Irwin Glasberg

The requester appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision denying access to records regarding security given for tobacco tax payments and claiming no records existed for other parts of the request.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry failed to properly advise the requester that existing records contained the requested raw data and failed to provide an adequate notice of refusal under section 29(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to the letters of credit, finding they were exempt under section 17(2) as information gathered for the purpose of collecting a tax.

The requester appealed the Ontario Securities Commission's decision to deny access to 218 pages of records relating to complaints and investigations into his trading activities.

The Assistant Commissioner reviewed the application of the law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of three records that did not qualify as law enforcement reports or meet the harm test, but upheld the OSC's decision to withhold the remaining records under sections 14(2)(a), 49(a), and 49(b) of the Act.

The appellant requested access to a retirement settlement agreement between the City of Kingston and a former employee.

The City denied access, claiming the agreement was exempt under section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as its disclosure would reveal the substance of deliberations of an in camera meeting.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that the agreement was the subject of an authorized closed meeting and its disclosure would reveal the substance of those deliberations.

The public interest override in section 16 was found inapplicable to section 6(1)(b).

The appellant, a visually impaired individual, requested his Vocational Rehabilitation file from the Ministry of Community and Social Services in 24-point bold print.

The Ministry provided a regular print copy and offered personalized interpretation, but refused to provide the entire file in enlarged print due to cost.

The appellant appealed, arguing that section 48(4) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Human Rights Code required the Ministry to provide the records in his requested format.

The Assistant Commissioner found that section 48(4) applies an objective standard for a 'comprehensible format' and that the Ministry's accommodations did not infringe the appellant's rights under the Human Rights Code.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, acting as an agent for four psychiatric patients, appealed the Ministry of Health's refusal to accept authorizations allowing the appellant to request the patients' personal information.

The Ministry refused the authorizations due to the sensitive nature of the records and clauses preventing direct contact with the patients.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry acted reasonably in refusing the authorizations, given the vulnerability of the patients and the need to verify identity, but ordered the Ministry to contact the patients directly to ascertain their wishes.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Leeds and Grenville County Board of Education denying access to Minutes of Settlement resolving an employee grievance.

The Board claimed the record was exempt under section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as it would reveal the substance of deliberations of an in camera meeting.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Board had statutory authority under the Education Act to hold the meeting in camera to discuss employee negotiations, and that disclosure would reveal the substance of those deliberations.

The Board's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted two requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of Transportation for records relating to GO Transit service to Peterborough.

The Ministry granted partial access but withheld several records under various exemptions, including sections 12(1) (Cabinet records), 13(1) (advice to government), 17(1) (third party information), 18(1) (economic interests), and 19 (solicitor-client privilege).

The Assistant Commissioner reviewed the application of each exemption to the 28 records remaining at issue.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold certain records or parts thereof under sections 12(1), 13(1), 17(1), and 19, but ordered the disclosure of other records where the exemptions did not apply, including rejecting the application of section 18(1)(d).

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of a coroner's report regarding a deceased individual.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the record contained personal information of the deceased.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, concluding that the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and related to the deceased's medical condition, meaning its disclosure was presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under sections 21(3)(a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant requested access to two letters sent to the Ministry of Health containing complaints about the appellant's business.

The Ministry released the letters but withheld the name, signature, and address of the purported author under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the withheld information constituted personal information of both the appellant and the purported author.

Applying section 49(b), the Assistant Commissioner concluded that disclosing the author's identity would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, particularly given the potential for unfair damage to reputation and the fact that the substance of the letters had already been disclosed.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to the severance and early retirement agreements of three commissioner-level employees of the City of Ottawa under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The City denied access, citing exemptions for personal privacy and solicitor-client privilege.

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner found that while the agreements contained personal information, the public interest in scrutinizing the expenditure of public funds outweighed the employees' expectation of confidentiality for most of the terms.

However, specific identifying information and certain financial details were protected from disclosure.

The Commissioner also rejected the City's claim of solicitor-client privilege, finding the agreements were negotiated contracts, not legal advice or documents prepared in contemplation of litigation.

The City was ordered to disclose the agreements with the protected personal information severed.

The requester appealed the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to deny access to a Record of Intake and handwritten notes related to an unfiled human rights complaint against his client's company.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records did not qualify as 'reports' under the law enforcement exemption in section 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of the Record of Intake and portions of the handwritten notes, as the affected person consented to the release of their personal information, but upheld the exemption for the personal information of other identifiable individuals under section 49(b).

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade's decision to deny access to records relating to the Ontario Investment Fund.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 12(1) and 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of the Cabinet records exemption to most of the records, finding they would reveal the substance of deliberations of the Executive Council.

The advice or recommendations exemption was also upheld for portions of an issue note and a memorandum.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the factual portions of the issue note.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Environment and Energy's decision to deny access to certain records regarding the extension of the environmental levy to non-refillable beverage alcohol containers.

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

The Assistant Commissioner also determined that several records were exempt from disclosure under the Cabinet records exemption in section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, but ordered the disclosure of a covering memorandum and a deputy minister's memorandum that did not reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

The appellant submitted two freedom of information requests to the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission seeking original documents that would explain inaccuracies in his home address on previous correspondence.

The institution provided a photocopy of the appellant's initial request, stating it was the only record in its custody.

The appellant appealed, arguing he was denied legible copies of an original record.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the institution's search for the original version of the request was reasonable in the circumstances and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to audit reports relating to the activities of certain Ministry employees.

The Ministry refused to disclose portions of the records, claiming they contained third party information exempt under section 17(1).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information, with the exception of a contract price, did not qualify as commercial or financial information.

Furthermore, the contract price was negotiated rather than supplied in confidence.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant submitted freedom of information requests to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to the funding of a joint police task force investigating a murder.

Both Ministries refused to confirm or deny the existence of the records under section 14(3) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the Ministries failed to establish that disclosing the mere existence of the records would communicate information exempt under sections 14(1) or (2).

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Ministries to issue access decisions regarding the responsive records.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's decision regarding a freedom of information request for employment records at the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital, arguing that additional records should exist.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry failed to demonstrate that its search for responsive records was reasonable, as it did not provide sufficient details about the search steps or the knowledge of the staff who conducted them.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct a further search and issue a new decision letter.

The requester appealed the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to deny access to portions of his human rights complaint file under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained only the requester's personal information.

The Commissioner upheld the application of the solicitor-client privilege exemption to a legal memorandum, the law enforcement report exemption to case disposition reports, and the advice or recommendations exemption to certain staff memos.

The OHRC was ordered to disclose the remaining records, including intake and investigation notes, which did not qualify as reports or advice.

The requester appealed the Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited's (SkyDome) decision to deny access to minutes of its Board of Directors meetings under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

SkyDome claimed exemptions under sections 13(1) and 18(1) of the Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that section 13(1) applied to six references containing advice or recommendations, and section 18(1)(c) applied to eight references where disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice SkyDome's economic interests.

The remaining portions of the minutes did not qualify for exemption and were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to deny access to certain records relating to the extension of the environmental levy to non-refillable beverage alcohol containers.

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

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of the Cabinet records exemption under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to most of the withheld records, except for a covering memorandum.

The Assistant Commissioner also upheld the application of the solicitor-client privilege exemption under section 19 to a memorandum prepared by Crown Counsel.