David Goodis

The appellant sought access to police records concerning the investigation into the death of his daughter.

The Police denied access, citing exemptions for law enforcement, civil liability, and unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the appellant did not have lawful custody of his daughter at the time of her death, precluding access under section 54(c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator upheld the Police's decision to withhold the records under section 38(b), as disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the deceased and other individuals.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Toronto Police Services Board for records relating to a theft complaint in which he was named as a suspect.

The Police disclosed part of an occurrence report but withheld other portions under the personal privacy exemption.

The appellant appealed, arguing he had a right to the information to defend against allegations and that more records should exist.

The adjudicator upheld the Police's decision to withhold the information, finding its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the privacy of other individuals.

However, the adjudicator found the Police unreasonably narrowed the scope of the request and ordered them to conduct a further search for additional records, such as police officers' notebooks.

The appellant appealed Ontario Hydro's decision to deny access to three WANO peer review reports regarding its nuclear facilities.

WANO objected to the Commissioner's jurisdiction, arguing the records fell under exclusive federal jurisdiction over nuclear energy.

The Adjudicator found the Act constitutionally applicable as it did not affect a vital or essential part of the facilities' management.

The Adjudicator further held that the records were not exempt under section 17(1) (third party information) or section 18(1) (economic interests).

Even if the exemptions applied, the Adjudicator found a compelling public interest in the disclosure of nuclear safety records under section 23 that clearly outweighed the purpose of the exemptions.

Hydro was ordered to disclose the records.

The Ministry of Natural Resources received a freedom of information request for records relating to a tender for water craft bikes.

The successful bidder objected to the disclosure of its financial and commercial information, arguing it would prejudice its competitive position.

The Ministry decided to grant access, and the successful bidder appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The Senior Adjudicator found that while the records contained commercial and financial information, there was no evidence it was supplied in confidence or that disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause competitive harm.

The appeal was dismissed and the Ministry's decision to disclose the records was upheld.

The appellant sought access to a medical report submitted to the Ministry of Transportation under section 203(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, which resulted in the suspension of their driver's licence.

The Ministry denied access under section 49(a) in conjunction with section 20 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing disclosure could threaten the safety or health of the reporting physician.

The adjudicator found that the record contained only the appellant's personal information and that the Ministry failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence of a reasonable expectation of harm.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) requested a reconsideration of Order PO-1736, which ordered the disclosure of certain information about estates administered by the PGT to an heir tracer.

The PGT argued that disclosure would cause pecuniary harm to potential heirs who might be charged substantial fees by heir tracers, and that the adjudicator gave too much weight to the 'benefit to unknown heirs' factor.

The Senior Adjudicator agreed to reconsider the order to account for the interests of affected persons but ultimately confirmed the original decision.

The adjudicator found that the PGT failed to establish a serious risk of pecuniary harm and that the benefit of having additional resources directed towards locating heirs remained a significant factor favouring disclosure.

The appellants sought access to a police occurrence report regarding an incident at a tavern in which they were involved, intending to use the information for a civil lawsuit.

The St. Thomas Police Services Board disclosed severed records, withholding the names and personal information of other individuals involved under the personal privacy exemption.

The adjudicator upheld the decision, finding that the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption of an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator also found that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, as the appellants' interest in the information was primarily private.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to a response to a request for proposals submitted by an affected party.

During the inquiry, the affected party requested that its representations be withheld from the appellant due to confidentiality concerns.

The adjudicator applied the Wigmore test and the IPC's confidentiality criteria, finding that some portions of the representations met the criteria for withholding, while other portions consisting of generalized assertions of law and argument did not.

The adjudicator ordered that the non-confidential portions be shared with the appellant.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Niagara Regional Police Service for records relating to an investigation into allegations that the appellant had personated a police officer.

The Police denied access to the records, citing exemptions for personal information and unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the affected individuals.

The appellants sought the identity of an individual who called the OPP to report a fire on their property, which resulted in a false alarm and a bill from the fire department.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General denied access to the caller's name under the personal privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the appellants failed to establish that disclosure was relevant to a fair determination of rights under section 21(2)(d) or that any other factors weighed in favour of disclosure.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Lottery Corporation for the names and salary ranges of all employees at its main office.

The OLC denied access to the names associated with the salary ranges, claiming exemptions for personal privacy and economic interests.

The adjudicator found that section 21(4)(a) of the Act applied, meaning disclosure of salary ranges of employees does not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator also rejected the OLC's claims under section 18(1)(a) and (c), finding the information did not belong to the OLC in a proprietary sense and its disclosure could not reasonably be expected to prejudice the OLC's competitive position.

The OLC was ordered to disclose the requested information.

The appellant appealed the Township's decision to deny access to a letter of credit provided by a developer for a subdivision project.

The Township claimed exemptions under section 11(a) (economic interests) and section 10(1) (third party information) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the information did not "belong to" the Township under section 11(a) and was not "supplied in confidence" under section 10(1) because it was the product of negotiation.

The Township was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) denying access to financial statements of a company wholly owned by a deceased individual's estate.

The PGT withheld the records under the personal privacy exemption in section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the corporate financial statements qualified as the deceased's personal information due to her status as sole shareholder.

The adjudicator further held that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy and that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as the PGT's involvement in the estate's passing of accounts had already served the public interest.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested copies of correspondence between the Township of Glenelg and its solicitor regarding liability associated with letters from a property owners' group.

The Township denied access under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming solicitor-client and litigation privilege.

The adjudicator found that two records were not confidential because their contents were discussed in open council meetings and must be disclosed.

The other two records were confidential communications for legal advice and were exempt from disclosure.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Health for province-wide statistics regarding the number of obstetricians/gynaecologists billing OHIP for therapeutic abortions and the total number of therapeutic abortions billed.

The Ministry denied access to the records, claiming exemptions under sections 14(1)(e), 14(1)(i), and 20 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing that disclosure could endanger the safety of abortion service providers and facilities.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the requested information consisted of general, non-identifying statistics that could not be linked to specific individuals or facilities.

The Commissioner concluded that the Ministry failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence of a reasonable expectation of harm, and ordered the disclosure of the records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Casino Corporation (OCC) seeking the average percentage payout of various categories of slot machines in Ontario casinos.

The OCC denied access, claiming the records were exempt under section 18(1)(c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the OCC's economic interests or competitive position.

The adjudicator upheld the OCC's decision, finding that disclosure could spark a price war among casinos, leading to lower revenues.

The adjudicator also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as the desire for patrons to become smarter players did not constitute a compelling public interest.

The appellant sought access to a record described as the 'Russell Report' from the Township of Cavan-Millbrook-North Monaghan under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

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

The adjudicator found that the record contained the appellant's personal information but upheld the Township's decision to deny access, concluding that the record was a confidential communication from the Township's solicitor made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and thus protected by solicitor-client communication privilege.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Thunder Bay Police Services Board to deny access to portions of a Police General Occurrence Report regarding parking violations.

The Police claimed the withheld information was exempt under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, read with sections 14(1)(f) and 14(3)(b).

The adjudicator found that the withheld information contained the personal information of both the appellant and a complainant, compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

The adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, concluding that the presumption against disclosure applied and the information could not be reasonably severed.

The appellant sought access to records relating to condominium developments from the Town of Halton Hills under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Town denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for closed meetings, solicitor-client privilege, and economic interests.

The adjudicator found that most records were properly withheld under solicitor-client privilege and the economic interests exemption.

However, the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of three records, finding that two did not qualify for the closed meeting or economic interests exemptions, and that the Town had waived solicitor-client privilege over one record by inadvertently allowing the appellant to view it during a file review.

An heir tracer appealed the Public Guardian and Trustee's decision to deny access to lists of estates being administered by the PGT.

The PGT claimed the information was exempt under the personal privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Senior Adjudicator found that all requested information qualified as personal information.

Applying the presumption against disclosure of financial information and balancing the factors under section 21(2), the Adjudicator ordered the disclosure of the deceased individuals' names, addresses, last occupations, places of death, and dates of death, finding that the benefit to unknown heirs outweighed the diminished privacy interests of the deceased.

The remaining information, including financial values and inheritors' names, was found to be exempt, and the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.