Mumtaz Jiwan

The requester appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Licensing Commission to deny access to a portion of a business licence application containing another individual's responses to questions about their criminal history.

The Commission claimed the information was exempt under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information constituted personal information and that none of the factors favouring disclosure applied.

The Commission's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to witness statements from an internal Ministry investigation into her complaints of workplace discrimination.

The Ministry denied access 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 personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that while some information could be disclosed without identifying the witnesses, the remaining information was highly sensitive and supplied in confidence.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the highlighted portions of the records and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to the rest.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision denying access to a 1962 Patent Inspection Report for a cottage lot on the basis that the record did not exist.

The sole issue was whether the Ministry's search for the record was reasonable.

The Ministry provided an affidavit detailing its search of the Bracebridge Area office and the Crown Land Registry, including microfiched files.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search was reasonable in the circumstances and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, the alleged perpetrator of an assault, requested access to records relating to a claim for compensation filed by the affected person with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

The Board denied access under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records contained personal information whose disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy, while others did not.

The Inquiry Officer ordered partial disclosure of the records and found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The appellant requested access to information related to a notice of contravention of a City of London by-law.

The City granted partial access but withheld the name, address, and telephone number of the complainant under the law enforcement exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that the withheld information qualified for exemption under section 8(1)(d) as it would disclose the identity of a confidential source in a law enforcement matter, and that the City properly exercised its discretion under section 38(a) to refuse disclosure of the appellant's personal information.

The appellant appealed the City of Oshawa's decision to deny access to various records relating to the passage of zoning by-laws and proposed land development.

The City claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including draft by-laws, closed meetings, advice or recommendations, third party information, economic interests, and solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of exemptions to most of the records, but ordered the disclosure of a few records that did not meet the criteria for the claimed exemptions.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to handwritten police notes relating to a fraud investigation involving the requester's mother's estate.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 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 upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the personal information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and fell within the presumption against disclosure in section 21(3)(b).

The appellant requested access to information regarding complaints filed against the Town of Amherstburg Police Services Board.

The Police issued a decision stating no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing records should exist based on comments made by the Police Chief at a staff meeting.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police provided sufficient evidence, including affidavits, demonstrating that the complaints were verbal and no written records existed.

The search was deemed reasonable and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Penetanguishene Police Services Board, which had refused to process a request for personal information on the grounds that it constituted an abuse of process.

The Inquiry Officer found that the request, which sought access to the appellant's own personal information, did not meet the criteria for an abuse of process established in previous orders.

The Police were ordered to issue a decision regarding access to the requested items.

The appellant appealed the Sudbury Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to records relating to allegations of sexual abuse made against him.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer declined to consider additional discretionary exemptions raised late by the Police.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision to deny access under section 38(b), finding that disclosure of the records would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other identifiable individuals, as the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

The requesters appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to a videotape made by the Ontario Provincial Police during the execution of a search warrant on their property.

The Ministry relied on the law enforcement exemption under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the videotape contained the requesters' personal information but upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access, concluding that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement matter, as charges remained outstanding.

The appellant sought access to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board's file relating to allegations of sexual abuse made against him by his daughter.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to the records, citing the personal privacy exemption under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the records contained highly sensitive personal information supplied in confidence, or fell under presumptions against disclosure for medical and law enforcement records.

However, the monetary amounts awarded to the affected person were ordered disclosed as they were relevant to a fair determination of the appellant's rights in a related civil suit.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board for the names of individuals who filed complaints against the appellant.

The Police denied access, citing various exemptions including invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the complainants' names constituted personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

Therefore, under section 14(3)(b), disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The decision of the Police to withhold the names under section 38(b) was upheld.

The requester sought access to all their personal information held by the City of Hamilton across various departments.

The City issued a fee estimate of $1,059.30 for search time and denied the requester's application for a fee waiver, arguing the request was exceptional and non-routine.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that section 45(2) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act strictly prohibits an institution from charging a fee for access to an individual's own personal information.

The City was ordered to complete its search and issue an access decision without charging fees.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to correspondence between a reporter and the Office of the Public Trustee regarding a deceased individual's estate.

The Ministry initially claimed exemptions under sections 14(1)(a) and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, but later withdrew the section 14(1)(a) claim.

The Inquiry Officer found that the reporter corresponded in a professional capacity, so the records did not contain his personal information.

Information regarding the deceased's estate was ordered disclosed as it had received wide media attention, meaning disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the section 21(1) exemption for portions of the records containing employment and financial information of other identifiable individuals, finding its disclosure would be a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant requested access to their test results and test paper from an unsuccessful application for a transit operator position with the City of Mississauga.

The City denied access to the test questions under section 11(h) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming they were questions to be used in an examination or test for an educational purpose.

The Inquiry Officer found that the test was used for an employment-related purpose, not an educational purpose, and ordered the City to disclose the test paper in its entirety.

The appellant, a former employee of the City of Toronto, appealed the City's decision to deny access to portions of counselling notes and a hospital letter under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The City claimed the records were exempt under section 38(d) as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the appellant's mental or physical health.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City failed to provide evidence demonstrating such prejudice and ordered the disclosure of the withheld records.

The appellant requested access to representations made by the Police in a previous appeal before the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The Police denied access under section 41(13) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing section 41(13) is not an exemption.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that section 41(13) precludes access to representations made to the Commissioner by another person, and the circumstances did not constitute an extremely unusual case warranting an exception.

The appellant sought access to the name of an individual who filed a complaint against them with the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

The Ministry of Environment and Energy denied access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the investigation of the complaint constituted a law enforcement matter and that disclosing the complainant's name would reveal a confidential source.

The appellant sought access to Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority records relating to a named individual, including a lease and records of complaints.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing denied access, citing the invasion of privacy exemption.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information of the affected person and the appellant.

The Officer concluded that the information was supplied in confidence and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.