Sidney B. Linden

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to records concerning payments made to medical laboratory service organizations.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 67 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987, as section 44(1) of the Health Insurance Act acted as a confidentiality provision.

The Commissioner found that section 44(1) of the Health Insurance Act is a confidentiality provision that overrides the Act until January 1, 1990, and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access.

The appellant made four freedom of information requests to the Ministry of Labour for occupational health and safety data and sought fee waivers.

The Ministry denied the fee waivers and provided fee estimates totalling $9,165.00, arguing that the requested records did not currently exist and it had no obligation to create them.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner held that while the Act does not require an institution to create new records by manually searching and collating paper files, it does impose a duty to produce records that are capable of being generated from existing machine-readable records, provided it does not unreasonably interfere with operations.

The Ministry was ordered to reassess the fees and identify which records could be produced.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology to deny access to records relating to the Ontario Development Corporation and Ventura Technologies Corporation.

The institution claimed exemptions under several sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987, including sections 13, 14, 17, and 18.

The Commissioner rejected the institution's blanket claim under subsection 14(1)(f) that disclosure would deprive it of a fair trial in ongoing civil litigation.

The Commissioner ordered the disclosure of several records, finding they contained factual material or did not meet the requirements for exemption, while upholding the exemption for certain records containing advice or recommendations and confidential third-party financial information.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to records containing drug manufacturers' pricing submissions for the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary.

The Ministry and third-party drug manufacturers argued the records were exempt under section 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as confidential commercial and financial information.

The Commissioner found that the records met the three-part test for exemption under section 17, as disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the competitive position of the manufacturers.

The Commissioner also found that the appellant failed to demonstrate a compelling public interest under section 23 that would outweigh the purpose of the exemption.

The head's decision to refuse disclosure was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records containing personal information about herself from the Ministry of the Solicitor General, specifically relating to an employment-related complaint about her spouse.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, citing exemptions for unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that disclosure of the withheld information would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the other individuals involved under subsection 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester appealed a freedom of information decision by the Ministry of the Attorney General, alleging that the Ministry failed to provide full access to requested records, specifically correspondence from 1985 and 1986.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated and found that while certain letters were indeed missing from the Ministry's files due to inadequate record-keeping practices at the time, the Ministry had conducted two reasonable searches.

The Commissioner concluded that the appellant had received all records currently in the institution's possession and dismissed the appeal, noting that new FOI legislation should improve future records management.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for all personal information relating to exchanges between the Ministry and a local Department of Social Services.

The Ministry conducted a search across multiple branches and concluded no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing the search was inadequate and complaining of a delay in the Ministry's response.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner dismissed the appeal, finding that the Ministry made reasonable efforts to identify and locate the requested records and that its explanation for the delay—caused by a courier's inability to deliver to a post office box—was reasonable.

The appellant, an unsuccessful candidate in two job competitions for a stenographer position, requested access to the typing and shorthand test results of all candidates.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General denied access to the records of other candidates, citing the personal privacy exemption under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the records contained personal information and that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

However, the Commissioner ordered the Ministry to sever the personal identifiers, scores, and remarks from the records and disclose the remaining portions to the appellant pursuant to subsection 10(2) of the Act.

A third party appealed the decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board to release severed portions of a union certification application in response to a freedom of information request.

The third party argued the records were exempt under confidentiality provisions of the Labour Relations Act, the third party information exemption, and the personal privacy exemption.

The Commissioner found that the confidentiality provisions did not apply to the severed records, the records were not supplied in confidence, and they did not contain personal information.

The head's decision to release the records was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation's decision to deny access to a government-funded feasibility study for a riverboat project.

The Ministry claimed the record was not in its custody or control, and alternatively relied on exemptions for third-party commercial information and the financial interests of the government.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found the record was under the Ministry's control.

The Commissioner rejected the third-party exemption because the agreed-upon confidentiality period had expired, and dismissed the government financial interest exemption.

The Ministry was ordered to release the study.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Transportation's decision to deny access to records relating to compensation for the Ontario Motor Vehicle License Issuers Association.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for Cabinet records.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained policy options, recommendations, and background explanations prepared for the Executive Council, and that their disclosure would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

The Commissioner also held that the head properly exercised discretion in not seeking Cabinet consent for disclosure and that the records could not be reasonably severed.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Ministry of the Attorney General denying access to certain records contained in a Crown Brief relating to a criminal case against the appellant.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the institution's decision, finding that the records were exempt under section 49(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987, as they were reports prepared in the course of law enforcement (s. 14(2)(a)) and records prepared by or for Crown counsel in contemplation of litigation (s. 19).

The Commissioner also found that disclosure of personal information relating to other individuals would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1), and that the records could not reasonably be further severed.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General's decision to deny partial access to their personal information and its claim that no records existed for another named individual.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold certain personal information under the law enforcement report exemption.

However, the Commissioner found that the Ministry failed to conduct a reasonable search for the other individual's records and issued a misleading notice of refusal.

The Ministry was directed to extend its search if requested by the appellant.

The appellant, a police officer, requested access to statements and allegations made by four individuals regarding complaints of misconduct against him.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General granted partial access but denied access to documents containing personal information under sections 14 and 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the records contained personal information and qualified as law enforcement reports under section 14(2)(a).

The Commissioner also upheld the head's decision that disclosing the statements and notebook entries would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the individuals who made the statements under section 49(b).

The appeal was dismissed.

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 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 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.