Mumtaz Jiwan

The appellant requested access to a police complaint file regarding two police officers.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to eight pages of records under sections 14(2)(a), 49(a), 21(1), and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the invasion of privacy exemption did not apply because the affected officers consented to disclosure.

The adjudicator also found that the law enforcement report exemption did not apply because the records consisted of routine administrative correspondence and factual notes, not formal reports.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant sought access to a letter faxed to the police by counsel for his estranged spouse regarding an alleged entry and theft at his residence.

The Ministry denied access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the letter contained personal information compiled as part of a police investigation into a possible violation of law.

Therefore, its disclosure was presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b) of the Act, and the record was exempt from disclosure under section 49(b).

The appellant, a newspaper reporter, submitted a freedom of information request to the Gaming Control Commission for records relating to a decision requiring a named individual to divest his interests in certain companies.

The Commission denied access to the voluminous records, citing multiple exemptions including law enforcement, third party information, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The Adjudicator ordered the disclosure of publicly available records, such as corporate registrations and zoning by-laws.

However, the Adjudicator upheld the Commission's decision to deny access to the remaining records, finding that they were exempt under sections 14, 17, 19, and 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as the public interest in protecting the integrity of the ongoing due diligence investigation outweighed any public interest in disclosure.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records detailing the costs and revenues of the Simcoe and Cayuga courts.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 18(1)(g) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing they were part of a 'Court Profile' prepared for the transfer of Provincial Offences Act activities to municipalities.

The adjudicator found that the records contained proposed policy information and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in the premature disclosure of a pending policy decision.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to draft guidelines for tourism services in provincial parks under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that while some portions of the draft guidelines contained advice, recommendations, and options exempt under section 13(1), the remaining background, factual, and administrative information did not qualify for the exemption.

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

The appellant requested a reconsideration of Order M-1051, arguing the Inquiry Officer failed to decide issues regarding the scope of the request, the Board's actions, and whether the request was frivolous and vexatious.

The Adjudicator granted reconsideration only on the issue of the scope of the request, noting the Inquiry Officer lacked all relevant facts.

Upon reconsideration, the Adjudicator found the scope issue moot but assessed the reasonableness of the Board's search for records responsive to the amended request.

The Adjudicator concluded the Board's search was reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Environment's decision to deny access to certain records relating to a company's recycling operations, claiming exemption under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (solicitor-client privilege).

During the inquiry, the Ministry withdrew its exemption claim for several records.

The adjudicator found that the remaining withheld records were prepared by or for Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice, and therefore qualified for exemption under Branch 2 of section 19.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records for which the exemption claim was withdrawn, and its decision to deny access to the remaining records was upheld.

The appellant sought access to videotapes from an investigation into alleged non-payment of royalties on Crown timber.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records contained personal information and that disclosure would reveal law enforcement investigative techniques.

The Adjudicator found that the videotape images were too fuzzy to identify any individuals, meaning they did not contain personal information.

Furthermore, the Adjudicator held that videotape surveillance is a commonly known investigative technique, and the Ministry failed to demonstrate how disclosure would hinder its effective utilization.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant requested access to records from the Peel District School Board confirming when and where he co-habited with a named employee and that he was named as a beneficiary on her life insurance policy.

The Board denied access under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Adjudicator upheld the Board's decision, finding that the records contained the personal information of both the appellant and the affected person, and that under section 38(b), the affected person's right to privacy outweighed the appellant's right of access.

The appellant requested access to a police occurrence report relating to a complaint filed against him by a co-worker.

The Police granted partial access, withholding the complainant's personal information and the substance of the complaint under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the withheld information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the complainant's personal privacy under section 38(b).

The appellant appealed a decision by the Police Complaints Commissioner denying access to two pages of records relating to an investigation into a complaint against a police officer.

The institution claimed exemptions under sections 14(1)(a) and 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the law enforcement exemptions did not apply, as there was no evidence of expected harm and the records were not 'reports'.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the records to the appellant, subject to the severance of identifying information of other individuals to protect their personal privacy under section 49(b).

The appellant, a member of the Terrace Bay Police Services Board, requested access to a complaint filed against him by a co-worker.

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

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the records were collected and maintained for an anticipated disciplinary proceeding relating to the employment of a person by the institution, and thus fell within the section 52(3)1 exclusion.

The appellant, a former employee, requested access to all of her personnel and grievance-related records from the Ministry of Community and Social Services dating back to 1981.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected, maintained, and used by the Ministry in relation to proceedings before the Grievance Settlement Board and the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which relate to labour relations.

Consequently, the records were excluded from the scope of the Act under section 65(6)1, and the Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Natural Resources for records relating to his work-related back injury, Workers' Compensation Board claim, and re-employment.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6) as employment-related records.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records were collected or prepared in relation to employment-related matters in which the Ministry had an interest, and none of the exceptions in section 65(7) applied.

The appellant sought access to records relating to a waste disposal site, including handwritten notes of Ministry employees.

The Ministry disclosed some records but claimed it did not have custody or control over a personal daily journal maintained by the District Manager at his home.

Applying the 10-factor test from Order 120, the Inquiry Officer found that the journal was created for personal use, kept at the employee's home, not integrated with Ministry records, and not subject to Ministry regulation.

The Inquiry Officer concluded the record was not in the custody or under the control of the Ministry and upheld the decision denying access.

The appellant requested access to witness statements written on her behalf during an OPP investigation into her complaint of childhood sexual abuse.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access to eight statements under the invasion of privacy exemptions in sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

During the appeal, two witnesses consented to disclosure, and the Ministry was ordered to release their statements.

For the remaining statements, the Inquiry Officer found that the personal information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 21(3)(b).

As no exceptions applied, the Ministry's decision to withhold the remaining records was upheld.

The appellant, a former employee, appealed the Ministry of the Environment's decision to deny access to records regarding the status of various positions and vacancies within the Standards Development Branch.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(6)3.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records, which included organizational charts used for downsizing and program planning, were collected, prepared, maintained, or used in relation to meetings, consultations, discussions, or communications about labour relations or employment-related matters in which the Ministry had an interest.

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

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to records relating to a complaint filed against him as an employee of the Emergency Health Services.

The Ministry claimed the records fell outside the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6)3.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected in relation to employment-related matters in which the Ministry had an interest.

The appeal was dismissed and the Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, representing the widow of a worker killed in an industrial accident, appealed the Ministry of Labour's decision to deny access to a fatal accident investigation report under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed the report was exempt under the law enforcement exemption as charges had been laid under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and a trial was pending.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record met the three-part test for a report prepared in the course of law enforcement under section 14(2)(a) and upheld the Ministry's exercise of discretion to withhold the record.

The appellant requested reconsideration of Order M-994, arguing that the order failed to address the Township's search for oral submissions regarding a zoning by-law and access to copies of certain written submissions.

The Inquiry Officer found that these issues were accidentally omitted and granted the reconsideration.

The Township agreed to disclose the written submissions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Township's search for records of oral submissions was reasonable, as no such records existed.