Irwin Glasberg

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ministry of Environment and Energy regarding an access to information request for his employment records.

The appellant alleged that the Ministry failed to locate a specific employment contract he signed in 1995.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry conducted a reasonable search for the records, as experienced staff searched locations where the agreement might reasonably be located, despite the contract not being found.

The adequacy of the search was upheld, and the Ministry was ordered to issue an access decision regarding three newly located responsive records.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to briefing notes regarding incidents at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under law enforcement, advice to government, right to a fair trial, solicitor-client privilege, and personal information.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry's internal investigation did not qualify as law enforcement, but an ongoing police investigation did.

Portions of the records were exempted under law enforcement and solicitor-client privilege, while others were ordered disclosed.

The Assistant Commissioner also found the Ministry's search for records was unreasonable and ordered a further search.

The appellant, a member of the media, requested access to Crime Stoppers telephone tapes, transcripts, and search warrant documents related to a child pornography investigation.

The Police denied access, stating Crime Stoppers records were not in their custody or control, and the search warrant documents were exempt under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Police's decision, finding that Crime Stoppers is an independent organization, the Police do not have custody or control of its records, and the search warrant documents contain personal information subject to a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy that is not outweighed by the public interest override.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to certain records relating to funding for a flood control project.

The Ministry claimed exemptions for Cabinet records and advice or recommendations.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry could not raise a new discretionary exemption late in the appeals process.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of the Cabinet records exemption to documents prepared in 1988, but ordered the disclosure of briefing notes prepared in 1995, finding they were not presently before Cabinet.

The Assistant Commissioner also found the Ministry's search for records was reasonable and that the Commissioner's office lacks the authority to award costs.

Two insurance companies appealed the Ontario Insurance Commission's (OIC) decision to disclose their private passenger automobile rates and rating rules to a requester under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The companies argued the records were exempt as third-party information and that the OIC breached procedural fairness by failing to provide proper notice under section 28.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the OIC failed to meet its procedural obligations under section 28, the records themselves were not exempt under section 17(1) because the companies could not demonstrate a reasonable expectation of confidentiality when the information was supplied.

The appeals were dismissed.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism's decision to deny access to 18 records relating to a named Crown agency corporation.

The Ministry and the third-party corporation claimed exemptions under the Cabinet records and third-party commercial information provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Act applied to records supplied by the third-party corporation.

Applying the three-part test for third-party information, the Assistant Commissioner determined that most of the records contained sensitive financial and commercial information supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the corporation's competitive position or cause undue loss.

However, portions of the records were ordered disclosed as their release would not cause the enumerated harms.

The Cabinet records exemption was found to apply only to one record and a small portion of another.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to records concerning out-of-country provincial health coverage for 'snowbirds'.

The Ministry relied on exemptions for solicitor-client privilege and relations with other governments.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of solicitor-client privilege to legal memoranda and notes of meetings involving legal counsel, but ordered the disclosure of issue sheets and charts that were not prepared for legal advice.

The Assistant Commissioner also upheld the exemption for information received in confidence from other provincial governments regarding their future plans for out-of-country health coverage.

Partial disclosure was ordered.

The appellant sought access to a parole report concerning a named individual, believing it contained references to himself.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services withheld portions of the report under the correctional records and invasion of privacy exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the withheld information either constituted the appellant's own personal information or related to affected parties in their professional capacities, and therefore did not qualify for the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the report, excluding portions outside the scope of the appeal.

The appellant filed freedom of information requests with the Ministry of Community and Social Services (COMSOC) for records relating to the Grandview Survivors Support Group.

After COMSOC denied access, the appellant appealed.

Following an initial order directing disclosure of most records, the Ministry of the Attorney General requested reconsideration, arguing it should have been treated as an affected party.

The Assistant Commissioner denied the reconsideration request, finding that the provincial government must speak with one voice through the lead ministry processing the request.

However, to avoid further delay and potential judicial review, COMSOC was granted a final extension to provide supplementary representations after consulting with the Attorney General.

The appellant sought access to records regarding revisions to the Provincial Nuclear Emergency Plan.

The Ministry denied access to certain records, claiming the Cabinet records exemption under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that several records would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations and were properly exempt.

The Assistant Commissioner also determined that the public interest override in section 23 does not apply to the Cabinet records exemption, and that the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to order disclosure under section 11.

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

The requester appealed the Ministry of Municipal Affairs' decision to withhold 17 records relating to the enactment of Bill 171, 'An Act Respecting Certain International Bridges'.

The Assistant Commissioner refused to allow the Ministry to raise a new discretionary exemption late in the appeals process.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of the Cabinet records exemption, the advice or recommendations exemption, and the solicitor-client privilege exemption to several records, ordering partial disclosure of some and full disclosure of others.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the Ministry appropriately exercised its discretion in applying exemptions to records that were 14 to 21 years old.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to deny access to property assessment records for properties near Pearson International Airport.

The Ministry relied on the confidentiality provision in section 53(1) of the Assessment Act, as well as exemptions for tax-related and third-party information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that section 53(1) protected the assessor's working notes and non-public information, but did not apply to information required to be entered on the public assessment roll.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the publicly available assessment roll information.

A City Councillor appealed the City of Toronto's decision to withhold records relating to overtime pay for City Commissioners.

In an interim order, the Assistant Commissioner found that the City Clerk had a conflict of interest and ordered the City's Executive Committee to review the exercise of discretion to withhold 14 records.

The Executive Committee decided to release several records but maintained exemptions for five records under sections 6(1)(b), 7(1), and 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Executive Committee's exercise of discretion and ordered the disclosure of the remaining records.

The requester sought access to documents from Ontario Hydro regarding possible revisions to the Provincial Nuclear Emergency Plan.

Ontario Hydro denied access to 16 records based on the Cabinet records exemption under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

During the appeal, Ontario Hydro attempted to raise a new discretionary exemption (s. 13(1)) late in the process, which the Assistant Commissioner refused to consider.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Cabinet records exemption for some records and portions of others, finding their disclosure would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

However, the Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of other records and portions that did not qualify for the exemption, finding no implicit Cabinet consent to release the withheld records.

The appellant appealed the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton's response to a freedom of information request concerning a severance agreement with a senior employee.

The appellant argued that additional responsive records should exist.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Region's search for records was reasonable.

However, the Region was ordered to issue a supplementary decision letter regarding certain located records that it claimed were not responsive to the request, detailing the exemptions it would apply if the records were deemed responsive.

The requester appealed the Peterborough County Board of Education's decision to deny access to three pages of minutes from a closed committee meeting regarding a personnel issue.

The Board relied on the closed meetings exemption under section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the meeting was properly closed under the Education Act and that disclosure would reveal the substance of the deliberations.

The Board's decision to withhold the minutes was upheld.

A City Councillor submitted freedom of information requests to the City of Toronto seeking records relating to the elimination of overtime pay for senior officials.

The City disclosed some records but claimed that other requested documents, if they existed, were personal records of the officials and not in the City's custody or control.

The Assistant Commissioner applied the test from Order 120 and found that the records in question (a diary entry and requests for legal advice) were created for the officials' personal use and fell outside the City's custody or control.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the City conducted a reasonable search for responsive corporate records.

The City's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to withhold a policy memorandum regarding the Employment Equity Act.

The Commission claimed exemptions under sections 12(1)(d), 13(1), and 15(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Cabinet records and intergovernmental relations exemptions did not apply.

However, portions of the memorandum outlining specific courses of action were exempt as advice or recommendations under section 13(1).

The Commission was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the record.

A City Councillor appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to various records concerning the elimination of overtime pay and lieu time for senior City officials.

The City relied on multiple exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including closed meetings, advice or recommendations, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of several records, finding that they did not qualify for the claimed exemptions or that solicitor-client privilege had been waived.

However, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of exemptions to other records.

Notably, the Assistant Commissioner found that the City Clerk, who signed the decision letter, was in a perceived conflict of interest due to her personal interest in the compensation issue.

Consequently, the City's Executive Committee was ordered to reconsider the exercise of discretion for the records that qualified for discretionary exemptions.

The requester appealed the City of London's decision to deny access to the address of his former employer, which he sought to complete a Workers' Compensation Board questionnaire.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that the address constituted personal information and its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester failed to establish that the information was necessary for a fair determination of rights or that a compelling public interest outweighed the privacy exemption.