Tom Mitchinson

The appellant, a former employee of the LCBO, submitted a freedom of information request for records relating to his civil, criminal, and arbitration cases following his suspension and termination.

The LCBO denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(6).

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the LCBO's decision, finding that the records were prepared and maintained in relation to proceedings before the Grievance Settlement Board, which relate to labour relations, and thus fall outside the scope of the Act.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to two job competitions for which she was an unsuccessful candidate.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the job competition records were collected, prepared, maintained, or used in relation to meetings, discussions, or communications about employment-related matters in which the Ministry has an interest, specifically regarding its legal obligations under the Human Rights Code.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, an employee of the Ministry of Transportation, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to a grievance and a refusal to work under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the grievance records related to proceedings before the Grievance Settlement Board and the OHSA records related to an investigation in which the Ministry had an interest.

Both sets of records were held to fall within the section 65(6) exclusions and were therefore outside the scope of the Act.

The appellant, an employee of the City of Hamilton Fire Department, appealed the City's decision to deny access to records relating to a promotional job competition under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were collected and used in relation to employment-related matters in which the City has an interest, specifically to ensure compliance with the Ontario Human Rights Code and the collective agreement.

As a result, the records fell within the exclusionary provision of section 52(3)3 of the Act, removing them from the Commissioner's jurisdiction.

The City's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted three requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) for records relating to his retirement and study grant.

OISE denied access to some records, claiming they were excluded under the labour relations and employment provisions of section 65(6), and claimed no responsive records existed for the remainder.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the withheld records were maintained in relation to the appellant's civil lawsuit against OISE for breach of his employment contract, and thus fell within the section 65(6) exclusion.

While OISE's search for some records was found to be unreasonable, no further search was ordered because OISE had been dissolved and integrated into the University of Toronto, removing the records from the scope of the Act.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records pertaining to a review of the correctional system, including possible closures and privatization of facilities.

The Ministry claimed the remaining record was exempt under section 12(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as a cabinet record.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the record contained policy options or recommendations and was prepared for submission to Cabinet, thereby qualifying for the exemption.

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

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records from the Liquor Control Board of Ontario relating to a sexual harassment investigation undertaken in response to her complaint.

The LCBO denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were prepared and maintained in relation to anticipated proceedings before the Grievance Settlement Board, which relate to labour relations.

Therefore, the records fell within the parameters of section 65(6)1 and were excluded from the scope of the Act.

The LCBO's decision was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, an employee of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, made a freedom of information request for records relating to a workplace harassment investigation he had initiated against his supervisor.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were collected, prepared, and used in relation to meetings and communications about an employment-related matter in which the Ministry had an interest, specifically potential liability under the Human Rights Code.

Therefore, the records fell within the section 65(6)3 exclusion and the Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, a former employee of the City of Toronto who was dismissed following an investigation into workplace improprieties, made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for his personal information.

The City denied access to a portion of the records, claiming they were excluded from the Act under section 52(3) as they related to labour relations and employment matters.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were collected, prepared, maintained, or used by the City in relation to the appellant's grievance arbitration, which constitutes a proceeding relating to labour relations.

Consequently, the records were excluded from the scope of the Act, and the City's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to correspondence between Ontario Hydro and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited regarding an environmental impact statement on nuclear fuel waste disposal.

Ontario Hydro denied access to a three-page appendix, claiming exemptions for third party information and economic interests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that while the appendix contained scientific and technical information supplied in confidence, Ontario Hydro failed to establish that disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in the specified harms.

The Commissioner also found that the economic interests exemptions did not apply, as the impact statement was already finalized and the requirements of the provisions were not met.

Ontario Hydro was ordered to disclose the appendix.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs' decision to deny access to a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Investigation Report.

The Ministry claimed the report was excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the report was prepared in relation to anticipated proceedings before the Grievance Settlement Board relating to labour relations.

Therefore, the record fell within the parameters of section 65(6)1 and was excluded from the scope of the Act.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the City of Stoney Creek's decision that no records existed responsive to a request for communications between the Mayor and named individuals.

During mediation, one draft letter was located in outside counsel's files, which the City withheld under various exemptions.

The appellant subsequently produced a responsive letter that the City had not located.

The Assistant Commissioner found the City's search efforts insufficient and ordered the City to conduct further searches, including in the Mayor's office and outside counsel's files, and to provide sworn affidavits detailing the searches.

The appellant appealed the Board's decision to deny access to an early retirement package provided to its former Superintendent of Finance.

The Assistant Commissioner first determined that the records fell within the scope of the Act under section 52(4) as an agreement resulting from employment negotiations.

However, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the Board's decision to deny access, finding that the records contained personal information and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(1) of the Act.

The appellant, an association representing certain employees of Ontario Hydro, appealed Hydro's decision to deny access to financial impact studies and analyses related to potential privatization scenarios.

Hydro claimed exemptions under sections 18(1)(c) and (e) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were exempt under section 18(1)(c) because their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice Hydro's economic interests and competitive position in potential future asset sales.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as the public interest in disclosure did not clearly outweigh the purpose of the exemption.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to Ontario Regulation 293/92, which increased the Court Tariff of Fees.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 12(1) (cabinet records), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), and 19 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of the exemptions for the majority of the records, finding they were draft regulations, submissions to Cabinet, or confidential legal advice.

However, four records were ordered disclosed as they were merely covering memoranda not subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The Assistant Commissioner also found the Ministry's search for additional records to be reasonable.

The appellant requested records relating to a September 1995 Provincial/Territorial Ministers' Meeting on social policy reform.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services denied access to the records, claiming exemptions under sections 15(a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (relations with other governments).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records, which included common briefing notes prepared by other provinces and specialized briefing materials prepared by Ontario officials, were received in confidence and their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice intergovernmental relations.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was largely upheld, with minor severances ordered for disclosure.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to a specific occurrence.

The London Police Services Board denied access to portions of the records, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained the personal information of both the appellant and other individuals.

Disclosure of the third parties' personal information was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b) and was exempt under section 38(b).

The records did not qualify as a 'report' under section 8(2)(a).

However, police patrol zones and car identification numbers were exempt under section 8(1)(l) as their disclosure could facilitate an unlawful act or hamper crime control.

The Police were ordered to disclose the appellant's own personal information that was not intertwined with third-party information.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Education and Training denying access to records relating to a union local's involvement in jobsOntario programs.

The Ministry initially claimed exemptions under sections 13(1), 17(1), and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The section 21(1) claim was withdrawn as the appellant excluded personal information, and the section 17(1) claim was withdrawn after affected parties consented to disclosure.

The sole remaining issue was whether a seven-page record qualified for exemption under section 13(1) as advice to government.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the record contained advice and recommendations for specific courses of action to be accepted or rejected by the Minister, and upheld the Ministry's decision to exempt the record.

A newspaper reporter requested access to peer evaluation reports for Ontario Hydro's nuclear power plants.

Hydro denied access, claiming exemptions for advice to government and economic interests.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that while the reports contained advice, they fell under a mandatory exception for reports on institutional performance.

Although the reports qualified for the economic interests exemption, the Commissioner applied the public interest override, concluding that the compelling public interest in nuclear safety clearly outweighed Hydro's economic interests.

Hydro was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant requested records from the Metropolitan Licencing Commission relating to charges laid under a by-law provision dealing with lap dancing.

The Commission denied access, citing law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions, and claimed some information was publicly available.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the publicly available exemption did not apply, as the information was not readily accessible.

The Commissioner upheld the law enforcement exemption for ongoing prosecutions but not for completed ones.

The personal privacy exemption was upheld for the identifying information of the women charged.

The Commissioner also found that the public interest override did not apply, and ordered partial disclosure of the records.