Sidney B. Linden

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.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Agriculture and Food's decision to deny access to a list of names and addresses of Ontario dairy producers.

The institution and the Ontario Milk Marketing Board argued the record was exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the list was commercial information supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in undue financial loss to the Board by decreasing advertising revenues for its trade magazine.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Correctional Services' decision to exempt portions of an Executive Summary of a management study report under the Cabinet records exemption (s. 12(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act).

The Commissioner found that the record did not meet the requirements for exemption under either the introductory wording of s. 12(1) or the expanded definition in s. 12(1)(b), as disclosure would not reveal the substance of deliberations of Cabinet, nor was the record submitted or prepared for submission to Cabinet.

The Ministry was ordered to release the remaining portions of the record.

The appellant requested access to records relating to his transfer to Ontario under a Lieutenant Governor's warrant.

The Ministry of Health denied access to portions of two letters under sections 49(b) and 20 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner ordered the Ministry to sever identifying information of individuals other than the appellant and Ministry officials under section 49(b), but found insufficient evidence to apply the section 20 exemption for threats to health or safety.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the remaining parts of the records.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to certain records relating to the closing of the Rideau Regional Centre and the transfer of residents.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to exempt the Wage Section of Project Opportunity under the advice or recommendations exemption (s. 13(1)).

The Commissioner also found that a Cabinet submission and revised regional proposals qualified for the Cabinet records exemption (s. 12(1)).

However, the Commissioner ordered the head to consider exercising discretion under s. 12(2)(b) to seek Cabinet consent for the release of the latter records.

The Commissioner found no severable information, no compelling public interest override, and noted a technical violation of the time extension notice requirement.

The appellant requested a list of names of escheated estates administered by the Public Trustee from which funds were deposited into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The institution denied access, claiming the records were protected by a confidentiality provision in section 18 of the Public Trustee Act and exemptions under sections 21 and 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that while section 18 is a confidentiality provision, it did not apply to the requested record because the information was publicly available through the Surrogate Court.

The Commissioner also held that releasing the names would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21, nor did the discretionary exemption in section 22(a) apply.

The institution was ordered to release the list of names.

The appellant requested access to two contracts between the Ministry of Natural Resources and individuals for creel census on Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie.

The Ministry denied access under sections 17 and 18(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the executed contracts did not meet the three-part test for exemption under section 17, as the information was not supplied in confidence and there was no reasonable expectation of harm.

The Commissioner also found that the discretionary exemption under section 18(1)(d) did not apply.

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

The appellant requested access to the minutes of the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee for 1986 and 1987.

The Ministry of Health severed portions of the records under various exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner reviewed the application of exemptions under sections 13, 15, 17, 18, and 19.

The Commissioner upheld the majority of the severances, particularly those protecting third-party commercial information regarding drug product submissions, but ordered the release of certain portions where the exemptions were improperly applied.

The appellant requested access to records relating to boundary negotiations between the Village of Grand Bend and the Township of Bosanquet.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs denied access to certain documents, claiming exemptions under sections 15, 17, 18, and 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that a municipality is not a 'government' for the purposes of section 15, and that the requirements for exemptions under sections 17 and 18 were not met.

The Commissioner upheld the severance of personal information under section 21 and ordered the disclosure of the remaining records.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Environment's decision to deny access to environmental reports concerning PCB levels at a specific industrial site.

The Ministry and the affected third party claimed the records were exempt under section 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as scientific or technical information supplied in confidence.

The Commissioner found that while the records contained scientific and technical information, the third party and the Ministry failed to prove the information was supplied in confidence, either implicitly or explicitly.

The Commissioner ordered the release of the records in full.

The requester appealed a decision by the Ministry of Health denying access to the specific salaries of certain executive positions at Peterborough Civic Hospital.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the specific salaries constituted personal information and their disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(f) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as the disclosure of salary ranges was sufficient to satisfy the public interest in accountability.

The appellant appealed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision to deny access to a summary report concerning an operational review.

The Board relied on section 102 of the Workers' Compensation Act as a confidentiality provision overriding the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 67.

The Commissioner found that section 102(1) is a confidentiality provision and that the requested report falls within its scope, thereby upholding the Board's decision to refuse disclosure.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Education's decision to deny access to impact studies regarding the pooling of industrial and commercial assessment taxes among school boards.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt as Cabinet records under subsections 12(1)(b) and (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the records did not contain policy options or recommendations, and therefore did not qualify under subsection 12(1)(b).

While the records initially qualified as background explanations under subsection 12(1)(c), a subsequent government announcement indicated a decision had been made and implemented, vitiating the exemption.

The Commissioner ordered the records disclosed in their entirety.

The requester appealed the Archives of Ontario's decision that a requested 1983 letter could not be located.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the Archives conducted a reasonable and sufficient search for the record.

The Commissioner also found that the Archives ultimately discharged its duty to inquire whether another institution had custody of the record, though it failed to do so within the required 15-day timeframe.

The Commissioner declined to make a specific order regarding the Archives' records management procedures but strongly encouraged improvements to ensure the effective implementation of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Labour's decision to withhold certain records from the Minister's file under the advice or recommendations exemption of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the withheld records, which included transmittal slips, message slips, and brief notations, did not contain advice or recommendations within the meaning of the Act.

The Commissioner ordered the release of all withheld records and concluded that the Ministry's search for additional missing records, while flawed, could not be productively advanced further.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to a record relating to police interviews.

The Ministry claimed the record was exempt under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the record was prepared by Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice and was therefore exempt under section 19.

The appeal was dismissed and the head's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations regarding the Church of Scientology's application for the right to solemnize marriages.

The Ministry denied access to several records, claiming exemptions under sections 12, 13, 15, and 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner upheld the application of the Cabinet records exemption (s. 12) and the solicitor-client privilege exemption (s. 19) for several records.

The Commissioner rejected the application of the advice to government exemption (s. 13) for a memorandum and interprovincial correspondence.

The intergovernmental relations exemption (s. 15) was upheld for certain confidential letters from other provinces but denied for others.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records and severable portions of exempt records.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Ontario Waste Management Corporation to sever information from board meeting minutes and to charge a fee for the records.

The Commissioner found that the institution failed to justify the application of exemptions under sections 13(1) and 18(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for three of the four records, ordering their disclosure.

The exemption was upheld for the fourth record, and the public interest override was found not to apply.

The Commissioner also upheld the institution's fee estimate and its decision not to waive the fees.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Transportation's decision to sever information from 23 applications for extra-provincial operating authority and a 'Safety Program Test' under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 17 (third party information) and 21 (personal information).

The Commissioner found that the section 17 exemption did not apply because the information was not supplied in confidence, as it was historically available to the public.

The Commissioner also found that the section 21 exemption did not apply because disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry was ordered to release the records in their entirety to the Ontario Highway Transport Board, which was directed to disclose them to the requester.

The appellant appealed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision to deny access to a hearing transcript and records in a security file under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the institution took all reasonable steps to locate the missing hearing notes, which were in the custody of a private court reporter.

The Commissioner also upheld the institution's decision to withhold the security file records under the section 19 discretionary exemption, as they were prepared for Crown counsel in contemplation of litigation.