Sidney B. Linden

The appellant requested access to a contract implementing Ontario's memorandum of understanding with General Motors and Suzuki for an automotive assembly plant.

The Ministry severed portions of the contract under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would prejudice the third party's competitive position.

The Commissioner found that the severed information did not meet the three-part test for exemption under section 17(1), as it was not supplied in confidence and there was insufficient evidence of a reasonable expectation of harm.

The Ministry was ordered to release the entire record.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of the Solicitor General regarding a freedom of information request for police records dating back to 1984.

The appellant argued that the institution failed to locate all relevant records and questioned its records retention procedures.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the institution took reasonable steps to locate the records and that its retention of records exceeded the minimum statutory requirements.

However, the Commissioner directed the institution to consult with the Director of Compliance to produce written guidelines for maintaining personal information banks and disposing of records.

The appellant made a broad request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for all personal information held by the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Ministry provided records, but the appellant appealed, alleging that not all records were disclosed and that the Ministry unreasonably delayed its response.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner dismissed the appeal, finding that the Ministry made reasonable efforts to locate the records and that the delay was justified given the broad and confusing nature of the appellant's correspondence.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Financial Institutions' decision to deny access to a statement made by Merrill Lynch representatives to the Investment Dealers Association (IDA) during an investigation.

The head claimed the record was exempt under s. 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as a law enforcement report.

The Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the IDA acted as an agent for the Ontario Securities Commission, qualifying it as an agency enforcing compliance with a law.

The Commissioner also found the head properly exercised discretion and that no responsive information could be reasonably severed under s. 10(2).

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Labour's decision to deny access to reports and recommendations regarding a collapsed dome.

The Ministry relied on the confidentiality provision in subsection 34(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Commissioner found that subsection 34(1)(a) is a confidentiality provision under section 67 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that the requested records fell within its scope.

However, the Commissioner ordered the Ministry's Director to reconsider the request and exercise the discretion to disclose provided under subsection 34(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $18,400 and an 8 to 10 month time extension for a freedom of information request for pension plan records.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the head's decision, finding that the fee estimate was properly calculated, there was no basis for a fee waiver, and the time extension was reasonable given the large number of records requested.

The appellant requested access to his personal health information from the Ministry of Health.

The Ministry agreed to provide access but required the appellant to pick up the records in person with photo identification to protect his privacy.

The appellant refused and insisted the records be sent by ordinary mail.

The Commissioner held that while the Ministry's caution was appropriate given the sensitive nature of health records, the appellant had put himself on public record as consenting to transmission by ordinary mail, thereby assuming the privacy risks.

The Ministry was ordered to mail the records to the appellant.

The appellant submitted 60 separate freedom of information requests to the Ministry of Correctional Services.

The Ministry extended the time to respond to all requests en bloc under section 27 of the Act, citing the large number of records and necessary consultations.

The Commissioner found that the Ministry erred by not considering each request individually to determine if a time extension was justified.

However, because the Ministry acted in good faith and the promised response date was imminent, the Commissioner declined to issue a formal order.

The appellant, a lawyer representing union trust funds, sought the identity of an individual who had requested access to the funds' financial statements filed with the Ministry of Labour.

The Ministry denied the request, claiming the requester's name was personal information and its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Commissioner found that while the name alone is not personal information, in the context of a request it is.

However, the Commissioner concluded that disclosing the name would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy under the circumstances and ordered the Ministry to disclose the requester's name.

The appellant requested access to records filed with the Minister of Labour under section 86(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ministry denied access, claiming section 86 was an implied confidentiality provision under section 67 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987.

The Commissioner found that section 86 is not a confidentiality provision because it lacks express language prohibiting disclosure.

The matter was remitted to the head of the institution to make an access decision under the Act.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Management Board of Cabinet denying access to records concerning the extension of government financing to separate schools.

The institution claimed the records were exempt under the Cabinet records exemption in subsection 12(1)(e) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that while the specific exemption in 12(1)(e) did not apply because the record had already been presented to Cabinet, the record still qualified as an exempt Cabinet record under the broader introductory wording of subsection 12(1).

The Commissioner also held that the head was not absolutely required to seek Cabinet consent for disclosure under subsection 12(2)(b) and had properly exercised his discretion not to do so.

Finally, the Commissioner determined that no responsive information could be reasonably severed from the record under subsection 10(2).

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records concerning whistleblower policies.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the institution's decision, finding that the records were properly exempted under the Cabinet records and advice or recommendations exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner also held that the head is not absolutely required to seek Cabinet consent for disclosure under subsection 12(2)(b), and that no compelling public interest outweighed the purpose of the exemptions.

The requesters appealed the Ministry of Revenue's decision to deny access to the estimated 1984 market values of properties in Metropolitan Toronto on a property-by-property basis.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as personal information and protected by a confidentiality provision in the Assessment Act.

The Commissioner found that while the Assessment Act contained a confidentiality provision, it did not apply to information otherwise publicly accessible on the assessment roll, such as municipal addresses and market values.

Furthermore, the Commissioner determined that the requested information was about properties, not identifiable individuals, and therefore did not constitute personal information.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant requested access to documents from the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board denied access to two labour relations officer reports, citing subsection 111(6) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that subsection 111(6) operates as a confidentiality provision under section 67 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987, which bars the application of the Act.

The Commissioner concluded that the requested records fell within the scope of the confidentiality provision and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant requested access to her probation case file.

The Ministry of Correctional Services withheld a psychological report, casenotes, and a Level of Supervision Inventory Form, stating under subsection 48(4) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that the appellant must first meet with the Regional Psychologist to have the records explained to her.

The Commissioner ordered the unconditional release of the records, holding that subsection 48(4) requires records to be in a comprehensible form for an average person, but does not permit an institution to assess a specific requester's ability to comprehend or to make access conditional on receiving a professional explanation.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of the Attorney General denying access to the interview rating and data entry test results of the successful candidate in a job competition.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the requested records constituted 'personal information' under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner held that disclosure of the personal evaluations would constitute an unjustified invasion of the successful candidate's personal privacy.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested information from the Ministry of Health regarding the operations of the Health Care Accessibility Act, specifically periodic reports showing the number of declarations seeking reimbursement for additional charges by physicians.

The Ministry granted access but severed physicians' names, OHIP registration numbers, and dates they opted in or out, relying on section 67 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987.

The Commissioner found that section 44 of the Health Insurance Act and section 7 of the Health Care Accessibility Act are confidentiality provisions that bar the application of the Act, and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant requested access to all verbal or written information relating to a job competition and the early termination of her employment contract.

The institution provided existing records but the appellant appealed, arguing that unrecorded oral comments and recommendations from her superiors should also be provided and that the Act requires such conversations to be recorded.

The Commissioner upheld the institution's decision, finding that the institution had made reasonable efforts to locate the requested information and that the right of access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applies only to existing recorded information, imposing no duty to create new records from oral discussions.

The appellant requested access to 1986-87 investigation reports related to funeral firms from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

The Ministry initially refused to confirm or deny the existence of the records under subsection 14(3) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987.

During the appeal, the Ministry raised subsection 14(1) of the Business Practices Act as a confidentiality provision.

The Commissioner allowed the new issue to be raised, found that subsection 14(1) of the Business Practices Act is a valid confidentiality provision under section 67 of the Act, and concluded that the requested records, if they exist, would fall within its scope, thereby barring disclosure.

The appellant requested access to her personal file from the Ministry of Community and Social Services, specifically seeking information relating to her late brother's estate and the identity of the third party who provided this information.

The institution denied access to the requested records, citing exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner upheld the institution's decision, finding that the records contained personal information provided in confidence by a third party, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the third party's personal privacy under subsection 49(b).

The Commissioner also found that the records could not be reasonably severed under subsection 10(2).