Sidney B. Linden

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $9,503.80 issued by the Ministry of Health for processing a freedom of information request.

In an interim order, the Commissioner found the Ministry had not provided sufficient information to justify the fee and ordered it to issue a revised estimate with detailed calculations.

The Ministry's subsequent representations failed to provide the required details or demonstrate the reasonableness of the estimate.

Consequently, the Commissioner ordered the Ministry to disclose the requested records, subject to appropriate severances, without charging any fee.

The requester appealed the institutions' decision to deny access to a log of issue sheets prepared for the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Ministry of Financial Institutions.

The institutions claimed the record was exempt under the Cabinet records exemptions in subsections 12(1)(a) and (e) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the log, which merely listed the titles of issue sheets, did not contain sufficient information to brief a Minister and would not reveal the substance of deliberations of Cabinet or its committees.

The Commissioner ordered the disclosure of the record, subject to the severance of certain personal information under subsection 21(1).

The appellant requested copies of Statements of Investment Policies and Goals filed by pension plan administrators with the Pension Commission of Ontario.

The Ministry of Financial Institutions denied the request, claiming the records were exempt under subsections 17(1)(a) and (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they contained confidential financial information whose disclosure could prejudice competitive positions or result in undue loss or gain.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that while the records contained financial information, the institution and affected parties failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence that disclosure would reasonably be expected to cause the specified harms.

The appeal was allowed and the institution was ordered to release the records with identifying information severed.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology's decision to deny access to records relating to private investigators and legal counsel retained in connection with a lawsuit.

The Commissioner found that the private investigators' reports and legal accounts were exempt from disclosure under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act due to solicitor-client and litigation privilege.

However, the Commissioner ordered the disclosure of records containing the requester's personal information, subject to the severance of other individuals' names to protect their privacy under section 49(b).

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to alleged illegal acts by the RCMP and the McDonald Commission.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the exemptions for most records under sections 15 (intergovernmental relations) and 19 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

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

However, the institution was ordered to release one record that was already publicly available.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Ministry of Community and Social Services to deny access to a Serious Occurrence Report and an Exception Report regarding an incident at a child care centre.

The institution and the affected party claimed exemptions under sections 17(1)(a) and (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the information was not labour relations or commercial information, failing the first part of the section 17 test.

The Commissioner also determined that the records contained personal information but that disclosure to the appellant would not constitute an unjustified invasion of the complainant's personal privacy under section 49(b), given the pending disciplinary proceedings against the appellant.

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

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records concerning allegations of illegal actions by police regarding the Praxis Corporation.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the exemptions, finding the records were properly withheld as law enforcement reports, information received in confidence from another government, and information already available to the public.

The Commissioner also found that the public interest override did not apply, but ordered the institution to provide the requester with the precise location of the publicly available records.

The requester, an unsuccessful candidate in a job competition, appealed the Ministry of Government Services' decision denying access to certain competition records.

During the appeal, two additional records authored by a panelist (a chronology of events and a memorandum) were discovered.

The panelist argued these were personal notes not under the institution's custody or control.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner held that the records were created to document employment-related concerns and were introduced into the employment context, thus falling under the control of the institution pursuant to subsection 10(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The institution was ordered to make an access decision regarding the records.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Skills Development for records relating to participants in the Futures program.

The Ministry initially claimed exemptions but later clarified that the requested records were held by external delivery agencies (Community Colleges) and not by the Ministry itself.

The Commissioner determined that the Ministry had neither custody nor control of the requested records.

The Ministry was ordered to forward the request to the appropriate Community College.

The appellant requested access to third-party submissions made to the Ministry of the Attorney General regarding Frenchman's Bay.

The Ministry granted partial access, claiming exemptions under sections 13(1), 19, and 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Commissioner considered whether the records were exempt under section 17(1) (third-party commercial information) and section 21 (personal privacy).

The Commissioner upheld the exemption for five letters containing commercial and financial information supplied in confidence.

The Commissioner also found that the names, addresses, and personal opinions of individual letter writers constituted personal information, the disclosure of which would be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

However, the Commissioner ordered the disclosure of a Notice of Proceeding Against the Crown and the names of corporate entities and individuals acting in an official capacity, as these did not qualify for exemption.

The appellant requested access to all files concerning himself in the OPP Criminal Intelligence Records from 1967 to 1988.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General refused to confirm or deny the existence of the records pursuant to subsection 14(3) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that if such records existed, they would qualify for exemption under subsections 14(1) or (2) as law enforcement records.

The Commissioner also dismissed the appellant's arguments regarding improper delegation of authority and alleged infringements of sections 7, 8, and 15 of the Charter.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to executed standard form contracts with two forestry companies.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 17 and 18(1)(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the Ministry and the affected parties failed to demonstrate that the commercial information was supplied in confidence or that disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause the specified harms.

The Commissioner ordered the release of the records in full.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ontario Human Rights Commission for records relating to a job competition for the position of Director of Policy and Research.

The Commission denied access to several records, citing the personal privacy exemption under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and claimed that no records existed for other parts of the request.

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner found that some responsive records did exist and that the institution should have assisted the requester.

The Commissioner also held that while the withheld records contained personal information presumed to be an unjustified invasion of privacy if disclosed, the unusual circumstances surrounding the job competition and the need to subject the Commission to public scrutiny rebutted the presumption.

The Commission was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant requested access to an internal investigation report regarding an open custody facility for young offenders.

The Ministry of Correctional Services denied access to certain memoranda, claiming exemptions under the law enforcement and personal privacy provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the law enforcement exemptions under subsections 14(2)(a) and (d) did not apply to an internal administrative investigation or to a former resident seeking their own information.

However, the Commissioner upheld the exemption under section 21 for one memorandum, finding its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the remaining memorandum.

The appellant requested access to personal information from the Employment Standards Branch of the Ministry of Labour.

The Ministry disclosed some records but severed parts of a memo under subsection 13(1) and withheld a narrative report under subsection 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered the disclosure of the severed memo, finding it did not contain advice or recommendations that would inhibit the free flow of information.

However, the Commissioner upheld the exemption of the narrative report, as it was prepared in the course of an investigation by an agency regulating compliance with a law.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Labour's decision to deny access to certain records in an investigation file under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that draft letters and portions of Minister's Issue Notes qualified for the advice or recommendations exemption under s. 13(1), but ordered the head to exercise discretion regarding their release.

Handwritten notes did not qualify and were ordered released.

The Commissioner also found that an investigation report was exempt under a confidentiality provision in the Occupational Health and Safety Act, but ordered the Director to exercise discretion under that Act.

The Ministry was ordered to provide an affidavit regarding the existence of other disputed records.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology to sever portions of an agreement between the Province of Ontario and Toyota Motor Corporation regarding the location of an automobile assembly plant.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 15, 17, and 18 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the severed information did not qualify for exemption, as much of it was already in the public domain, was not supplied in confidence, or did not meet the harms test.

The Commissioner ordered the release of the severed portions of the record, with the exception of certain articles not at issue in the appeal.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to records relating to the Council on Mind Abuse (COMA).

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 12, 17, and 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the funding proposal sent directly to a Cabinet committee did not qualify for the section 12 exemption.

The Commissioner also found that the records did not meet the three-part test for exemption under section 17, and that the names of corporate officers did not qualify as personal information under section 21.

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

The requester appealed the Ministry of Labour's decisions regarding access to records and fee estimates under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner issued an Interim Order clarifying the procedural obligations of institutions when responding to complex requests involving large volumes of records and fee estimates.

The Commissioner outlined a procedure allowing institutions to issue an 'interim' section 26 notice with a fee estimate based on a representative sample or consultations, which suspends the 30-day time limit until the fee issue is resolved.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Community and Social Services for all records pertaining to himself, specifically files from the Social Assistance Review Board (SARB).

SARB provided several files but the appellant claimed some correspondence and transcripts were missing.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated and found that while SARB's records management systems were deficient, the steps taken to identify and locate the requested records were reasonable and sufficient.

The Commissioner also found that the institution's slight delay in responding was reasonable as it was caused by a courier's inability to deliver to a post office box.