Sidney B. Linden

The appellant requested access to records evaluating the Land Speculation Tax Act and asked to view them in Ottawa with a fee waiver.

The Ministry of Treasury and Economics denied the request to view the original records in Ottawa, citing security and staff needs, and estimated fees at $48.30.

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered the Ministry to produce the records for viewing in Ottawa, finding the Ministry failed to demonstrate it was not reasonably practicable.

The Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to charge fees and deny a fee waiver, noting that shipping and preparation costs are allowable under the Act.

The appellant, a media organization, appealed a fee estimate of $5,100 (later revised to $600) for a freedom of information request to the Archives of Ontario.

The Commissioner held that the head of an institution has the discretion under s. 57(1) of the Act to not charge a fee, independent of the fee waiver provisions in s. 57(3).

The Commissioner also found that the grounds for fee waiver in s. 57(3) are exhaustive and do not include a special status for the media.

The charging of fees was held not to infringe freedom of the press under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The matter was remitted to the head to exercise the discretion under s. 57(1).

The appellant, a media organization, appealed a fee estimate of $1,682 for a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Education.

The appellant argued that the head had discretion to waive the fee, that the fee caused financial hardship, and that charging fees to the media infringed section 2(b) of the Charter.

The Commissioner held that the head has general discretion under section 57(1) of the Act to not charge a fee, and ordered the head to reconsider the fee using this discretion.

The Commissioner also found that the specific fee waiver grounds in section 57(3) are exhaustive and did not apply to the appellant.

The Charter argument was dismissed, as a reasonable fee does not infringe freedom of the press.

Finally, the Commissioner found the fee estimate improperly included decision-making time in its preparation costs.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Education's decision to deny access to portions of an engineering report concerning asbestos and fire safety at a school.

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

The Commissioner found that the report was under the Ministry's control and that neither the Ministry nor the affected School Board had discharged the burden of proving that the exemptions applied.

The Commissioner ordered the Ministry to disclose the requested portions of the report.

The appellant appealed the decision of the institution regarding a freedom of information request for Board of Directors minutes.

The appellant challenged the institution's refusal to allow examination of the original records in Ottawa, the amount of photocopy fees charged, and the refusal to waive the fees on public health and safety grounds.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the institution's decisions, finding that it was not reasonably practicable to examine the heavily severed records, the photocopy fees were in accordance with the regulations, and the dissemination of the records would not benefit public health or safety sufficiently to warrant a fee waiver.

The appellant requested a copy of a property review report from the Ministry of Government Services.

The Ministry denied access under subsection 22(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987, stating the report would be published within 90 days.

The appellant appealed, arguing early release would benefit public debate.

The Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, noting that the compelling public interest override in section 23 does not apply to the subsection 22(b) exemption, and the Ministry confirmed the report would be released within the 90-day period.