Mumtaz Jiwan

The appellant appealed the Toronto Board of Education's decision to deny access to records relating to her sexual harassment complaint.

The Inquiry Officer found that recent amendments to the Act did not apply retrospectively to the request.

The Officer declined to consider a late-raised discretionary exemption.

The Officer upheld the Board's decision to deny access to most records under section 38(b), finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other individuals.

However, the Officer ordered the disclosure of certain records and portions of records that did not qualify for the advice and recommendations exemption under section 38(a).

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the City of North York for records relating to the development of certain lands.

The City denied access to various records, claiming they were either not in its custody or control (councillor's records) or were exempt under solicitor-client privilege.

The City also destroyed certain handwritten notes in accordance with its records retention policy after the appellant appeared to have abandoned an earlier request.

The Inquiry Officer found that the councillor's records were not in the City's custody or control, as the councillor was acting on behalf of constituents and not as an officer of the City.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of solicitor-client privilege to most of the legal records, but ordered the disclosure of certain statements of account and cheques.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the City's search for records was reasonable and that the destruction of the handwritten notes did not contravene the Act.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to a complaint.

The appellant narrowed the appeal to records in the possession of the Township's solicitor.

The Township claimed these records were not in its custody or under its control.

Applying the test from Order 120 and principles from the Solicitors' Act, the Inquiry Officer found that the records belonged to the solicitor and were not under the Township's control.

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

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Thunder Bay Police Services Board to deny access to portions of a general occurrence report under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police claimed the withheld information, which consisted of names compiled during an investigation into a possible violation of law, was exempt under section 38(b) as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that the information fell under the presumption in section 14(3)(b) and was therefore exempt from disclosure.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board for records relating to an internal police investigation into the conduct of officers during a murder investigation.

The Police denied access to several records, citing various exemptions including the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and their disclosure was therefore presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester appealed a fee estimate provided by the Lanark County Board of Education under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board argued the appeal was out of time and that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction.

The Inquiry Officer found that ongoing correspondence meant the final decision was not issued until January 30, 1996, making the appeal timely.

On the issue of the appeal filing fee, the Inquiry Officer determined that while a 'review' of a fee estimate is equivalent to an 'appeal' and normally requires a fee, the appellant's right of appeal vested before the new fee regulation came into effect.

Therefore, no fee was required.

The requester appealed the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to portions of occurrence reports and a letter under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records did not qualify as 'reports' under the law enforcement exemption in section 8(2)(a).

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the invasion of privacy exemption under section 38(b), finding that the personal information of other individuals was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption of an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Police were ordered to disclose only the portions of the records containing solely the requester's personal information.

A requester sought access to contracts and reconciliation statements between the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place and a promotional company.

The Board decided to disclose the records, and the promotional company appealed, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction, the records were not responsive, and various exemptions applied.

The Inquiry Officer found the Board had jurisdiction and the records were responsive.

The Officer declined to consider discretionary exemptions raised only by the appellant.

On the mandatory third-party information exemption under section 10(1), the Officer found the information was commercial but was negotiated rather than 'supplied' in confidence.

The appeal was dismissed and the records ordered disclosed.

The appellant, a genealogist, appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to portions of a statement of death, a marriage record, and a birth record under the personal privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some of the withheld information did not qualify as personal information and ordered its disclosure.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the remaining personal information, finding that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The appellant, a former employee of the Management Board Secretariat, appealed the Secretariat's decision to deny access to three pages of handwritten notes regarding a workplace complaint made against him.

The Secretariat claimed the records were exempt under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information in the record was "highly sensitive" under section 21(2)(f) and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other individuals.

The Secretariat's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant, a journalist writing a book, appealed the Ontario Insurance Commission's decision to deny access to records relating to negotiations between two insurance companies.

The Inquiry Officer found that portions of the records were exempt under section 15(b) as information received in confidence from another government agency (OSFI), and under section 13(1) as advice or recommendations.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as the public interest was not compelling enough to outweigh the exemptions.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of some background information not covered by the exemptions.

The Commission's search for records was deemed reasonable.

The appellant requested access to the Township's general accounts and budget status reports.

The Township denied access to the budget status reports under the closed meeting exemption in section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Township failed to establish that the records related to the security of municipal property or that the closed meetings were properly authorized under the Municipal Act.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the records, except for portions containing personal information which the appellant had excluded from the scope of the request.

The appellant requested access to an Administrative Report on Curbside Refuse Tenders from the Town of Petrolia.

The Town denied access, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, third party information, and personal privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the third party information and personal privacy exemptions did not apply, as the harms were not established and the information related to business rather than personal matters.

However, three sentences in the report qualified as advice or recommendations and were exempt from disclosure.

The Town was ordered to disclose the remainder of the report.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to portions of his Family Support Plan file.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for law enforcement, advice or recommendations, relations with another government, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the personal information of both the requester and other identifiable individuals.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the law enforcement exemption applied to certain records as their disclosure could reveal investigative techniques or confidential sources, and that the invasion of privacy exemption applied to the remaining records due to the highly sensitive nature of the information collected for support order enforcement.

The requester appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to portions of a Record of Arrest and claiming that additional records should exist.

The Police withheld information under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and its disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The Officer also found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search for the requested records.

The requester sought access to a company's loan application and related documents from the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism.

The Ministry denied access to several records under the third party information and invasion of privacy exemptions.

Both the requester and the company appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third party information exemption did not apply because there was insufficient evidence of expected harm from disclosure.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the invasion of privacy exemption to personal information contained in the records, ordering partial disclosure.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of the Attorney General denying access to records relating to a private prosecution launched by the appellant.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under solicitor-client privilege and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were prepared by or for Crown counsel for use in litigation and were therefore exempt from disclosure under section 49(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, read in conjunction with section 19.

The appellant sought access to a letter of complaint concerning a named Indian association sent to the Gaming Control Commission.

The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations denied access under various exemptions, including the law enforcement exemption.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the record related to a law enforcement matter and that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal the identity of a confidential source, even with the complainant's name and address removed.

The appellant requested an updated copy of her criminal record from 1981 from the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board.

The Police provided a record, but the appellant appealed, arguing that the record should contain more information, specifically relating to arrests in 1983 and 1984.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search of their MANIX and CPIC systems, which showed the appellant's first entry was in 1987.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto regarding a freedom of information request for his personal information.

During mediation, the Municipality disclosed all remaining records, leaving only the issue of whether the Municipality's search for additional records, specifically a police report, was reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Municipality provided sufficient evidence of a reasonable search, including affidavits and confirmation from relevant individuals that no such police report existed in the files.

The appeal was dismissed.