Mumtaz Jiwan

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records regarding its involvement in efforts to stop the performance of Show Boat.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under section 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and section 21(1) (invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records contained advice or recommendations and were exempt, while others merely contained factual information or decided courses of action and were not exempt.

The Officer also found that some information constituted personal information relating to racial or ethnic origin, the disclosure of which would be a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy, while other information related to individuals in their professional or public capacities and was not exempt.

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

The appellant requested access to records relating to a complaint of an alleged violation of a municipal by-law regarding dog waste.

The City of Vaughan granted partial access but denied access to the name, address, and telephone number of the complainant, relying on the law enforcement exemption.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that the withheld information would disclose the identity of a confidential source in a law enforcement matter under section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that the City properly exercised its discretion under section 38(a) to refuse disclosure.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Insurance Commission for records relating to its policies on agent recruitment, HIV/AIDS, and the homosexual community, as well as communications regarding the appellant.

The Commission disclosed some records but stated that others did not exist and fell outside its jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Commission's search for responsive records and the steps taken to assist the appellant were reasonable, and upheld the Commission's decision.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a specific fire department compliance file.

The City of Peterborough informed the appellant that the file's contents had been consolidated with other records previously disclosed to him and that no additional records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that other records must exist.

The Inquiry Officer accepted the City's explanation and affidavit evidence, concluding that the search for responsive records was reasonable in the circumstances.

The City's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to records generated during an investigation into her continuing eligibility for social assistance.

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

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision for the majority of the records, finding they were compiled as part of a law enforcement matter or contained the personal information of other individuals.

However, the Ministry was ordered to disclose two fax cover sheets that contained only the requester's personal information.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to records relating to an eligibility review investigation under the Family Benefits Act.

The Ministry relied on the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the law enforcement exemption to several records, finding their disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement matter.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of other records where the Ministry failed to establish a reasonable expectation of harm.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the application of the invasion of privacy exemption to records containing the personal information of other identifiable individuals.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to records relating to an investigation into her continuing eligibility for social assistance.

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

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold certain records under sections 14(1) and 49(b), finding they related to an ongoing law enforcement matter or contained intertwined personal information of other individuals.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of several facsimile cover sheets and letters, finding that their disclosure would not reveal investigative techniques or interfere with the investigation.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Finance for 1988 market value assessments for certain properties.

The Ministry provided the figures but inserted a disclaimer stating the figures were preliminary and had no legal significance.

The appellant appealed, arguing the disclaimer was not responsive to the request and diminished the evidentiary value of the information.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the disclaimer provided factual context and was responsive to the request, while noting that the legal significance of the figures would be determined by the relevant tribunal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the York Regional Police Services Board denying access to portions of an incident report relating to criminal charges laid against the appellant.

During mediation, the appellant narrowed the request to the name of a switchboard operator and the address of a named individual.

The Police claimed the information was exempt under sections 38(b) and 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information constituted personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law under the Criminal Code.

Consequently, the presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) applied, and the decision to deny access was upheld.

The requesters appealed a deemed refusal by the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services to provide access to records relating to a fire investigation.

The Ministry had extended the time to respond by 90 days due to the voluminous nature of the records (approximately 4,000 pages) but failed to issue a decision by the extended deadline.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Ministry to issue a decision letter within 15 days without further time extensions.

The requester appealed a decision by the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat to deny access to records relating to a First Nation's land claim.

The institution claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for intergovernmental relations, solicitor-client privilege, and economic interests.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were properly exempt from disclosure, as their release could reasonably be expected to prejudice ongoing intergovernmental land claim negotiations, reveal legal advice prepared by Crown counsel, and disclose positions applied to ongoing negotiations.

The decision of the institution was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny her request to correct personal information in her employee portfolio.

The appellant sought to substitute a new skills assessment, claiming she received misleading advice when completing the original form.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the appeal, finding that the original portfolio accurately reflected the appellant's evaluation of her own skills at the time it was completed, and was therefore not inexact, incomplete, or ambiguous.

The appropriate remedy was for the Ministry to attach a statement of disagreement to the record.

The appellant requested access to legal invoices from the Ottawa Public Library under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Library denied access, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12 of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the descriptions of the legal services provided in the invoices revealed the subject matter of the legal advice sought and were therefore exempt.

However, the fee amounts and other non-privileged portions of the invoices did not qualify for the exemption and were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant appealed Ontario Hydro's decision to deny access to portions of a Human Rights Investigation Report under the personal privacy exemption of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant clarified they were not seeking personal identifiers.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appendix and certain highlighted portions of the report contained personal information that could not be severed without revealing identities.

However, the remaining portions of the report did not constitute personal information once identifiers were removed.

Ontario Hydro was ordered to disclose the severable portions of the report.

The appellant sought access to records relating to allegations of abuse made against her while employed at a Ministry residential camp.

The Ministry denied access to certain internal electronic mail messages and a memorandum, claiming exemptions for invasion of privacy and solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that disclosure of the records would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy and that one record was subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The appellant, a former foster parent, appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to a serious occurrence report regarding an allegation of child abuse made against the appellant.

The Ministry relied on the invasion of privacy exemption under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained the personal information of both the appellant and the complainant.

Balancing the factors, including the highly sensitive nature of the information and the fact it was supplied in confidence, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the complainant's personal privacy.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to information relating to refunds of rehabilitation deposits for a specific quarry.

The Ministry of Natural Resources denied access to two statements of return filed by the current lessee, claiming the third party information exemption under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the records contained commercial information supplied in confidence, neither the Ministry nor the lessee provided evidence to substantiate a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The requesters appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to portions of a draft document entitled 'A Proposal to Designate Wildlife Rehabilitators as Agents of the Crown' under the advice or recommendations exemption in section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the substantive advice and recommendations under each option were properly exempt, but the headings identifying the options did not contain advice or recommendations and must be disclosed.

The requester appealed the Town of Gravenhurst's decision to deny access to records relating to a land development proposal.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Town's decision, finding that one record was exempt under the solicitor-client privilege exemption as it was prepared by counsel for legal advice or litigation.

The Commissioner also found that the remaining record was exempt under the closed meeting exemption, as its disclosure would reveal the actual substance of deliberations of a closed committee meeting.

The requester appealed the decision of the Guelph Police Services Board to deny access to portions of records relating to a complaint filed by the requester against the police.

The police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including section 38(b) for unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law under the Police Services Act, triggering the presumption in section 14(3)(b).

The decision of the police to deny access was upheld.