Anita Fineberg

The Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a proposal submitted by a third party for a reservation system.

The Ministry denied access under sections 17(1) and 18(1) of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the proposal contained technical and commercial information supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice significantly the competitive position of the third party and result in undue loss.

The mandatory exemptions in sections 17(1)(a) and (c) were found to apply, and the Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate and the denial of a fee waiver by the City of Mississauga regarding a request for records related to renovation work.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City failed to fulfill its obligations under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by not issuing a final access decision when it had already reviewed the records.

The Inquiry Officer disallowed the City's estimated search and preparation fees due to lack of justification, but allowed photocopying charges at $0.20 per page.

The City's decision to deny a fee waiver was upheld as the appellant failed to demonstrate financial hardship.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to a legal opinion regarding the purchase of a named drug.

The Ministry claimed the record was exempt under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (solicitor-client privilege).

The requester argued the Ministry waived privilege by providing a summary of its legal position in a letter.

The Inquiry Officer found the record was subject to solicitor-client privilege and that the Ministry's disclosure of its legal position did not constitute an implied waiver of privilege over the underlying legal advice.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The requester sought access to an Ontario Labour Relations Board file.

The Board granted access, but two affected persons appealed the decision to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information of individuals other than the requester.

The Officer concluded that the mandatory exemption under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applied, as disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Board was ordered not to disclose the pages at issue.

The appellant requested access to records relating to workplace harassment complaints made against him.

The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto denied access to parts of the records under various exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information and that disclosure of certain information provided by third parties would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b).

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the application of the advice or recommendations exemption under section 7(1) for specific portions of the records.

The Municipality was ordered to disclose the remaining non-exempt portions of the records to the appellant.

The appellant requested access to their personal information from the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board, including a copy of the audio tape of their hearing.

The Board provided a transcript of the tape instead.

The appellant appealed, arguing they were entitled to the tape itself, and that the Board failed to conduct a reasonable search for records related to a compliance investigation.

The Inquiry Officer found that providing the transcript satisfied the Board's obligations under section 48(3) of the Act, given the ambiguity of the request.

However, the Officer found the Board's search for the compliance investigation records was not reasonable and ordered a further search.

The appellant, acting on behalf of the executrix of a deceased individual's estate, requested access to police records relating to allegations, criminal charges, and the death of the deceased.

The Police denied access under various exemptions, including the personal privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information and that the appellant was not entitled to access them under section 54(a) of the Act because the request did not relate to the administration of the estate.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision to deny access under the mandatory personal privacy exemption in section 14 of the Act.

The requester, acting on behalf of the executrix of a deceased former employee's estate, sought access to various records relating to allegations against the deceased.

The Board denied access to several records, citing exemptions for personal privacy and closed meeting deliberations.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information and that the requester's right of access under section 54(a) was limited to records relating to the administration of the estate, which these were not.

The Officer upheld the Board's decision to exempt the records under sections 14 and 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and found the Board's search for records was reasonable.

The appellant submitted multiple requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for information relating to members and employees of the Metro Toronto Housing Authority.

The Ministry of Housing granted partial access but withheld personal information such as home addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, Social Insurance Numbers, and resumes pursuant to section 21 of the Act.

The appellant appealed, also claiming the Ministry failed to provide a complete list of employees and a list of position titles in French.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry was not obliged to create new records or translate existing ones under the French Language Services Act.

The withheld information was found to be personal information, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry's decisions were upheld.

The requester appealed a decision by the Management Board Secretariat to withhold portions of records containing the home addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, prior work experience, and Social Insurance Numbers of employees and members of ministries.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information qualified as personal information under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

In the absence of evidence that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, the mandatory exemption under section 21(1) applied.

The Secretariat's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to a technical review of proposed capital expenditures for the Bruce 'A' Nuclear Generating Station.

Ontario Hydro denied access to a draft economic assessment under sections 18(1)(f) and (g) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record did not contain a specific plan relating to the management of personnel or administration, nor did its disclosure pose a reasonable expectation of premature disclosure of a pending policy decision or undue financial harm.

The exemptions did not apply, and Hydro was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant requested access to police records concerning an investigation into their complaint of being assaulted.

The Police granted partial access, denying the remainder under various exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records did not contain personal information and ordered their release.

For the remaining records, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b) and that the records did not qualify as law enforcement reports under section 8(2)(a).

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to a memorandum concerning the prosecution of offenses involving ALERT J3A units.

The Ministry claimed the record was exempt under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record was prepared by Crown counsel for use in litigation, satisfying the requirements of Branch 2 of section 19.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Health for records relating to a named company.

The Ministry issued a fee estimate of $370.20, which included 11.5 hours of manual search time.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate, arguing the search time was unjustified.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the fee estimate, finding that the estimated search time of 13.5 hours (with 2 hours free) was reasonable given the nature of the request and the files that needed to be searched.

The appellant sought access to records relating to a sexual harassment investigation against him conducted by the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The Ministry granted partial access but withheld witness statements and portions of internal memoranda under the personal privacy and advice/recommendations exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the witness statements, finding that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the witnesses and the complainant.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold portions of the memoranda containing advice or recommendations.

The appellant's argument that a compelling public interest in disclosure outweighed the exemptions was rejected, as the interest was found to be purely private.

The Ministry of the Attorney General received a freedom of information request for background financial information about a senior citizens home.

The Ministry decided to release the records.

A representative of the home then requested the name and address of the original requester, who wished to remain anonymous.

The Ministry refused to disclose the requester's identity under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The representative appealed.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the requester's name and address constituted personal information and that its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Housing's decision regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to the Program Supervisor position for the Rent Review Hearings Board.

The requester believed additional responsive records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's affidavit failed to adequately describe the nature, extent, and location of its search for the majority of the requested records.

The Inquiry Officer concluded the search was not reasonable and ordered the Ministry to conduct a further search in specific locations and files.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Housing's decision regarding a freedom of information request for a list of recipients of certain reports involving the Rent Review Hearings Board.

The Ministry claimed no such list existed and provided names from memory, without conducting a formal search.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to meet its obligation under section 24 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to conduct a reasonable search for responsive records.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct a further search and issue a new decision letter.

The appellant sought access to records generated during the mediation stage of previous Freedom of Information appeals involving the Ministry of Health.

The Ministry denied access under section 52(9) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that section 52(9) did not apply directly to mediation records.

However, relying on the Commissioner's power to control its own process, the Inquiry Officer upheld the denial of access to correspondence between the Ministry and the Commissioner's office to prevent collateral access to information subject to other proceedings.

Internal Ministry documentation generated during the processing of the appeals was ordered disclosed.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to the funding of Project 80, a municipal corruption squad.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 14(1)(a), (b), (d), and (f) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing disclosure could interfere with law enforcement, reveal confidential sources, or deprive individuals of a fair trial.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to establish a reasonable expectation of probable harm for most of the records, as they primarily concerned funding rather than substantive investigative details.

Only a small portion of one record detailing proposed travel plans was exempted under section 14(1)(b).

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the balance of the responsive records.