detailing how the $25 fee was calculated, noting that photocopying costs appeared to be duplicated in the search time estimate.

The fee was disallowed and the City was ordered to refund the $25 to the appellant.

The appellant sought access to an internal investigation report and related documents regarding a complaint about a racist remark allegedly made by a staff member to an inmate at a correctional facility.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services granted partial access, claiming the invasion of privacy exemption under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the remaining records.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records contained highly sensitive personal information of inmates and other individuals, the disclosure of which would cause excessive personal distress or unfairly expose them to harm.

The Ministry's decision to deny access to certain records was upheld, while other records containing only the appellant's personal information or information of individuals acting in their professional capacities were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant requested access to the general accounts of the Townships of Belmont and Methuen for a specified month.

The Townships denied access to certain cheque entries, claiming the invasion of privacy exemption under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that entries revealing specific employee salaries were protected from disclosure under section 14(3)(f).

However, entries reflecting pension fund contributions made on behalf of an employee were found to relate to an employment benefit under section 14(4)(a), and their disclosure did not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Townships were ordered to disclose the pension contribution entries.

The appellant, an unsuccessful candidate in three internal job competitions, appealed the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's decision to deny access to technical interview questions, anticipated answers, and diagrams under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Municipality claimed the records were exempt under section 11(c) (economic and other interests), arguing disclosure would prejudice its ability to hire competent supervisory staff and maintain its competitive position.

The Inquiry Officer found the Municipality failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence linking disclosure to specific economic harm or prejudice to its competitive standing.

The Municipality was ordered to disclose the records in their entirety.

The appellant, a corporation, appealed a fee estimate and the denial of a fee waiver for a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Natural Resources.

The Inquiry Officer found that a corporation is not an 'identifiable individual' entitled to a fee waiver for personal information under section 57(2) of the Act.

The fee estimate was adjusted to remove charges for preparing an index and unsupported shipping costs, reducing the allowable search time.

The Ministry's decision to deny a general fee waiver was upheld, as the appellant failed to prove financial hardship and waiving the fee would shift an unreasonable burden to the Ministry.