Irena Pascoe

The appellant appealed the Ontario Securities Commission's decision to deny access to a review document provided by the Investment Dealers Association.

The adjudicator found that the Investment Dealers Association is a recognized self-regulatory organization and that the record was received in confidence.

Applying section 153 of the Securities Act and section 67(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the adjudicator upheld the decision to deny access, concluding the record was excluded from the access provisions.

The requester sought access to the Share Purchase Agreement and related schedules concerning the privatization of Highway 407.

The Ministry of Transportation granted partial access, and both the requester and the third party, 407 ETR, appealed.

The Adjudicator found that the withheld commercial and financial information was not exempt under section 17(1) because it was either not 'supplied' or its disclosure could not reasonably be expected to cause the specified harms.

The Adjudicator also rejected the Ministry's claims under sections 18(1)(d) and (e) regarding negotiated fees, and found that solicitor-client privilege under section 19 had been waived for certain schedules.

However, the Adjudicator upheld exemptions under section 14(1)(e) for a police detachment floor plan and section 21(1) for personal information of identifiable individuals.

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

The requester sought access to records relating to the sale of Highway 407 by the government of Ontario to the private sector.

The Ministry of Finance granted partial access.

The third party, 407 ETR, objected to the disclosure of certain records, arguing they contained confidential commercial and financial information exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that while some information was supplied in confidence, 407 ETR failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice its competitive position, result in similar information no longer being supplied, or cause undue loss or gain.

The Ministry's decision to disclose the records was upheld, subject to the requester's withdrawal of interest in certain portions.

The Ministry of Transportation received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to the privatization and sale of Highway 407.

The Ministry and the third party, 407 ETR, objected to the disclosure of certain schedules to the Share Purchase Agreement and the Concession and Ground Lease Agreement, claiming exemptions under sections 17(1) (third party information), 18(1) (economic interests), and 19 (solicitor-client privilege).

The adjudicator found that the information was either negotiated rather than supplied, or that there was no reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure.

The adjudicator also found that solicitor-client privilege had been waived.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records to the requester.

The requester sought access to the Highway 407 Concession and Ground Lease Agreement between the Province of Ontario and 407 ETR.

The Ministry of Transportation granted partial access, denying portions under various exemptions.

The requester and 407 ETR appealed.

The adjudicator found that the commercial information in the agreement was negotiated, not 'supplied', and thus did not qualify for the third-party information exemption under section 17(1).

The adjudicator also rejected the Ministry's claims that disclosure would harm the economic interests of Ontario under section 18(1).

However, the adjudicator upheld exemptions for a police detachment floor plan under section 14(1)(e) (endangerment to safety) and personal information in property acquisition charts under section 21(1).

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO) for historical liquor licence applications and floor plans for a specific establishment.

The AGCO located some records but the appellant appealed, arguing more records should exist.

Following an oral inquiry and evidence from the AGCO regarding its search efforts, including searches of its computer database, physical files, and the government's central storage facility, the adjudicator found that the AGCO had conducted a reasonable search for the missing records.

The appeal was dismissed.