Mumtaz Jiwan

The requester appealed the City of Oshawa's decision denying access to records relating to road and sidewalk inspections, snow removal, and maintenance for a specific intersection during a two-month period.

The City claimed no responsive records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate it made a reasonable effort to identify and locate responsive records, noting that one of the roads was under regional jurisdiction and the City's policy did not require maintaining specific records for salting or plowing assignments.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to the investigation of a fire at the appellant's place of business.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including the law enforcement exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records related to an ongoing law enforcement matter, as criminal charges had been laid against the appellant and the case was before the courts.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access under sections 14(1)(a) and 49(a) of the Act.

The appellant requested access to his compensation claim file from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

The Board denied access to 41 pages under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the personal information of the appellant, the affected police officers, and other individuals.

The presumption against disclosure in section 21(3)(b) did not apply because the records related to the investigation of charges against the appellant, not the officers.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the records, except for the names and employment addresses of the affected officers, which were protected as highly sensitive personal information.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to portions of their file with the Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner and to transfer part of the request to the Peel Regional Police Services Board.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the transfer of the request.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were not exempt as law enforcement reports under section 14(2)(a) and that the appellant's own tax return information was not exempt under section 17(2).

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption of a portion of one page containing the personal information of another individual under section 21(1).

The appellant requested access to her 'Agent's Licence' file from the Ontario Insurance Commission.

The OIC denied access to four internal memoranda, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the appellant's personal information but were prepared by or for legal counsel for use in giving legal advice.

The OIC's decision to deny access under section 49(a) and Branch 2 of section 19 was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Community and Social Services denying access to records relating to his son under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The records consisted of a consultation note and treatment plans.

The adjudicator found that the records contained medical and psychological information, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 21(3)(a) of the Act.

Applying the Divisional Court's decision in John Doe v. Ontario, the adjudicator held that factors under section 21(2) could not rebut this presumption.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Town of Dryden's decision to deny access to minutes of an in-camera meeting and a letter from a third party regarding airport rate increases.

The Town claimed exemptions under sections 6(1)(b) (closed meeting) and 10(1) (third party information) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Town was not authorized by statute to hold a closed meeting for 'negotiation issues', so section 6(1)(b) did not apply.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the third party's expectation of confidentiality was not reasonable because the letter had been discussed at an open meeting, so section 10(1) did not apply.

The Town was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant appealed the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's decision to deny access to their General Welfare Assistance file and investigation file under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Municipality claimed exemptions under sections 12 (solicitor-client privilege) and 38(a) (discretion to refuse requester's own information).

The Inquiry Officer found that the records either constituted confidential communications between the Municipality and its legal counsel or were compiled for the lawyer's brief in ongoing litigation.

The Municipality's decision to deny access was upheld.

A former employee of the Town of Oakville appealed the Town's decision to deny access to a 1990 operational review report of the Department of Public Works.

The Town claimed the record was excluded from the Act under section 52(3)3 (labour relations) and exempt under sections 6(1)(b) (closed meeting), 11(f) (economic interests), and 7(1) (advice or recommendations).

The Inquiry Officer found that the record was subject to the Act and that none of the exemptions applied.

Specifically, the report fell within the mandatory exception in section 7(2)(e) as a report on the performance or efficiency of an institution.

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

A newspaper reporter appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services' decision to deny access to incident reports regarding physical assaults at a detention centre.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 14(2)(d) (correctional record) and 21(1) (invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while portions of the records contained personal information and were exempt, the remaining information did not constitute personal information and did not qualify for the correctional record exemption.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the severed records.

The requester appealed the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board's decision to deny access to portions of records relating to an assault incident.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for invasion of privacy and facilitating the commission of a crime.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that the personal information was exempt under section 38(b) as its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy, and that the CPIC access codes were exempt under section 8(1)(l) as their disclosure could facilitate unauthorized access to the CPIC system.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to a non-profit housing project.

The Ministry denied access to certain records, claiming exemptions for third party information and solicitor-client privilege.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third party information exemption did not apply because there was insufficient evidence that the information was supplied in confidence.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the solicitor-client privilege exemption did not apply to a briefing note, as it did not represent confidential communication for legal advice nor was it prepared by Crown counsel for litigation.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant requested access to a police occurrence report regarding an incident where he and his dog were allegedly attacked by another dog.

The Halton Regional Police Services Board granted partial access but withheld the dog owner's personal information under the invasion of privacy and law enforcement exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer 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 personal privacy under section 38(b).

The appellants requested copies of the certificates of competency of three operators employed at the Township of Collingwood's Pollution Control Plant.

The Township denied access, claiming disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information did not qualify as employment or educational history, and noted that O. Reg. 435/93 requires the certificates to be conspicuously displayed at the workplace.

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

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to a contract between the City and a third-party company under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant raised preliminary issues regarding access to a detailed description of the record, access to the City's representations, and a Charter challenge to the inquiry process, all of which were dismissed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the contract contained commercial and financial information supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the company's competitive position.

The record was held to be exempt under section 10(1) of the Act, and the City's decision was upheld.

The requester, representing an insurance company, appealed the Sarnia Police Services Board's decision to deny access to records relating to a suspected arson investigation.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing the investigation was ongoing.

The Inquiry Officer found that the investigation had not been concluded and that premature disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement matter.

The decision to deny access under section 8(1)(b) was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Township of Egremont to deny access to records relating to a tire dump on a neighbouring property.

The Township claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for solicitor-client privilege, relations with other governments, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the solicitor-client privilege exemption for certain records and the invasion of privacy exemption for one record and personal identifiers in others.

The Inquiry Officer found no compelling public interest to override the exemptions and ordered the disclosure of the remaining non-exempt records and severed portions.

The appellant, a former employee of the LCBO, requested records relating to his civil and criminal cases involving the LCBO.

The LCBO 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 LCBO conducted a reasonable search for records.

The Inquiry Officer determined that the settlement agreements ending the civil proceedings fell within the exception in section 65(7) and were subject to the Act, ordering the LCBO to issue an access decision for those records.

The remaining records were found to be excluded from the Act under section 65(6) as they related to employment matters in which the LCBO had an interest.

The appellant, an unsuccessful bidder, submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Transportation for contracts related to the ServiceOntario Kiosk project.

The Ministry granted partial access but withheld portions of an agreement under the third party information exemption in section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing a public interest in disclosure.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the withheld information was supplied in confidence and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the affected party's competitive position.

The public interest override in section 23 did not apply as the interest in disclosure was private.

The appellant corporation sought access to a criminal investigation file regarding an affected person who had launched a wrongful dismissal suit against the appellant.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the records were exempt from disclosure under the invasion of privacy exemption, as they were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

However, a letter regarding a technical inspection was not exempt under solicitor-client privilege and was ordered disclosed.

The public interest override did not apply.