Irwin Glasberg

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.

The appellant sought access to two reports from the Ministry of Natural Resources regarding the operation and rationalization of the Ontario Provincial Parks system.

The Ministry denied access, claiming exemptions for Cabinet records, advice or recommendations, and proposed plans.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Cabinet records and proposed plans exemptions did not apply.

While portions of the reports contained advice or recommendations, they fell within the mandatory exceptions for reports on institutional performance and feasibility studies.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records in their entirety.

The appellants applied for costs under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing they incurred legal fees pursuing appeals that became moot after the Ministry failed to promptly disclose that the responsive records had been seized by police.

The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the application, finding that the Act does not expressly or implicitly grant the Commissioner's office the jurisdiction to award costs.

A newspaper reporter requested access to records relating to a financial and management audit of a publicly funded young offenders residence.

The Ministry granted partial access, but a third party appealed the decision to release certain personal information, arguing it would invade his personal privacy under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the information was highly sensitive, the public interest in subjecting the Ministry's monitoring and audit activities to public scrutiny outweighed the privacy interests.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records with identifying information severed.

The appellant requested a copy of a bus transportation contract from the Nipissing Board of Education.

The Board withheld the fee clauses and rate schedules, claiming the third party information exemption under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the contract rates were negotiated between the Board and the bus company, and therefore were not 'supplied' to the institution in confidence.

As the second part of the three-part test for the exemption was not met, the Board was ordered to disclose the agreement in full.

The requester sought a copy of a land use permit authorizing a bear hunt at a specific camping site from the Ministry of Natural Resources.

The Ministry decided to release the permit, and the owner of the lodge (the third party) appealed the decision, arguing the permit contained trade secrets and commercial information supplied in confidence under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information was not a trade secret, though it was commercial information.

However, the appellant failed to establish that the information was supplied in confidence.

The appeal was dismissed and the Ministry was ordered to disclose the permit.

The appellant requested access to records relating to the selection of a named individual as a judge from the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied the request, claiming the Committee was not an institution under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Committee is a part of the Ministry and that the requested records, even if held by individual Committee members, are under the control of the Ministry.

The Ministry was ordered to obtain the records and issue an access decision.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to Ontario Hydro for materials relating to a job interview, including the interview questions.

Hydro withheld the questions under the section 18(1)(g) exemption for proposed plans, arguing disclosure would give the appellant an undue financial benefit in future competitions.

The Assistant Commissioner held that a list of interview questions is not a 'plan' (a detailed method, scheme, or design) and, having already been used, is not 'proposed'.

The exemption did not apply, and Hydro was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant sought access to information relating to the assessment of properties near Pearson International Airport.

The Ministry of Finance denied access under section 53(1) of the Assessment Act and section 67 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that section 53(1) of the Assessment Act only protects information relating to individual properties, not general assessment policies or impact studies.

The Ministry was ordered to issue a new decision letter responding specifically to the requests for general policies and impact studies.

The appellant sought access to psychological reports and assessments in his probation file.

The Ministry withheld portions under sections 14(2)(d) and 20 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that section 14(2)(d) did not apply because the appellant's probation order had expired, meaning he was no longer under correctional supervision.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that section 20 did not apply as there was no reasonable expectation of a serious threat to health or safety.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

A father requested access to records relating to himself and his son from the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Ministry granted access to the father's personal information but withheld the son's and other individuals' personal information under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The father appealed, arguing he was entitled to the information on behalf of his son under section 66(c).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the father was seeking the information for his own objectives, not on behalf of his son, and that disclosure would not serve the child's best interests.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the information, finding that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of Health relating to secure/forensic psychiatric care.

The Ministry denied access to 16 records, claiming exemptions for Cabinet records, advice or recommendations, and information available to the public.

The appellant appealed the denial and the adequacy of the Ministry's search for records.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry official had the delegated authority to deny access.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of the exemptions to some records and portions of records, but ordered the disclosure of others that did not qualify for the claimed exemptions.

Finally, the Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that its search for responsive records was reasonable, and ordered the Ministry to conduct a further search.

A union representative, on behalf of a dismissed Corrections Officer, appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services' decision to withhold four occurrence reports under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 49(b) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained personal information and that their disclosure would unfairly expose the authors to harm or harassment under section 21(2)(e).

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

The appellants requested access to records relating to themselves and a named physiotherapy centre from the Ministry of Health.

The Ministry denied access to over 160 records based on various exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including advice to government, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision for most records, finding that personal information compiled during an investigation into billing practices was exempt from disclosure.

However, the Ministry was ordered to disclose certain internal memoranda and transfer a portion of the request to the Archives of Ontario.

The requester appealed the Town of Gravenhurst's decision to withhold a 14-page record under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (solicitor-client privilege).

The record consisted of a summary of evidence from an Ontario Municipal Board hearing and two transmittal letters.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the summary of evidence initially qualified for privilege, the transmittal letters did not.

Furthermore, the Assistant Commissioner determined that the Town's solicitor had waived the privilege by disclosing the summary to the developer's solicitor.

As the Town had retroactively ratified its solicitor's actions, the waiver was binding on the Town.

The Town was ordered to disclose the record, with personal information severed.

The Interim Waste Authority Limited received a freedom of information request for correspondence and feasibility studies regarding the transport of solid waste.

A railway company that authored some of the records objected to their release and appealed the Authority's decision to disclose them.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner considered whether the records were exempt under the third-party information exemption in section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the railway company's costing estimates and commitments were supplied in confidence and their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the company's competitive position, thus qualifying for exemption under section 17(1)(a).

However, the remaining portions of the feasibility studies, including route scenarios, did not meet the harms test and were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Transportation for records relating to a proposed project known as Transportation Place or the Ontario International Landport.

The Ministry disclosed some records but withheld others under various exemptions, including Cabinet records, advice to government, third party information, economic interests, solicitor-client privilege, and personal privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner reviewed the application of these exemptions and ordered the disclosure of certain records and parts of records where the exemptions did not apply, while upholding the Ministry's decision to withhold others.

The appellant requested access to the name of an individual who complained about an activity on the appellant's property.

The City of Barrie denied access under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that the information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of a zoning by-law, and its disclosure is presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Act.

The requester appealed the East Parry Sound Board of Education's decision to deny access to a consulting contract for the 1992-1993 school year.

The Board claimed exemptions under sections 10(1)(a) and 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the contract contained the personal information of the consultant, but its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy because it was a contract for personal services under section 14(4)(b).

Furthermore, the section 10(1)(a) exemption did not apply because the contract terms were negotiated, not 'supplied' in confidence.

The Board was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant requested access to an investigation report and witness statements regarding allegations that a senior Ministry employee misused public funds.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records under the personal privacy exemption in section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained personal information, but that the public scrutiny factor in section 21(2)(a) favoured disclosure.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the Ministry to disclose the records, subject to the severance of identifying information of the affected persons to protect their privacy.