Mumtaz Jiwan

The appellant requested access to witness statements and photographs related to a fatal motor vehicle accident involving a family member.

The Waterloo Regional Police Services Board granted partial access but withheld certain pages under the law enforcement and personal 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 constituted personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and its disclosure would result in a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The appellant, representing the City of Kingston, requested access to records relating to a waste disposal site, including handwritten notes of Ministry employees.

The Ministry initially denied access to some notes under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act but later disclosed them.

The appellant argued that additional notes existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search for the records was reasonable and dismissed that part of the appeal, while remaining seized of the issue regarding custody and control of a personal journal kept by a District Manager at his home.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Environment's decision that no responsive records existed regarding downsizing criteria, restructuring plans, and individual work plans.

The Ministry argued the records, if they existed, would be excluded under section 65(6) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as employment-related matters.

The Inquiry Officer found insufficient evidence to apply the exclusion but concluded that the Ministry's search for the records was reasonable.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant requested access to police records pertaining to an officer's visit to her residence.

The Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board granted partial access but denied the remainder under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld records contained personal information of affected persons, including medical information and information compiled during an investigation into a possible violation of the law.

Applying the presumptions in sections 14(3)(a) and (b), the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b) and upheld the Police's decision.

The appellant requested access to an agreement between the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and a named association regarding a managed care prescription medication program.

The Municipality granted partial access but withheld portions under section 10(1)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming they contained third party commercial information.

The appellant appealed, challenging the adequacy of the decision letter, requesting access to the other parties' representations, and arguing a compelling public interest in disclosure.

The Inquiry Officer found the decision letter inadequate but declined to order a new one, and refused to order an exchange of representations.

The Officer upheld the application of the section 10(1)(a) exemption, finding the withheld information was commercial, supplied implicitly in confidence, and its disclosure could reasonably prejudice the association's competitive position.

The Officer also found no compelling public interest in disclosure under section 16.

The Municipality's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board regarding a freedom of information request for police notes and an occurrence report.

The Police had denied access to portions of the notes, claiming they were non-responsive or exempt under section 14(1)(f) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and stated no occurrence report existed.

During the appeal, the appellant provided consent from his brother, resolving the section 14(1)(f) issue.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld portions of the notes were non-responsive, confirmed that blank lines in the records contained no information, and concluded that the Police's search for the occurrence report was reasonable.

The Police were ordered to disclose the brother's information, while the rest of the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for the personal information of a named individual contained in the records of a deceased parolee.

The Ministry granted partial access, denying access to some records on the basis of the invasion of privacy exemption and claiming other parts were non-responsive.

The appellant appealed, arguing the request included the parolee's information, more records existed, and the exemption did not apply.

The Inquiry Officer found the search was reasonable, the scope was limited to the named individual, and upheld the application of the invasion of privacy exemption for most of the withheld information, ordering disclosure of only a severed portion of one page.

A reporter requested access to complaints and investigative reports regarding a formerly licensed credit and collections company whose licence was revoked.

The Ministry granted partial access and claimed exemptions for the remaining records.

During the appeal, the Ministry withdrew several exemption claims but maintained the personal privacy exemption for certain records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third-party information exemption did not apply to the company's bank account information as it was not supplied in confidence and the harms test was not met.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the personal privacy exemption for names, addresses, and driving histories of identifiable individuals, finding that their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b) of the Act, and that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of Order M-952, which denied him access to a videotape of his interview with the police regarding allegations of child abuse.

The original order found that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other identifiable individuals under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator denied the reconsideration request, finding that the appellant's arguments did not establish a fundamental defect in the adjudication process or a clerical error as required by the IPC's Reconsideration Policy Statement.

The requester appealed a fee estimate and partial fee waiver by the Regional Municipality of York regarding a request for records relating to the environmental assessment of septic systems.

The Municipality had reduced the fee from $2720 to $675 and waived 50%, resulting in a fee of $337.50.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the fee estimate as being in accordance with the Act and Regulations.

The Inquiry Officer also dismissed the request for a further fee waiver, finding that the Municipality had already absorbed much of the cost and a further waiver would shift an unreasonable burden to the Municipality.

The requester appealed a decision by the Midland Police Services Board to deny access to portions of records regarding investigations and complaints about the requester.

The Police withheld the information under several exemptions, including section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

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

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant requested access to his General Welfare Assistance file and asked for a fee waiver.

The Municipality reduced the fee to $32 after the appellant reviewed the file but denied the fee waiver.

The appellant appealed the denial, arguing financial hardship as his only income was from General Welfare Assistance.

The Inquiry Officer found that payment of the fee would constitute financial hardship and that the Municipality's decision to deny the waiver was not fair and equitable.

The Municipality was ordered to waive the fee and disclose the records.

The requester appealed the Region's decision to deny access to portions of his human resources file and notes from a workplace investigation into allegations of misconduct.

The adjudicator found that the Region had conducted a reasonable search for the records.

Furthermore, the adjudicator determined that the records were excluded from the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)3, as they were prepared by the Region in relation to an employment-related matter in which the Region had a legal interest.

The Region's decision was upheld.

The appellant, representing the liability insurers for an establishment and its employees, appealed the Brockville Police Services Board's decision to deny access to records relating to an assault investigation.

The Police claimed the records were exempt as law enforcement reports.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information.

Applying the 'absurd result' principle, the Officer ordered the disclosure of statements originally supplied by the appellant's clients.

The remaining records were found to be exempt under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

A former employee of the City of Toronto appealed the City's decision to deny access to records relating to his employment and specific incidents.

The City claimed the records were excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3).

The Inquiry Officer found that the remaining records, a memorandum and a police occurrence report, were collected and maintained for use in pending grievance arbitrations.

As the arbitrations were proceedings relating to labour relations before an 'other entity', the records fell within the section 52(3)1 exclusion.

The City's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board's decision to deny access to certain police records relating to a charge of uttering death threats.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the law enforcement exemption to CPIC transmission codes and the relations with other governments exemption to information obtained from the CPIC database.

The Officer rejected the application of the published information exemption to the requester's driver's licence history.

The Officer also found that disclosure of personal information of other individuals compiled during a law enforcement investigation would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy, except for information already known to the requester.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of the Attorney General regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to the Ontario Legal Aid Plan.

The Ministry claimed it did not have custody or control over certain manuals and policies, and provided a fee estimate of $6,525 for searching for other records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry did not have custody or control over the administrative records held by the Law Society of Upper Canada.

However, the Inquiry Officer found the Ministry's fee estimate unreasonable as it lacked sufficient evidence to justify 217.50 hours of search time.

The appellant requested access to a legal opinion provided to the City of Elliot Lake by its solicitors.

The City denied access under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The appellant argued the City waived privilege by referring to the opinion in public and raised the public interest override.

The Inquiry Officer found the record was a confidential communication relating directly to legal advice, thus subject to common law solicitor-client privilege.

The public interest override in section 16 does not apply to section 12.

The City's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant made requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Townships of Belmont and Methuen for various records.

The Township charged fees based on its own municipal by-law rather than the fee scheme prescribed by the Act and its regulations.

The appellant appealed the fee estimates.

The Inquiry Officer found that the fee provisions in the Act prevail over the general fee-imposing powers in the Municipal Act, despite the latter's 'despite any Act' wording.

The Township was ordered to recalculate the fees in accordance with the Regulation, resulting in a reduction of the fees charged.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Township's search for additional records was reasonable.

The requester appealed a decision by the Halton Regional Police Services Board denying access to an occurrence report and police notes regarding a harassment complaint filed against her.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for invasion of privacy and law enforcement.

The Inquiry Officer found that applying the privacy exemption to information the requester herself provided to the police would lead to an absurd result, and ordered disclosure of those specific notebook entries.

The remaining records were found to be exempt as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the complainant's privacy.