Mumtaz Jiwan

The appellant, a former chief of police involved in a civil action against his former employer, requested access to records relating to the convictions of two police officers.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information and that the presumptions against disclosure for law enforcement investigations and employment history applied.

However, the portions of the transcripts containing the appellant's own statements were ordered disclosed, as their disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The public interest override did not apply because the appellant's interest was personal.

A municipality appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to records relating to a forest licensing project.

The records included proposals from third parties, inter-ministerial evaluations, briefing notes, a conditional agreement, and petitions.

The Inquiry Officer found that portions of the records were exempt from disclosure under sections 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 17(1) (third party information), 18(1)(g) (proposed plans or projects), and 21(1) (personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply and that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

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

The requester appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board to deny access to statements given by two suspects in connection with a break and enter incident.

The Police claimed the records were 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.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption under section 14(3)(b).

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to a Legal Opinion Request Form relating to an investigation of a fatal workplace accident.

The Ministry of Labour denied access under sections 14(1)(a) and 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record was prepared for Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice regarding a potential prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The record was therefore exempt from disclosure under the solicitor-client privilege exemption in section 19.

Two sisters requested access to their Crown ward files from 1968-1969 under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services granted partial access to court orders but withheld other records, advising that the Children's Aid Society (CAS) maintained the remaining files.

The requesters appealed, arguing more records should exist and that the Ministry had control over CAS records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable and that the Ministry did not have control over the records held by the CAS, as its authority was limited to financial accountability and periodic administrative reviews.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to information related to a corporation's mining activities from the Ministry of Natural Resources.

The Ministry granted partial access but withheld a work permit application under sections 17(1) and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the denial but abandoned the section 21(1) claim during mediation.

The Inquiry Officer found that the work permit application contained commercial information supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the third party's competitive position.

The Ministry's decision to deny access under section 17(1)(a) was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines' decision to deny access to four records related to a company's marble quarrying activities.

The records included funding applications and correspondence.

The Inquiry Officer found that the funding applications were exempt from disclosure under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they contained confidential commercial and financial information that could prejudice the company's competitive position.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the correspondence was exempt under section 21(1) as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to information relating to mining operations conducted on or around their property since 1988, including topographical pictures.

The Ministry of Natural Resources granted partial access.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional responsive records should exist and that some provided maps had been altered.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records and upheld the Ministry's decision, concluding that the search was reasonable.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs' decision to deny access to records relating to the employment subcontract of a named veterinarian.

The Ministry claimed the invasion of privacy exemption under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry also attempted to raise a new discretionary exemption (section 14(1)(f)) 104 days after the time limit, which the Inquiry Officer refused to consider.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained highly sensitive personal information relating to allegations of improper professional conduct against an affected party.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would result in an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 49(b) and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board to deny access to certain police officers' notes and reports under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police claimed exemptions based on law enforcement and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information and were properly exempt under sections 38(a) and 38(b) of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Police had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records, despite failing to provide an index of records to the appellant.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to records relating to investigations under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act and the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the withheld records were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, specifically under the law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy exemptions.

A small number of records were ordered to be disclosed as they did not meet the requirements for the claimed exemptions.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Transportation's response to a Freedom of Information request for records related to the suspension of his driving licence, arguing that an additional doctor's report should exist.

The Ministry provided affidavits detailing the searches conducted and confirming no additional records were found or destroyed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search for responsive records was reasonable and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant appealed London Hydro's response to a freedom of information request for employment records, specifically concerning an alleged familial relationship that rendered the appellant ineligible for permanent employment.

The sole issue was whether London Hydro conducted a reasonable search for the requested records.

The Inquiry Officer found that London Hydro failed to provide sufficient details of its search efforts and ordered it to conduct a further search.

The requester appealed the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's decision to deny access to records relating to an investigation into her eligibility for general welfare assistance.

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

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision to deny access to most of the records under the law enforcement exemption, finding that disclosure could interfere with an ongoing investigation and pending hearing.

However, the Officer ordered the disclosure of several records that did not meet the criteria for the exemption.

The appellants sought access to police records relating to an investigation that led to sexual assault charges against them, which were later withdrawn.

The Police denied access to several records, claiming solicitor-client privilege and unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that solicitor-client privilege did not apply because there is no solicitor-client relationship between the Police and a Crown attorney.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the appellants could not exercise their adult son's right of access as they were not his appointed committee.

Some records were ordered disclosed, while others containing sensitive medical and personal information of third parties were found exempt under the personal privacy provisions.

The requester, a former employee, appealed the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's decision to deny access to portions of their personnel file, including supervisors' notes.

The Inquiry Officer found that certain records were exempt under section 38(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they were prepared for counsel in contemplation of litigation, satisfying the requirements for solicitor-client privilege under section 12.

The remaining records were found to be exempt under section 38(b) because they contained personal information of other individuals supplied in confidence, and disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(2)(h).

The Municipality's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission denying access to portions of their human rights complaint file under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Commission's decision, finding that the withheld records were exempt from disclosure as they contained law enforcement reports, advice or recommendations of a public servant, and personal information of other individuals whose disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Commission was ordered to disclose one record that had been previously released in another appeal.

The appellant appealed Ontario Hydro's decision to deny access to records relating to alliances or facilities-sharing arrangements between a named corporation and Ontario Hydro Technologies.

The Inquiry Officer found that the severed portion of a non-disclosure agreement was responsive to the request and that the requester was entitled to seek information about the corporation from Hydro.

Records 4, 5, and 6 were found to be exempt under section 18(1)(c) as their disclosure could prejudice economic interests.

Portions of Record 2 were found exempt under section 17(1)(c) as third party commercial information, while the remaining non-disclosure clauses were ordered disclosed.

The requester appealed a fee estimate of $352.50 issued by the Archives of Ontario for search time related to a freedom of information request for a missing court file.

The Archives had issued an interim access decision due to the volume of records and their location in off-site storage.

The Inquiry Officer found that the method used to calculate the estimate, which involved consulting a knowledgeable employee and conducting a preliminary search, was reasonable.

The fee estimate was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for documents relating to a request for proposal for photo radar summons.

The Ministry denied access to portions of a memorandum, claiming exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information was prepared by Crown counsel for the purpose of giving legal advice to senior staff.

The decision to deny access to the information on pages 14 and 15 was upheld under section 19 of the Act, while the Ministry was ordered to disclose a withdrawn portion on page 13.