Sherry Liang

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested to withdraw from the proceedings after reaching a settlement with the respondents.

The complainant opposed the withdrawal unless the Commission was directed to take further steps to assist her in the Tribunal's processes.

The Tribunal allowed the Commission's request to withdraw, finding that its public interest mandate had been satisfied and that no special directions were necessary to minimize prejudice to the complainant.

During a lengthy hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, the presiding Vice-Chair was appointed as a Justice of the Peace and became unable to complete the hearing.

The Commission brought a motion to have the new adjudicator continue the hearing by relying on the former Vice-Chair's handwritten notes or, alternatively, the notes of Commission counsel, as a substitute record of the evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the motions, holding that procedural fairness and the principle of 'he who hears must decide' required a fresh hearing, as the notes could not be deemed an official transcript and their use would breach deliberative privilege.

The complainant alleged workplace harassment based on family status, sex, and perceived sexual orientation, as well as reprisal by her employer.

At the outset of the scheduled hearing, counsel for the corporate respondent advised that she no longer represented certain personal respondents who were not present and had not received direct notice of the hearing.

To ensure procedural fairness, the Tribunal adjourned the scheduled hearing dates and directed counsel to provide the last known addresses for the unrepresented individuals so they could be notified.

The respondents requested the production of the entire will of the deceased complainant to verify the authority of the individuals claiming to be the executors of her estate.

The Commission and the proposed executors opposed the request, arguing that the relevant portions had already been disclosed and that producing the entire will would invade the deceased's privacy.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the entire will, finding it arguably relevant to the preliminary issue of the executors' authority to participate in the hearing, and noting that no specific privacy concerns were raised to justify redacting or withholding the document.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Township of Oro-Medonte denying access to legal opinions prepared by the Township's solicitor.

The Township claimed the records were exempt from disclosure under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act due to solicitor-client privilege.

The appellant argued that the Township waived this privilege by intending to attach the opinions to a public Report to Council.

The adjudicator found that the records were subject to solicitor-client communication privilege and that the Township had not waived this privilege, as there was no intention to attach the legal opinions to the public report.

The Township's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Chatham-Kent Police Services Board denying access to records concerning her complaint against members of the Amherstburg Police Service and the ensuing investigation.

The Police relied on numerous exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator rejected the application of exemptions relating to in camera deliberations, advice or recommendations, law enforcement, relations with governments, labour relations, and economic interests.

However, the Adjudicator upheld the application of the personal privacy exemption and solicitor-client privilege to certain records, while ordering the disclosure of others, including records containing the appellant's own personal information or information already known to her.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Environment.

The Ministry issued a decision granting partial access upon payment of a fee.

The appellant paid the fee, but the Ministry failed to disclose the records.

The adjudicator found that the Ministry breached its obligation under section 26 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to disclose the records within the statutory time frame after payment was received, and ordered immediate disclosure.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General's decision granting partial access to OPP detachment records relating to herself.

The Adjudicator found that the Ministry conducted a reasonable search for records.

The Adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold personal information of other individuals under section 49(b) and ten-codes under section 14(1)(l).

However, the Adjudicator ordered the disclosure of certain information, including doctors' names and opinions about the appellant, finding it was the appellant's personal information and its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of the Solicitor General denying access to portions of an OPP occurrence report and police notebook entries regarding a verbal order directing him to stay away from a township.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold non-responsive information, personal information of other individuals compiled during a law enforcement investigation, and OPP ten-codes.

However, the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of two portions containing only the appellant's personal information and the professional information of school officials.

The appellants appealed a decision by the Ministry of Natural Resources denying access to two pages of handwritten notes taken by a conservation officer investigating damage to their trapline.

The Ministry relied on the law enforcement exemption under section 14(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the records contained personal information and related to an ongoing investigation under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act.

The adjudicator concluded that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ministry of the Solicitor General regarding a freedom of information request for records kept by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCOPS).

The appellant sought minutes of meetings concerning her complaint about police conduct.

The Ministry disclosed some records but claimed no minutes existed for the case review meetings.

The adjudicator found that the Ministry's search was reasonable, accepting evidence that OCCOPS case review meetings are conducted without taking minutes, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant made freedom of information requests to the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board for records relating to the use of Georgian Polished Wire glass in schools and accident reports concerning her son's injury.

The Board provided a fee estimate for searching work orders and denied access to certain witness statements.

The Adjudicator found that the Board's fee estimate was reasonable in calculation but required a sample manual review to provide a proper interim decision.

The Adjudicator also ordered the Board to conduct further searches for incident reports and student files, and ordered the disclosure of two witness statements with personal identifying information severed.

The appellant, a manager at the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to notes taken during a Stage 2 grievance meeting concerning a harassment grievance filed against him.

The Board denied access, relying on the labour relations exclusion in section 65(6) of the Act.

The adjudicator upheld the Board's decision, finding that the records were prepared in relation to discussions about labour relations matters in which the Board has an ongoing legal interest, as the harassment grievance remained unresolved and could potentially be referred to arbitration.

The appellants, parents of a 17-year-old girl killed in a motor vehicle accident, appealed a decision by the Durham Regional Police Service denying their freedom of information request for witness statements.

The Police denied access under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing the protection of personal information.

The Adjudicator upheld the decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation, triggering a presumption of an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The Adjudicator further held that the appellants' desire for understanding, while sympathetic, constituted a private matter and did not meet the compelling public interest override in section 16.

The appellant, acting as the Estate Trustee of a deceased individual, requested access to a police Sudden Death Report to settle the estate and claim life insurance benefits.

The Toronto Police Services Board granted partial access but withheld portions under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Adjudicator found that the appellant was entitled to exercise the deceased's access rights for estate administration purposes and ordered the disclosure of the deceased's personal information.

However, the Adjudicator upheld the Police's decision to withhold the personal information of an affected third party, finding that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Management Board Secretariat for a contract relating to paper shredding and recycling services.

The institution disclosed the contract but severed unit and total pricing information, claiming exemptions under sections 17(1)(a), (b), and (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that while the pricing was commercial information supplied in confidence, the institution failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence that disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause the harms specified in section 17(1).

The adjudicator ordered the complete contract to be disclosed.

The applicant union applied under section 41 of the Labour Relations Act for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The parties had engaged in extensive bargaining over many months, culminating in a strike.

A major point of impasse was the employer's insistence on a discretionary 'pay for performance' wage system, which the union rejected in favour of a wage grid.

The Board found that the collective bargaining process had been unsuccessful and that the parties were in a 'logjam' from which they were unlikely to extricate themselves.

Without attributing fault, the Board exercised its discretion under section 41(2)(d) to direct the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.