Mumtaz Jiwan

The appellant appealed the Ministry's claim that certain employment records did not exist, arguing that a Performance, Planning and Review and an Employee Separation/Work Performance Record should exist.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Ministry's representations and affidavits detailing the search of corporate personnel files, old staff files, training files, and the direct supervisor's files.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate the responsive records and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision denying access to initial evaluations of two wetlands on the basis that the records did not exist.

After one evaluation was subsequently found, the sole issue was whether the Ministry's search for the remaining evaluation was reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to provide sufficient evidence of a reasonable search, noting the lack of attempts to contact other involved individuals and the absence of information on record retention policies.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct a further search.

The appellant appealed the City of York's decision to deny access to records relating to occupancy approval for a parking facility.

The City raised additional discretionary exemptions late in the appeals process, which the Inquiry Officer declined to consider due to a lack of extenuating circumstances.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third party information exemption under section 10(1)(a) did not apply because there was no evidence the information was supplied in confidence or that disclosure would cause harm.

Furthermore, the law enforcement exemption under section 8(2)(a) did not apply because the records were mere observations and recordings of fact, not formal reports.

The City was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant requested access to the resumes and covering letters of five successful candidates in three job competitions with the Ministry of Housing.

The Ministry denied access under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the employment and educational history of the candidates, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 21(3)(d).

As no exceptions applied, the Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of a workplace discrimination and harassment investigation report under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The appellant clarified they were not seeking the personal information of other identifiable individuals.

The Inquiry Officer found that while some withheld portions contained personal information of other individuals and were exempt, other portions did not constitute personal information once identifiers were removed.

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

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Natural Resources for records relating to a specific quarry operated by a named company.

The Ministry denied access to certain records containing quarry production data, relying on 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 the records contained commercial information supplied explicitly in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in undue loss to the company's competitive position.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Halton Regional Police Services Board denying access to portions of an occurrence report under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police claimed the disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of privacy under sections 14(1) and 38(b).

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that the information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and its disclosure would constitute a presumed invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The appellants, former part-time firefighters, appealed the City of Stoney Creek's decision to deny access to portions of their 'secret files' held by the fire department.

The City relied on the invasion of privacy exemption under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to withhold names and signatures of affected persons.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City and affected persons failed to establish that disclosure would result in pecuniary harm, was supplied in confidence, or would unfairly damage reputations under section 14(2).

The Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and ordered the City to disclose the records in their entirety.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $541.90 provided by the Halton Board of Education for processing a request for the Director's credit card statements and expense accounts.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Board's calculations for search time, preparation time, and photocopying, finding them reasonable and in accordance with the Act.

However, the $22.50 charge for off-site retrieval was disallowed as it did not qualify as an allowable cost under the regulations.

The Board was ordered to refund the $22.50.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board for vehicle registration numbers from parking tags issued at a specific location and time.

The appellant sought this information to contact the vehicle owners to corroborate a complaint against the parking enforcement officer.

The Police denied access under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that the vehicle registration numbers constituted personal information compiled during an investigation into a possible violation of law, and that no compelling public interest outweighed the privacy exemption.

The appellant, a former employee, appealed the City of York's decision denying access to job competition records, including examination questions, and claiming other records did not exist.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the examination questions as the City failed to provide evidence supporting the section 11(h) exemption.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's search for additional records as reasonable, but ordered the disclosure of two newly located records.

A postscript noted concerns regarding the City's compliance with record retention regulations.

The appellant, a non-profit organization representing a community group, appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny a fee waiver for a freedom of information request regarding the High Falls Dam Project.

The appellant claimed financial hardship and that dissemination of the records would benefit public health and safety.

The Inquiry Officer found insufficient evidence that dissemination would benefit public health and safety.

Although accepting that payment would cause financial hardship, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the Ministry's decision to deny the fee waiver was fair and equitable, given the large volume of records, previous concessions made by the Ministry, and the appellant's failure to narrow the request.

The appellant requested a list of businesses that received bulk waste removal services from the City of Etobicoke.

The City denied access under sections 11(a) and (c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing the list had potential monetary value and its disclosure could prejudice the City's economic interests.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City failed to establish that the information had monetary value or that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged harm.

The City was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to a meeting held in 1989 or 1990.

The Police denied access on the basis that no responsive records exist.

The appellant appealed, arguing that records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed affidavits from the Police detailing their search efforts and their records retention schedule, which indicated that relevant daily duty sheets from that period would have been destroyed after one year.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the Police had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records and upheld the decision.

The Ontario Science Centre received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to attendance and revenue figures, including concession revenues.

The Centre decided to grant access to the concession revenue figures despite objections from the affected third party company.

The company appealed the decision, arguing the information was exempt under section 17(1)(a) of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the information was financial and supplied by the company, there was no reasonable expectation of confidentiality.

The appeal was dismissed and the Centre was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Peel Regional Police Services Board to deny access to certain records related to an investigation of an alleged assault and subsequent prosecution involving the appellant.

The Police claimed exemptions under sections 14(1) and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information and that their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other individuals, as the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision to deny access to most of the records, but ordered the disclosure of two records containing only the appellant's personal information.

A requester sought access to the name and address of the bank with which a company does business.

The Ministry decided to disclose the record, and the company appealed, claiming the mandatory exemption for third-party information under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the appeal, finding that while the information was financial in nature, the company failed to provide evidence that it was supplied to the Ministry in confidence.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

The requester appealed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision to deny access to records relating to a Board solicitor's involvement in the requester's re-employment hearings.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the requester's personal information but were exempt from disclosure under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as they were prepared by or for Crown counsel for use in litigation or contemplation of litigation.

The Board's decision was upheld.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for any existing police records relating to him.

The Police conducted computer and microfilm searches but found no responsive records, providing only printouts of the search queries.

The appellant appealed, arguing that records should exist based on past incidents.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search in the circumstances and upheld their decision.

The appellant appealed the Town of Cobourg's decision to extend the 30-day time limit for responding to a freedom of information request regarding a landfill site by 106 days.

The Town argued the request involved a large number of records and that the Information and Privacy Commissioner could not reasonably evaluate the head's decision.

The Inquiry Officer rejected this argument, finding the Commissioner has jurisdiction to review time extensions.

The Inquiry Officer found the Town failed to provide sufficient evidence that the request necessitated a search through a large number of records or would unreasonably interfere with operations, and ordered the Town to issue a decision letter within 21 days.