Tom A. Wright

The appellant sought access to records relating to a drug manufacturer's applications for listing in the Ontario Formulary.

The Ministry of Health denied access to parts of the records, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 19 and the personal information exemption under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the severed records were confidential communications related to legal advice and that disclosing the names of the independent drug reviewers would constitute an unjustified invasion of their personal privacy.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs' decision to extend the time limit for responding to 15 separate freedom of information requests by 100 days.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the requests involved a large number of records and that meeting the original 30-day time limit would unreasonably interfere with the institution's operations.

The Commissioner upheld the 100-day time extension as reasonable under section 27(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987.

The appellant, a former employee of the Ministry of Labour, appealed the Ministry's response to her request for access to her personal information spanning a 10-year period.

The Commissioner found that the Ministry's 21-day time extension was reasonable given the large number of records.

However, the Commissioner ordered the Ministry to provide copies of the records rather than requiring the appellant to view them at the Ministry's premises, finding that the Ministry had not established that copying was not reasonably practicable.

The Commissioner also found that a recent amendment to the Act prohibited the Ministry from charging a fee for access to personal information.

Finally, the Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to exempt certain records under the advice or recommendations exemption, the solicitor-client privilege exemption, and the mandatory exemption for the personal information of other individuals, while ordering the disclosure of a few specific records.

The requester appealed the City of Toronto's decision to extend the 30-day statutory time limit to respond to a freedom of information request by an additional 60 days.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the 60-day extension was not reasonable, as the institution did not provide sufficient information to justify the length of the extension for searching three boxes of records.

However, taking into account that this was the institution's first request requiring third-party notices, the Commissioner ordered the institution to provide its decision by the date it had already set.

The appellant requested a correction to his attendance records to change 'sick' days to 'WCB' days, reflecting decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board.

The Ministry of Correctional Services refused, arguing the WCB decisions were under appeal.

The Commissioner found the information was personal information and ordered the Ministry to attach a memorandum to the records reflecting the WCB's findings, as the WCB decisions had not been set aside.

The appellant requested access to records related to decisions and appeals of the Mining and Lands Commissioner from the Ministry of Natural Resources.

The Ministry denied access to some records, claiming the M&L Commissioner was not an institution under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the M&L Commissioner is an independent tribunal and not a ministry, and therefore not covered by the Act.

The Commissioner ordered the Ministry to provide access to certain existing records in its custody, such as hearing notices, but found it was not obligated to create new records like a schedule of pending appeals.

The requester, an employee of a union involved in negotiations with the government, sought access to information regarding the contracting out of services by various ministries.

The institution denied access to portions of the records, relying on the discretionary exemptions in subsections 18(1)(c), (d), (f), and (g) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the institution failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet the tests for any of the claimed exemptions.

Furthermore, the Commissioner determined that the institution failed to fulfill its obligations under section 25 of the Act by not forwarding the request to other ministries for records it did not have in its custody or control.

The institution was ordered to disclose the records and forward the request to the appropriate ministries.

The appellant requested access to the aggregate interview scores of the two successful candidates in a job competition at the Ministry of Housing.

The Ministry denied access under the personal privacy exemption of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the scores constituted personal information, their disclosure would be a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy as they related to personnel evaluations, and the records could not be reasonably severed without revealing the identities of the candidates.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Ministry of Community and Social Services to withhold certain records requested under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The records were withheld under exemptions for advice or recommendations, solicitor-client privilege, and personal privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the advice or recommendations exemption did not apply to the record in question.

Regarding solicitor-client privilege, the Assistant Commissioner found that some records were exempt while others were not.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of the personal privacy exemption to one record and found that the exempt records could not reasonably be severed.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records.

The appellant requested access to records concerning the prohibition of funeral homes being located on or operated in conjunction with cemeteries.

The Ministry denied access to four records, claiming they were exempt under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as their disclosure would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that although the records themselves were never placed before Cabinet, parts of them were incorporated into Cabinet submissions, and their disclosure would permit accurate inferences about Cabinet deliberations.

The appellant sought access to an audit report and related documents concerning the management practices of a former Sheriff.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access, citing several exemptions including law enforcement and personal privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the institution's decision to withhold the records under section 14(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that because the Sheriff had been charged under the Criminal Code and the matter was proceeding to trial, disclosure of the report could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter.

The appellant, a former employee of the Ministry of Correctional Services, requested access to witness statements made by three young offenders regarding an incident at Camp Dufferin.

The Ministry denied access, claiming exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained personal information and that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the young offenders, upholding the Ministry's decision to withhold the records.

The appellant sought access to her social assistance file from the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Ministry granted access to most records but withheld certain third-party information from an Eligibility Review Officer's report under subsection 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the withheld information qualified as personal information and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected persons' personal privacy, as it was compiled during an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The Assistant Commissioner issued a Final Order disposing of an outstanding issue from Interim Order 210.

The head of the institution was ordered to reconsider the exercise of discretion under subsection 49(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act regarding portions of records qualifying for exemption under subsection 15(b).

The head provided representations, raising subsection 49(e) for the first time.

The Assistant Commissioner noted it is unacceptable to consider factors from an un-claimed discretionary exemption when exercising discretion under another.

However, based on other factors, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the head's decision to withhold the portions of the records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Citizenship, which was forwarded to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, seeking access to his human rights complaint file.

The Commission granted partial access, denying access to certain records under the law enforcement, advice or recommendations, and personal privacy exemptions.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that the Commission conducted a reasonable search and that the head's powers were properly delegated.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of several internal memoranda and notes that did not qualify as 'reports' under the law enforcement exemption, but upheld the Commission's decision to withhold formal reports and third-party personal information.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited for documents relating to Pepsi's approach to become a consortium member.

The institution denied access, claiming exemptions under sections 17, 18, and 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that the records did not meet the three-part test for third-party commercial information under section 17, as there was insufficient evidence of a reasonable expectation of harm.

The Assistant Commissioner also rejected the institution's claims under section 18 (economic interests) and section 19 (solicitor-client privilege).

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

The requester appealed the institution's decision to deny access to letters of agreement between the Stadium Corporation and consortium members regarding preferred supplier rights.

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

The Assistant Commissioner found that most of the records did not meet the tests for exemption, as they were negotiated agreements rather than information supplied in confidence, and their disclosure would not reasonably prejudice economic interests.

However, two records were found to be exempt under sections 17(1) and 18(1)(c) respectively.

The institution was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records.

The requester sought access to two letters from the Ministry of Health.

The Ministry decided to grant access, but an affected person appealed the decision, arguing the records were part of their clinical file and excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were compiled in a psychiatric facility in respect of a patient and were therefore 'clinical records' under the Mental Health Act.

Consequently, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act did not apply to the records.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Health denying access to the name and title of an individual who had previously requested the appellant's personal information.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the original requester's name and title constituted personal information, its disclosure would not be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant's interest in knowing the identity of the person who sought their sensitive personal information outweighed the original requester's interest in anonymity.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the information.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of the Solicitor General regarding an OPP investigation.

The Ministry failed to respond within the 30-day statutory time limit, resulting in a deemed refusal appeal.

The Ministry subsequently extended the time limit by 90 days under section 27(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to consult with other institutions.

The appellant appealed the time extension.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while some extension was reasonable due to the volume of records and necessary consultations, 90 days was unreasonable.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered a 70-day extension and directed the Ministry to issue any necessary third-party notices and a final access decision by a specified date.