Tom A. Wright

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Natural Resources seeking to verify whether a named individual held an antlerless deer permit.

The Ministry refused to confirm or deny the existence of the record under subsection 21(5) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that the requested information, if it existed, would constitute personal information and its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of the record, finding no error in the exercise of discretion.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to certain records and challenged the adequacy of the Ministry's search for records.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold portions of the records under the exemptions for advice or recommendations (s. 13(1)) and solicitor-client privilege (s. 19), and found the head properly exercised discretion under s. 49(a).

However, the Assistant Commissioner found the Ministry failed to establish that its search for records was reasonable and ordered a new search to be conducted in the presence of a Compliance Investigator.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to extend the 30-day statutory time limit for responding to a freedom of information request by an additional 90 days.

The Assistant Commissioner found the 90-day extension unreasonable, determining that the necessary consultations could be completed within a 60-day extension.

The institution was ordered to send any necessary third-party notices within 10 days and to issue its access decision by January 28, 1991.

The appellant requested access to records regarding the transfer of a Lieutenant Governor's warrant between Ontario and New Brunswick.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to parts of the records, claiming exemptions for intergovernmental relations, information received in confidence, advice to government, and solicitor-client privilege.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained the appellant's personal information.

Exemptions under sections 13(1) and 19 were rejected.

Parts of two records qualified for exemption under section 15(b) as information received in confidence from another government.

The head was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records, sever and disclose parts of the exempt records, and reconsider the exercise of discretion regarding the exempt portions.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited denying access to records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Following an interim order, the Assistant Commissioner reviewed the head's representations regarding the exercise of discretion under subsection 18(1) and found it was exercised in accordance with established legal principles.

The Assistant Commissioner also considered the public interest override under section 23 and concluded the appellant failed to establish a compelling public interest that clearly outweighed the purpose of the exemption.

The head's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to deny access to an investigation file concerning a human rights complaint.

The institution claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including the law enforcement exemption.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the institution's investigation into the complaint could lead to proceedings where a sanction could be imposed, satisfying the definition of law enforcement.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the decision to withhold the records, concluding that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with the ongoing investigation.

The appellant requested access to representations made by the Ministry of Health to the Information and Privacy Commissioner during a previous appeal.

The Ministry denied access, citing solicitor-client privilege and the inquiry provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner held that the appellant has no right of access to representations made in the course of an inquiry, as the Commissioner has the fundamental power to control the inquiry process and had already implicitly denied access to these representations in the previous appeal.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to the provincial Crown Cottaging Study.

The Ministry initially relied on the exemption for records to be published within 90 days, and later claimed exemptions for Cabinet records and advice or recommendations.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Cabinet records exemptions did not apply as the record was not prepared for or submitted to Cabinet.

While the record contained advice or recommendations, it fell under the mandatory exception for feasibility studies.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record, subject to minor severances of personal information.

The appellant sought access to records relating to an investigation of a complaint he made against a staff member at a mental health centre.

The Ministry of Health withheld portions of the records under various exemptions, including personal privacy and law enforcement.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained personal information and that some, but not all, of the severed information qualified for exemption under subsection 49(b) as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the institution failed to establish that the law enforcement exemptions under subsection 14(1) applied to the severed information.

The institution was ordered to disclose the records with specified severances.

The requester appealed a decision by the Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited denying access to records relating to the SkyDome scoreboard and a contract with Sony of Canada Ltd. The institution claimed exemptions under sections 13, 17, 18, and 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that portions of the records were exempt under subsections 18(1)(c) and (d) as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the economic interests of the institution or the Government of Ontario.

However, the remaining exemptions claimed under sections 13, 17, 18(1)(a), 18(1)(e), and 22(a) were not established.

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

The appellant appealed the decision of the Stadium Corporation of Ontario to deny access to financial projections for consortium members doing business at SkyDome.

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

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records did not qualify for the mandatory exemption under section 17 because the information was not 'supplied' by the third parties, but rather created by the institution.

However, the records qualified for the discretionary exemption under section 18(1)(c) as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the economic interests or competitive position of the institution.

The head was ordered to exercise his discretion under section 18(1) and provide representations before a final determination is made.

The appellant sought access to a Health Disciplines Board file concerning a complaint against his wife's physician.

The Ministry of Health denied access to portions of the file, citing exemptions for personal information and health and safety.

The appellant submitted a subsequent request for the same and additional information, which the Ministry treated as subsumed by the first request.

The Assistant Commissioner found jurisdiction to hear the appeal, determining the second request was a new request.

On the merits, the Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of the physician's public registration information but upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the remaining records, finding they contained highly sensitive medical and personal information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant sought access to WCAT Review Advisory Committee (WRAC) reports prepared by the Workers' Compensation Board.

The Board disclosed factual and statistical portions but severed other parts, claiming the advice or recommendations exemption under subsection 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that some severed portions contained mere reportage or factual information and ordered them disclosed.

Other portions contained advice or recommendations and qualified for the exemption.

However, the Assistant Commissioner found that the mandatory exception in subsection 13(2)(l) applied to recommendations relating to section 86n reviews, as they constituted the reasons for a final decision made in the exercise of a discretionary power.

The Board was ordered to disclose the records in accordance with these findings.

The requester appealed the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to deny access to portions of two human rights complaint files.

The Assistant Commissioner determined that some records qualified as personal information, while others did not.

The Assistant Commissioner found that certain records qualified for exemption as law enforcement reports under s. 14(2)(a) and as legal advice under s. 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The head was ordered to exercise discretion under s. 49(a) and provide further representations regarding s. 49(b).

The decision to withhold certain records under s. 21 to protect the privacy of other individuals was upheld.

The appellant, an unsuccessful candidate for a position with the Ontario Women's Directorate, appealed the Ministry of Government Services' decision to deny access to certain job competition records, including score sheets, reference checks, and a chronology authored by a panel member.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained personal information of other individuals and that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under sections 21 and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The public interest override in section 23 was found not to apply.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose only a memorandum, with the attached chronology excerpt severed.

The appellant requested information from the Ministry of the Attorney General regarding any wiretap orders that may have been in effect concerning himself from July 1985 onwards.

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

The Assistant Commissioner found that such records, if they existed, would contain personal information and could be exempt under law enforcement provisions.

However, the Assistant Commissioner ordered the Ministry to provide further representations on its exercise of discretion to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of the records, particularly in light of the notification requirements under section 196(1) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant, a former ambulance attendant, requested access to all information about herself held by the Ministry of Health, including performance evaluations completed by co-workers during a training period for a dispatcher position.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, claiming they contained the personal information of the authors (their handwriting and names) and were exempt as evaluative material compiled solely to determine employment suitability.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the handwritten opinions about the appellant constituted only the appellant's personal information, not the authors'.

Furthermore, the records were not compiled solely to determine employment suitability, as they were also used to provide feedback during training.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records to the appellant.

The requester appealed the institution's decision to extend the time limit to respond to two freedom of information requests by 61 days.

The institution claimed the extensions were necessary due to the large number of records to search and the need for consultations.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the institution failed to provide sufficient evidence that it dealt with the requests in a timely manner or that meeting the 30-day limit would unreasonably interfere with its operations.

The time extensions were deemed unreasonable, and the institution was ordered to respond to the requests without charging a fee.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to withhold records relating to an internal conflict of interest investigation.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained personal information.

Some records were exempt under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) and subsection 49(b) (unjustified invasion of personal privacy).

However, the investigation did not qualify as a 'law enforcement' matter under section 14(1)(d), nor did disclosure deprive the institution of a fair trial under section 14(1)(f).

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

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of the Attorney General denying access to certain records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The institution claimed exemptions under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) and subsection 22(a) (publicly available records).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained the appellant's personal information but upheld the institution's decision to withhold the records, as they were either prepared by Crown counsel in contemplation of litigation or were publicly available court documents.

The appeal was dismissed.