Irwin Glasberg

The appellant sought access to a leasehold agreement between the Management Board Secretariat and a landlord for an office lease.

The Board disclosed the agreement but severed information regarding lease inducements, claiming exemptions under sections 17(1)(a) (third party information) and 18(1)(c) (economic interests) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of the severed information, finding that the landlord could not have a reasonable expectation of confidentiality due to a clause in the lease consenting to its release, and that the Board failed to establish a reasonable expectation of probable economic harm.

The requester appealed a decision by the Town of Amherstburg Police Services Board to withhold information regarding the number of overtime hours paid and banked by a specific police officer under the VIP program.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information constituted personal information because it could be linked to an identifiable individual.

The Assistant Commissioner further held that none of the presumptions or factors favouring disclosure applied, and therefore, releasing the information would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The requester appealed a decision by the Niagara Regional Police Services Board denying access to an arrest report relating to an incident in which he was involved.

The requester sought the report to support an application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the report contained personal information compiled as part of a criminal investigation, and its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appeal was dismissed and the police decision was upheld.

The appellant, an inmate, appealed the Ministry's response to his request for his inmate file, arguing that additional responsive records should exist.

The Ministry conducted multiple searches and disclosed nearly 200 pages of records, including additional documents found during mediation.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry's search for responsive records was reasonable and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to minutes of the Advisory Committee on the Personal Property Securities Act.

The Ministry initially claimed the Cabinet records exemption and later attempted to raise the advice or recommendations exemption.

The Assistant Commissioner refused to consider the late discretionary exemption, found that the minutes did not qualify for the Cabinet records exemption as their disclosure would not reveal the substance of Executive Council deliberations, and concluded that the Ministry's search for additional records was reasonable.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the responsive portions of the minutes.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to a Cabinet submission and draft discussion papers relating to the transfer of land and resources to Aboriginal communities.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of the Cabinet records exemption to the Cabinet submission.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that portions of the draft discussion papers were exempt as positions to be applied to negotiations and advice or recommendations, but ordered the disclosure of the remaining portions.

The Ministry's search for responsive records was found to be reasonable.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to two records relating to special filings under the Corporations Information Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold Record 1 under the Cabinet records exemption, finding it was used by Executive Council to make a government decision.

However, the Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of Record 2, finding that it was a purely factual transmittal memorandum that did not qualify for either the advice or recommendations exemption or the solicitor-client privilege exemption.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Citizenship's decision to deny access to records relating to monetary grants awarded to a named organization under the Anti-Racism Operational Funding Program.

The Ministry claimed exemptions for third party information and invasion of privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while most of the records did not meet the three-part test for the third party information exemption, specific financial information regarding the organization's funding sources was supplied in confidence and its disclosure could cause undue loss.

The public interest override did not apply to the exempt information.

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

The requester appealed the Liquor Control Board of Ontario's decision to deny access to records relating to wine and liquor purchases by a named consulate.

The Board claimed exemptions under sections 17(1) and 18(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were exempt under section 18(1)(a) as valuable government information, because the Board intended to sell similar data under its Sale of Data program.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, and upheld the Board's decision.

The requester appealed the Region's decision to deny access to the names of individuals listed on the back of a municipal employee's credit card receipts.

The Region claimed exemptions based on invasion of privacy, confidential sources, third party information, and economic interests.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the names related to individuals in a business capacity, not personal, and thus did not constitute personal information.

The Commissioner also found insufficient evidence to support the other claimed exemptions, as the information was not supplied by the third parties and there was no clear linkage to probable harm.

The Region was ordered to disclose the names.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to withhold records relating to a proposal for support and attendant care services.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as advice or recommendations.

The Assistant Commissioner found that only five specific portions of the records contained a suggested course of action qualifying for the exemption.

The remaining factual materials, opinions, and analyses were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant requested access to her grievance file and course completion documentation from the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Ministry withheld 29 pages, initially claiming the law enforcement exemption, but later relying on the exemption for plans relating to the management of personnel or administration of an institution under section 18(1)(f) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records, which outlined the Ministry's approach to dealing with a specific grievance, did not constitute a 'plan' within the meaning of the Act.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records, subject to severing personal information of other individuals.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Citizenship's decision to deny access to background materials relating to a monetary grant made to an organization under the Anti-Racism Operational Funding Program.

The Ministry claimed exemptions for third party information and invasion of privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while most of the records did not meet the test for the third party information exemption, specific financial information supplied by the organization with an implicit expectation of confidentiality was exempt.

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

The requester appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to draft agreements and negotiation summaries between the Ministry and First Nations regarding hunting and fishing rights.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, specifically sections 18(1)(g) and 18(1)(e).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the negotiation strategy constituted a proposed project and that premature disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in undue financial loss to native communities and jeopardize fish resources.

The handwritten notes were also found to be exempt as positions to be applied to negotiations.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Finance for records relating to the enactment of a regulation under the Pension Benefits Act concerning "jumbo" pension plans.

The Ministry denied access to 50 records, claiming exemptions for Cabinet records, advice or recommendations, third party information, and solicitor-client privilege.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner applied the principle of severance and ordered partial disclosure of 24 records.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of the Cabinet records, advice or recommendations, and solicitor-client privilege exemptions to various records, but rejected the third party information exemption as there was no reasonable expectation of harm.

The public interest override was found not to apply.

The Ministry was also ordered to seek the Executive Council's consent to release a draft regulation that had been previously circulated to external stakeholders.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to withhold records relating to the appointment of a named individual as a Judge of the Ontario Court (Provincial Division).

The Ministry relied on the Cabinet records and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of a draft Order-in-Council and certain administrative information, finding they did not qualify for exemption.

However, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the Judge's resume, application form, biographical materials, security clearance records, and recommendation letters to the Executive Council, finding them exempt under the personal privacy and Cabinet records exemptions.

The public interest override was found not to apply.

The requester, an insurance adjuster, appealed the Sudbury Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to a statement provided by an individual convicted of arson.

The Police claimed the statement was exempt under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the statement constituted personal information and that the presumption against disclosure in section 14(3)(b) applied, as the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

The public interest override in section 16 did not apply.

The appeal was dismissed and the Police's decision was upheld.

A requester sought access to a contract between the York Regional Police Services Board and its former Chief of Police.

The Board disclosed the contract but withheld the former Chief's salary under the personal privacy exemption in section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner determined that the former Chief was engaged as an independent contractor rather than an employee.

Consequently, the agreement constituted a contract for personal services under section 14(4)(b) of the Act, meaning disclosure of the salary would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Board was ordered to disclose the salary information.

The appellant filed freedom of information requests for the expense accounts of seven school board employees.

After the Commissioner's office ordered the records disclosed (with credit card numbers severed), the Board issued fee estimates totalling $3,213.01.

The appellant appealed the fees.

The Assistant Commissioner held that the Board was entitled to charge a fee even after an order for disclosure had been issued, as the Act's fee provisions are mandatory and contemplate a user-pay principle.

However, the Assistant Commissioner found the fee estimate unreasonable, reducing the allowable search and preparation times, and ordered the total fee reduced to $710.80.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to records regarding a Children's Aid Society's actions following the disappearance of a ward.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under the law enforcement exemption and the Young Offenders Act (YOA).

The Ministry refused to produce the complete records to the Information and Privacy Commissioner for review, arguing the YOA prohibited disclosure.

The Assistant Commissioner held that the Commissioner has the statutory authority under section 52(4) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to compel production of the records for the limited purpose of determining the preliminary jurisdictional issue of whether the YOA applies.

The Ministry was ordered to produce the complete records.