Irwin Glasberg

The appellant requested records relating to the planning of a military display from the City of Kingston.

The City denied access to two records under section 9(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming they were received in confidence from the Department of National Defence.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the City failed to establish that the records were received in confidence, as they were distributed at meetings without explicit expectations of confidentiality.

The City was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant requested access to their personnel and medical records from the Metropolitan Toronto Police.

The Police denied access to six pages of Employer Reference forms under various exemptions, including section 38(c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained the appellant's personal information but not the personal information of the references.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the records disclosed because the Police failed to establish that the references were supplied in circumstances where it could reasonably have been assumed that the identity of the source would be held in confidence.

The appellant requested records from Ontario Hydro relating to rehabilitation projects for the Bruce-A Nuclear Generating Station.

Hydro proposed to grant partial access and provided a fee estimate, but denied the appellant's request for a fee waiver.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate and the denial of the fee waiver.

The Assistant Commissioner determined that the standard of review for fee waiver decisions is correctness, not arbitrary or capricious abuse of discretion.

Applying the criteria under section 57(4)(c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Assistant Commissioner found that the dissemination of the records would benefit public health or safety, as they relate to the safety of nuclear generating facilities.

Ontario Hydro was ordered to waive the fee.

The appellant requested records detailing discussions between the former Chair of the Halton Board of Education and a newspaper.

The Board denied access, stating no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing records must exist.

The Assistant Commissioner reviewed the Board's search efforts, including affidavits from the Board's Manager of Freedom of Information and the former Chair, who confirmed the discussions were by telephone and no written records were created.

The Assistant Commissioner found the Board's search was reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to the proposed renovation of the Forum facility at Ontario Place.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 17 and 18 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry failed to prove the section 18 exemptions applied to Record 2.

However, the mandatory exemption under section 17 applied to portions of the remaining records, as they contained confidential commercial information supplied by a third party, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice its competitive position.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose Record 1, Record 2, and severed portions of the other records.

The requester appealed the Management Board of Cabinet's decision to deny access to records relating to the conversion of management and excluded civil service positions within the OPSEU bargaining unit.

The institution claimed exemptions under sections 12, 13, 18, and 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the institution's decision, finding that the records were properly exempt as they would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations, advice or recommendations of a public servant, positions applied to negotiations, and unjustified invasions of personal privacy.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a human rights complaint file from the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The OHRC denied access to portions of the records under sections 21(3)(b) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the OHRC's decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and the presumption of an unjustified invasion of privacy was not rebutted.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to an Algonquin land claim.

The Secretariat refused to disclose a specific report, claiming various exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and denied a fee waiver for processing additional records.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the mandatory exemptions under sections 17 and 18 did not apply, nor did the discretionary exemptions under sections 19 and 22(a).

However, certain portions of the records containing advice and recommendations were exempt under section 13(1), and the residential addresses of two researchers were exempt as personal information under section 21(1).

The public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

Finally, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the Secretariat's decision not to waive the $1,480 fee, finding it fair and equitable given the Secretariat's prior accommodations.

The Secretariat was ordered to release the non-exempt portions of the records.

The appellant requested access to personnel records regarding her unsuccessful application for a nursing aide position with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

The Region withheld a 'Reference Inquiry' form under section 38(c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the record contained the appellant's personal information.

Applying a three-part test, the Assistant Commissioner determined that portions of the record would reveal the identity of a confidential source and were exempt under section 38(c).

The Region was ordered to disclose the remaining non-identifying portions of the record.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ottawa Board of Commissioners of Police for records relating to an internal investigation of a police officer.

The Police denied access on the basis that no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that records should exist.

The Police provided evidence of their search efforts and their records retention and destruction schedules, which indicated that any responsive records from the 1986 incident would have been destroyed.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Police had taken all reasonable steps to locate the records and that the search was reasonable.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat for a report regarding the validity of the Golden Lake land claim to the Ottawa River watershed, including Algonquin Park.

The Secretariat denied access, claiming various exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner reviewed the application of sections 13, 17, 18, 19, 21, and 22 of the Act.

The Commissioner found that the records did not qualify for exemption under sections 17, 18, 19, or 22.

However, certain margin notes and comments by the affected person qualified as advice or recommendations under section 13, and the residential addresses of two researchers qualified for the personal privacy exemption under section 21.

The Commissioner also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The Secretariat was ordered to release the records with the exempt portions severed.

The appellant sought access to his adult daughter's admission and treatment records from a psychiatric research institute.

The Ministry denied access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing exemptions for third-party personal information.

The appellant appealed, providing an authorization signed by his daughter, but the Appeals Officer could not verify its validity.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained the daughter's personal medical information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unjustified invasion of her personal privacy under sections 21 and 49(b) of the Act.

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

The Assistant Commissioner reviewed the application of several exemptions, including solicitor-client privilege, law enforcement, advice or recommendations, and personal privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of certain records, including the Record of Investigation and Record of Intake, while upholding the exemption of a legal memorandum, a case disposition sheet, and witness interview reports.

The requester sought access to police records regarding a search conducted in a courtroom.

The Police denied access, claiming exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for law enforcement reports and building security.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained only the appellant's personal information and did not qualify as reports or pose a security risk.

The Police were ordered to disclose the responsive portions of the records.