Mumtaz Jiwan

The appellant, a victim of an assault, requested access to police records relating to the incident under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Halton Regional Police Services Board denied access to the names of suspects, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that the records were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Criminal Code, and therefore disclosure of the suspects' names would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Act.

The requester sought access to a police report and related records concerning an incident in which the requester was injured.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denied access, citing law enforcement and privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Criminal Code.

As a result, disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The records were held to be properly exempt under section 38(b), and the decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to a Special Investigations Unit (SIU) report relating to a police shooting death.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access, claiming the record was exempt as a law enforcement report under section 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the public interest override in section 11(1) applied.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Commissioner does not have the power to order disclosure under section 11(1), as that duty belongs solely to the head of the institution.

The Inquiry Officer further held that the SIU Director's report met the three-part test for exemption under section 14(2)(a), as it was a formal report prepared in the course of a law enforcement investigation by an agency with the function of enforcing compliance with a law.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant, a member of the media, appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to a transcript of an examination of a named individual.

The Ministry denied access under the personal privacy and solicitor-client privilege exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained highly sensitive personal financial information and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override did not apply, as any public interest had already been served by the involvement of the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision that no further records existed regarding the calculation of retail sales tax assessed against it.

As a preliminary matter, the Inquiry Officer denied the requester's request for access to the Ministry's affidavit representations, finding no procedural fairness requirement for exchange in this case.

On the main issue, the Inquiry Officer found the Ministry's search reasonable, accepting its evidence that no further records existed because the audit was ongoing and no final assessment had been made.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Municipality's decision to deny access to a letter sent by an affected person to the Regional Chair.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained highly sensitive personal information of the appellant, the affected person, and other identifiable individuals.

The Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that the record could not be reasonably severed under section 4(2).

The Municipality's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed the Township's decision to deny access to records relating to her complaint of sexual and other harassment.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were prepared by the Township's solicitors for use in meetings and discussions about employment-related matters in which the Township had a legal interest.

As a result, the records fell within the section 52(3)3 exclusion, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to an investigation into her allegations of workplace harassment and favouritism.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under the newly enacted section 65(6) as employment-related records.

The appellant argued her request was initiated orally before the legislative amendments took effect.

The Inquiry Officer found that the formal request was made after the amendments came into force and that the records were collected in relation to employment-related matters in which the Ministry had an interest.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant made a 13-part request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Lanark County Board of Education for various financial and personnel records.

The Board issued a fee estimate of $180, which the appellant appealed, arguing that each of the 13 items should be treated as a separate request entitled to two hours of free search time.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appropriate calculation of chargeable search time is based on the actual activity of searching for records, not the wording of the request.

The Board's fee estimate was upheld as reasonable.

The appellant, representing a driver involved in a motor vehicle accident, appealed the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to portions of police records relating to the accident.

The Police withheld personal information of the second driver and a pedestrian under the personal privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, as there was no compelling public interest in disclosure for the purpose of a civil suit.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of the Attorney General for a transcript of a cross-examination of a named individual.

The Ministry denied access under section 21, citing an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information of individuals other than the appellant and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as there was no compelling public interest sufficient to outweigh the purpose of the exemption.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's decision to deny access to portions of his personnel and Workers' Compensation Board files under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Municipality's decision, finding that portions of the records were properly withheld under section 38(b) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy regarding employment history.

The Inquiry Officer also found that other portions were properly withheld under section 38(a) in conjunction with section 12, as they contained quoted legal advice subject to common law solicitor-client privilege.

The appellant requested access to a complete police file, including police officers' notes and witness statements, relating to a specific incident.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access to parts of the notes and the witness statements under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the personal information in the records was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption of an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b).

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

The appellant submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario for records relating to an investigation into a wine-making operation.

The LCBO denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for solicitor-client privilege and personal privacy.

The appellant appealed the denial and challenged the reasonableness of the LCBO's search for e-mail records.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the LCBO's decision, finding that the records were exempt under sections 49(a) and 49(b) of the Act, and concluded that the LCBO had conducted a reasonable search.

The appellant requested access to records from the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) regarding applications for beer price increases by three breweries.

The LCBO denied access to portions of the records under the third-party information and economic interests exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the pricing and costing information was supplied in confidence and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of the breweries, qualifying for exemption under section 17(1).

However, the LCBO failed to establish that disclosure of the remaining information would prejudice its economic interests under section 18(1)(c).

The Commissioner also found no compelling public interest to override the exemptions under section 23.

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

The requester appealed the Ontario Insurance Commission's decision to deny access to portions of a successful tender proposal and contract for evaluating Designated Assessment Centres.

The OIC and the affected company claimed the mandatory third-party information exemption under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the company was not a public agency.

The Officer determined that certain parts of the proposal detailing the company's methodology and references qualified as trade secrets and commercial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the company's competitive position and result in undue loss.

The OIC's decision to withhold those specific portions was upheld, while the remaining non-exempt portions were ordered disclosed.

The requester, a law firm representing an insurance company and a snowmobile driver involved in an accident, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to a witness statement and portions of a police officer's notebook.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the personal information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 21(3)(b), which could not be rebutted by the factors in section 21(2).

The appellant requested access to any records entered with the Supreme Court of Ontario naming him as a party.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied the request, stating that court records are not in its custody or control.

The appellant appealed, arguing that microfilm duplicates of court records should be considered within the Ministry's control.

The Inquiry Officer found that court records, including duplicates maintained for security purposes, are not in the custody or control of the Ministry and are therefore not subject to the Act.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Ministry was not obligated to search court files for the requested records.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The Ontario Insurance Commission received a freedom of information request for the 1994 annual return filed by an insurance company.

The company objected to the disclosure of its financial statements, arguing they were exempt under section 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third party information supplied in confidence.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the records contained financial information, they were not supplied in confidence, as the company ought to have known from previous similar requests that the Commission did not view the information as confidential.

The appeal was dismissed and the records were ordered disclosed.

The Ontario Insurance Commission received a freedom of information request for the 1994 annual return filed by an insurance company.

The company objected to the disclosure of its consolidated and non-consolidated financial statements, arguing they were exempt under section 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third party information supplied in confidence.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the information was financial and supplied to the institution, the company failed to establish that it was supplied explicitly or implicitly in confidence.

The appeal was dismissed and the records were ordered disclosed.