Tom Mitchinson

The appellant appealed a decision by the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee denying access to 52 pages of records relating to the interpretation of 'income' under the Cemeteries Act.

The institution claimed the records were exempt under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the records, which consisted of legal counsel's notes, working papers, and background documents provided by the client for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, fell within the scope of solicitor-client communication privilege.

The institution's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to portions of handwritten notes related to a controversial subdivision and golf course development.

The Ministry claimed the withheld information was exempt under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as it contained personal information whose disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the information was personal information, the public interest in subjecting the government's activities to public scrutiny outweighed the privacy interests.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the withheld portions.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Hamilton Police Service denying access to records relating to a fraud investigation in which the appellant was the complainant.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for law enforcement and personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the Police conducted a reasonable search for records and properly applied the personal privacy exemptions under sections 14(1) and 38(b) to withhold the personal information of the investigated individual.

The Police were ordered to disclose seven phone message sheets, but their decision to withhold the remaining records was upheld.

The appellant requested access to electronic records from the Ministry of the Environment's Drive Clean database.

The Ministry denied access, claiming exemptions under section 18(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for valuable government information and economic interests.

The adjudicator found that the requested data constituted the results of environmental testing carried out for the Ministry, falling within the mandatory exception in section 18(2).

Consequently, the Ministry was precluded from relying on the section 18(1) exemptions.

The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to provide a representative sample of 50 records with personal information severed.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to a subdivision and golf course.

The Ministry denied access to one line in a briefing note, claiming it contained personal information whose disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The adjudicator found that while the severed line contained personal information, its disclosure was desirable for the purpose of subjecting the activities of the government to public scrutiny.

The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the severed line to the appellant.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Durham Regional Police Service denying access to four documents related to an investigation by the Professional Standards Branch into complaints against two police officers.

The Police claimed the records were excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)3.

The adjudicator found that the records were collected, prepared, or used by the Police in relation to communications about employment-related matters in which the Police have an interest, specifically the complaints under the Police Services Act and related ongoing civil litigation.

The adjudicator upheld the Police's decision that the Act does not apply to the records.

The appellant appealed the City of Burlington's decision to deny access to records relating to a donation for the McNichol project.

The City claimed exemptions under sections 10, 11, and 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that draft agreements were responsive to the request.

The Adjudicator ordered the disclosure of specific donation payment details, finding they would not prejudice the City's economic interests, but upheld exemptions for fundraising strategy and personal information of the donors.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Hamilton for records relating to the City's smoking by-law as it relates to Ivor Wynne Stadium.

The City disclosed some records but withheld others, claiming they were either non-responsive or exempt under section 12 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the City properly severed non-responsive information relating to restaurants, as it fell outside the scope of the specific request.

The adjudicator also upheld the application of solicitor-client communication privilege to the remaining withheld records, which consisted of confidential communications between City staff and legal counsel made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Peel Regional Police Services Board to deny access to portions of a police officer's notebook containing information provided by a third party about the appellant.

The Police claimed the information was exempt under sections 14(1)(f) and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information was not compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law under section 14(3)(b), as the police action was taken under the Mental Health Act.

However, balancing the competing interests, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the exemption for the third party's name and phone numbers due to a reasonable expectation of confidentiality, while ordering the disclosure of the remaining portions of the record.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Environment for records relating to a 1998 soil survey and meetings concerning contamination in Port Colborne.

The Ministry granted partial access, claiming exemptions under sections 13(1), 17(1), 18(1), and 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the Ministry's search for records was partially inadequate and ordered further searches at the Niagara District Office.

The adjudicator upheld the application of solicitor-client privilege to several records, finding no waiver of privilege.

Portions of records were found exempt as advice or recommendations under section 13(1), and two records were exempt as third-party scientific information under section 17(1).

The economic interests exemptions under section 18(1) were rejected.

Finally, the adjudicator determined that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as the appellant's interest was primarily private litigation-related.

A requester sought a list of field names contained in two databases (RICI and CIPS) operated by the Toronto Police Services Board.

The Police denied access, claiming exemptions for third party information and economic interests.

The Assistant Commissioner found that a mere listing of field names, without additional database design information, does not constitute a trade secret or proprietary information.

The exemptions under sections 10(1) and 11 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act were not established.

The Police were ordered to disclose the list of field names.

The complainant alleged the police breached the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by improperly disclosing her personal information in two occurrence reports to her estranged spouse.

The estranged spouse had submitted an access request with written consents from the complainant's former boyfriend and former husband.

The police disclosed the reports without notifying the complainant.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained the complainant's personal information and that the police failed to comply with the mandatory notification provisions under section 21 of the Act.

The disclosure was therefore not in accordance with section 32 of the Act.

A couple visiting a Legal Aid Ontario office discovered that scrap paper provided to them contained the personal information of other clients, including names, addresses, birth dates, and Social Insurance Numbers.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated and found that the information constituted 'personal information' under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that its disclosure contravened section 42 of the Act.

The Commissioner commended Legal Aid Ontario for its prompt remedial actions but recommended further steps, including revising privacy memoranda and establishing ongoing staff training on privacy protection.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board for records relating to the sudden death of her son.

The Police denied access to the records, citing the personal privacy exemption under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

Consequently, the presumption of an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) applied and could not be rebutted by the factors in section 14(2).

The appellant requested access to school bus tender information from the Rainbow District School Board.

The Board denied access, claiming exemptions for third party information and economic interests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the information was commercial and supplied in confidence, the Board and affected parties failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence of a reasonable expectation of harm.

The exemptions under sections 10(1) and 11 were not established, and the Board was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant requested access to a contract between the Toronto Transit Commission and a third party retailer.

The TTC denied access to portions of the contract, claiming the third party information exemption under sections 10(1)(a) and (c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information in the disputed clause was not a trade secret, was not supplied in confidence as it was a negotiated contract term, and its disclosure could not reasonably be expected to cause the harms alleged.

The TTC was ordered to disclose the disputed clause.

The appellant requested an electronic list of donors who contributed to candidates in the 1997 municipal election.

The City of Toronto denied access, arguing the information was already publicly available in hard copy and that disclosing the electronic database would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that while the information was not exempt under section 15(a) because the electronic format contained more data and was in bulk form, it was exempt under section 14(1) as an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Commissioner held that the bulk disclosure of personal information in electronic format, which could be easily manipulated and widely disseminated, outweighed the public interest in disclosure, which was already served by the paper-based access provided under the Municipal Elections Act.

The City's decision was upheld.

The appellant, acting on behalf of her deceased husband's estate, appealed the Halton Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to a Sudden Death Occurrence Report and related police notebook entries.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence (such as a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee) to prove she was the personal representative under section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Furthermore, the records contained personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation, and their disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of privacy under sections 14(1) and 38(b).

The Police's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Town of Kapuskasing for records relating to a 1986 environmental spill and subsequent remediation efforts.

The Town denied access to ten responsive records under the third party information exemption in section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Town and affected parties failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence of a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure.

The records were ordered disclosed.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the Town's search for additional responsive records was reasonable.

The appellant submitted a written request for records to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board.

The Police treated the request as a request for disclosure between law enforcement agencies under section 32 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, rather than an access request under Part I, partly because the required $5 request fee was not paid.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the request was a valid Part I access request, noting that the Police had a duty to advise the requester of the fee requirement rather than relying on its absence to deny the request's validity under Part I. The appeal was allowed, subject to the appellant paying the $5 fee.