Irwin Glasberg

The requester appealed the Simcoe County District Health Unit's decision that it did not have custody or control of two letters authored by its Medical Officer of Health (MOH) and sent to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The MOH claimed the letters were private correspondence related to a professional complaint and were kept in his personal files.

The Assistant Commissioner applied the 10-factor test from Order 120 and found that the letters related directly to the Health Unit's mandate to investigate environmental hazards under the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

The Assistant Commissioner concluded that the records were under the control of the Health Unit and ordered the institution to obtain copies from the MOH and issue an access decision.

The appellant requested access to Grade 12 advanced mathematics and physics examinations from 1991 and 1992.

The Metropolitan Separate School Board disclosed parts of the examinations but withheld certain questions under the discretionary exemption in section 11(h) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing they were from a test bank and would be used in future examinations.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Board failed to provide sufficient evidence that the specific questions would actually be incorporated into future tests.

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

The appellant requested records relating to their enrolment in the Ontario Farm Adjustment Assistance Program.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food disclosed some records but withheld others, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while some legal accounts and an opening statement prepared for litigation were exempt from disclosure, other records, including certain legal accounts that did not reveal legal advice or strategy, were not exempt and must be disclosed.

The Ministry's search for an additional record was deemed reasonable.

The appellant requested access to documentation related to their employment, performance, promotion, or transfer from the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC).

The TTC denied access to part of one document containing comments from a named individual, citing personal privacy exemptions.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that the record contained personal information of both the appellant and the affected person.

Applying section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Assistant Commissioner concluded that the information was highly sensitive and supplied in confidence, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's personal privacy.

The TTC's decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester, an author of a screenplay, sought access to the names of two individuals who reviewed her work for the Ontario Film Development Corporation.

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

The Assistant Commissioner found that the names constituted personal information and that their disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, given the reviewers' expectation of confidentiality.

The Corporation's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested information from the Town of Whitby regarding complaints made about his property, including the names of Town Councillors who received verbal complaints and a log of such complaints.

The Town withheld the name of a Councillor under the law enforcement exemption in section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the Councillor was a confidential source.

The Town also stated no log of complaints existed.

The Assistant Commissioner found the Town's search for the log was reasonable and upheld the Town's decision to withhold the Councillor's name, finding that the by-law enforcement process qualified as law enforcement and the Councillor had a reasonable expectation of confidentiality.

The Ministry of Environment and Energy received a freedom of information request for an agreement regarding soil contamination clean up.

The Ministry decided to release the agreement, and the affected third party company appealed.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the agreement was negotiated, not 'supplied' by the company, and that its confidentiality expired upon Lieutenant Governor approval.

The company's claims of settlement privilege and potential harm in civil litigation did not satisfy the requirements for exemption under section 17(1) or section 14(1)(f) of the Act.

The Ministry's decision to disclose the agreement was upheld.

The appellant requested access to an agreement between the City of Cornwall and the Quebec Nordiques regarding an American Hockey League team.

The City denied access under sections 10(1) and 11(c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that section 10(1) did not apply because the information was negotiated, not supplied.

However, specific financial terms were exempt under section 11(c) as their disclosure could prejudice the City's economic interests.

The public interest override in section 16 did not apply.

The City was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the agreement.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade for records relating to loans or grants provided to a named corporation for the establishment of a Technology Centre.

The Ministry denied access to numerous records, citing exemptions for Cabinet records, third-party commercial information, solicitor-client privilege, and personal privacy.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of certain records where the third party consented or where the exemptions did not apply, but upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the majority of the records under the claimed exemptions.

The appellant, an insurance company, appealed the decision of the Waterloo Regional Police Services Board to deny access to witness statements provided by two individuals under the age of 12 regarding a fire.

The Police denied access under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing the mandatory exemption for personal information.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption of an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The decision of the Police to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to 11 records relating to compliance investigations by the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 19 (solicitor-client privilege) and 52(9) (inquiry privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the decision-maker had the delegated authority to deny access.

On the merits, the Assistant Commissioner held that section 19 applied to some records but not others, and that section 52(9) did not apply because a compliance investigation is not an 'inquiry' under the Act.

The Ministry's search for records was deemed reasonable.

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

The appellant requested access to agreements and background documents related to the proposed sale of SkyDome.

SkyDome identified a Letter of Intent and withheld it in its entirety under various exemptions.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the mandatory exemptions under section 17(1) did not apply because the information was negotiated, not supplied.

However, the discretionary exemption under section 18(1)(c) applied to portions of the record containing monetary terms, financing details, and structuring of the purchasing group, as disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice SkyDome's competitive position.

The remaining portions of the record were ordered to be disclosed.

The requester appealed the Kingston Police Services Board's decision not to waive a $2,250 fee for processing a broad freedom of information request.

The requester argued that payment would cause financial hardship and that dissemination of the records would benefit public health or safety.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the requester failed to establish a public health or safety benefit.

Assuming financial hardship, the Assistant Commissioner concluded it was fair and equitable not to waive the fee because the requester did not work constructively to meaningfully narrow the massive scope of the request.

The decision not to waive the fee was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to withhold portions of a memorandum concerning a complaint about the police's failure to lay charges.

The Ministry claimed the withheld sentences were exempt under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the sentences were prepared by Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice, satisfying the criteria for exemption under the second branch of section 19.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records respecting the payment of honoraria to Board Trustees, including a legal account issued to the Board by its solicitors.

The Board denied access to the legal account, claiming it was exempt under the solicitor-client privilege exemption in section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the legal account did not contain or reveal legal advice and had no direct connection with seeking, formulating, or giving legal advice.

The Board was ordered to disclose the record.

The requester appealed the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat's decision that no records existed responsive to a request for a legal opinion regarding a native land claim.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Secretariat's search was unreasonable because there was no evidence that a physical search of the institution's records holdings actually took place, and inquiries were not made with all relevant legal counsel.

The Secretariat was ordered to conduct a further search for responsive records.

The appellant requested access to Coroner's reports regarding the deaths of eight girls at the Grandview Training School for Girls between 1965 and 1976.

The Ministry denied access under the personal privacy exemption.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained personal information, as the individuals had been dead for less than 30 years.

The disclosure of the medical information in the reports was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner also concluded that the public interest override did not apply, as the Ministry had already released a briefing note providing a general understanding of the investigation.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed the Town of Gananoque's decision to deny access to a release agreement between the Town and a former employee, as well as records of monies paid under the agreement.

The Town claimed the records were exempt under the personal privacy provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the records contained personal information, the public interest in scrutinizing the expenditure of public funds outweighed the employee's expectation of confidentiality for most of the information.

The Town was ordered to disclose the records, with specific identifying information and exact salary details severed to protect the employee's privacy.

The appellant requested access to records relating to the testing of steel used in the construction of the SkyDome's retractable roof.

SkyDome denied access under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing third-party trade secrets and technical information.

The Assistant Commissioner found that most of the records contained trade secrets supplied in confidence and were exempt from disclosure.

However, one group of records was already publicly available at the City of Toronto's Buildings and Inspections Department and therefore could not be considered confidential.

The public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

SkyDome was ordered to disclose the publicly available records but its decision to withhold the remaining records was upheld.

The appellant requested records relating to a water tower from the Management Board Secretariat.

The Ministry denied access, and the appellant appealed the adequacy of the decision letter.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the decision letter and the index of records provided to the appellant lacked sufficient detail to comply with section 29(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, because the appellant had abandoned the substantive appeal regarding access to the records, the Assistant Commissioner declined to order the Ministry to issue a revised decision letter.