Tom A. Wright

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Correctional Services' decision to deny access to two briefing documents regarding the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Detention Centre.

The Assistant Commissioner found that a briefing note concerning accommodation problems did not qualify for the Cabinet records exemption and ordered it disclosed.

For a briefing response concerning an inmate's death, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the exemption for the 'response' section as advice to government, and ordered personal information severed under the personal privacy exemption.

The Ministry's claims for law enforcement and safety exemptions were dismissed, and the balance of the briefing response was ordered disclosed.

The appellant, an inmate at a maximum security facility, appealed the Ministry of Government Services' decision to deny access to construction plans and specifications for replacement windows at the facility.

The institution claimed the records were exempt under section 14(1)(j) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as disclosure could facilitate escape.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the exemption, finding that the records detailed construction plans, locks, and bars, and their disclosure could reasonably be expected to make an escape easier.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate and the denial of a fee waiver by the Ministry of Health regarding a request for Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee meeting minutes.

The Assistant Commissioner found the Ministry's fee estimate for severing and photocopying was excessive and reduced it.

However, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to deny a fee waiver, finding the appellant did not establish financial hardship or that dissemination of the record would benefit public health or safety.

The Ministry was also ordered to issue a proper access decision.

The requester appealed a fee estimate of $688.40 and the denial of a fee waiver for a request for Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee meeting minutes from the Ministry of Health.

The Assistant Commissioner found the fee estimate for severing and photocopying was excessive and reduced the total fee to $117.40.

However, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to deny a fee waiver, finding the requester failed to prove financial hardship or that dissemination of the record would benefit public health or safety.

The Ministry was also ordered to issue a proper access decision.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to extend the time limit for responding to a freedom of information request by 100 days.

The institution cited the need to search through approximately 9,600 pages of complex records and consult with 14 external agencies.

The Assistant Commissioner found the 100-day extension reasonable under subsection 27(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and upheld the head's decision.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to extend the time limit to respond to a freedom of information request by 90 days.

The institution argued the extension was necessary due to a large volume of records and the need for consultations.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the institution improperly grouped four separate requests together to justify the extension and failed to provide sufficient evidence that consultations were necessary.

The extension was deemed unreasonable, and the institution was ordered to issue an access decision within 14 days.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to extend the time limit to respond to a freedom of information request by 90 days.

The institution argued the extension was necessary due to a large volume of records and the need for consultations.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the institution improperly grouped four separate requests together to justify the extension and failed to provide sufficient evidence that the extension was reasonable for the specific request at issue.

The institution was ordered to provide its access decision within 14 days.

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

The institution argued the extension was necessary due to the large volume of records across four separate requests and the need for consultations.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the institution improperly grouped the four requests together to justify the extension and failed to provide sufficient evidence that consultations were necessary.

The extension was deemed unreasonable, and the institution was ordered to issue its access decision within 14 days.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to extend the time limit to respond to a freedom of information request by 90 days.

The institution claimed the extension was necessary due to a large volume of records and the need for consultations.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the institution improperly grouped four separate requests together to justify the extension and failed to provide sufficient evidence that consultations were necessary.

The 90-day extension was deemed unreasonable, and the institution was ordered to issue its access decision within 14 days.

The appellant requested access to board minutes of the Stadium Corporation of Ontario.

The institution denied access to parts of the records under various exemptions.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the institution's discretionary exemptions under subsections 13(1) and 18(1) for certain severances.

However, the Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of other severances, finding that the mandatory exemption under subsection 17(1) did not apply because the commercial information was generated through negotiations rather than being supplied in confidence by the third parties.