Tom Mitchinson

The appellant requested a complete mailing list of all licensed pesticide applicators from the Ministry of Environment and Energy.

The Ministry denied access to the names and addresses under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained personal information, disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, and the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing denying access to submissions made by a company to the Building Materials Evaluation Commission.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act as third party information.

The Assistant Commissioner found that most of the records contained confidential technical information whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the company's competitive position, and upheld their exemption.

However, one draft report was ordered disclosed as it did not meet the harms test.

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

The appellant requested access to written reports in personnel or institutional files mentioning her name in anything other than positive ways.

The Ministry identified four occurrence reports and denied access under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the reports contained the personal information of the appellant and other employees.

After weighing the factors under section 21(2), the Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of the reports, subject to minor redactions of personal information not directly related to the subject matter of the reports.

The requester appealed the City of Mississauga's decision to deny access to records concerning a proposed lap dancing by-law, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that most of the records qualified for exemption under either Branch 1 (common law privilege) or Branch 2 (prepared by counsel for legal advice) of section 12.

However, one record was ordered disclosed because it had been copied to a third-party police officer, which constituted a waiver of the privilege since no joint interest was established.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision denying access to the first three characters of the postal codes of individuals who sat on a jury in Metropolitan Toronto during 1994.

The Ministry argued that the records were not subject to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act due to federal paramountcy and the Juries Act.

The Assistant Commissioner determined that the jury rolls were created and administered by the sheriff acting as an officer of the court, under judicial supervision.

Consequently, the Ministry did not have custody or control of the records for the purposes of the Act, and the records fell outside its scope.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Windsor Police Services Board refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records relating to the appellant's former wife, step-son, and two daughters under section 14(5) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that disclosing the mere existence or non-existence of the requested records would reveal personal information about identifiable individuals' involvement in law enforcement matters.

Balancing the factors, the Assistant Commissioner concluded that such disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and upheld the Police's decision.

The appellant requested access to copies of Deputy Returning Officer (DRO) Statements for certain polls in the 1994 municipal elections.

The City of Ottawa denied access, claiming the records were exempt under section 53(2) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act because section 105 of the Municipal Elections Act prohibits inspecting the contents of a ballot box without a judge's order.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the original DRO Statements are kept outside the ballot box and therefore do not fall within the scope of section 105.

The City was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Ministry of Finance for the appointment book or similar records for the Ontario Insurance Commission library.

The institution identified a Visitors' Log Book but advised the appellant that his name did not appear in it and no other responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, questioning whether all responsive records had been identified.

The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal, finding that the institution had made a reasonable effort to identify and locate records responsive to the request.

The appellant filed appeals claiming a deemed refusal after the Ministry returned three freedom of information requests as frivolous and vexatious without retaining copies.

The Appeals Officer asked the appellant to re-submit the requests or allow copies to be forwarded to the Ministry so proper decision letters could be issued.

The appellant refused both options.

The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellant had frustrated the appeals process and that allocating further resources was unjustified.

The appellant, who operates a business locating heirs to estates, submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Transportation for a complete list of the names and driver's licence numbers of all Ontario drivers.

The Ministry denied access, citing the mandatory personal privacy exemption.

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the requested bulk data constituted personal information and its disclosure would result in an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Commissioner also found that the appellant's commercial interest in the data did not constitute a compelling public interest sufficient to override the privacy exemption.

The requester appealed the City of Oshawa's fee estimate for processing a freedom of information request containing multiple items.

The requester argued each item should be treated as a separate request, entitling them to two free hours of search time per item.

The Assistant Commissioner found that chargeable search time should be calculated based on the distinct departmental searches required, not the number of items listed.

The total chargeable search time was reduced.

The Assistant Commissioner also ordered the immediate disclosure of the requester's personnel records, finding the City had no basis to withhold them pending payment of fees for general records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to a fire that resulted in his mother's death.

The appellant sought continuing access to the Coroner's Report under section 24(3) of the Act and argued that additional records relating to the Fire Marshal's Investigation Report should exist.

The Assistant Commissioner found that section 24(3) did not apply because the appellant did not request continuing access initially and access to the report was not granted.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the Ministry conducted a reasonable search for the requested records.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted multiple requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Mississauga for records relating to the Cawthra Woodlot.

The City provided full access to the responsive records.

The appellant appealed on the basis that the City failed to include references to where the records were located on its indexing systems.

The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal, finding that the City had properly discharged its responsibilities under section 19 of the Act and was not required to create new records linking the records management codes to the accessed records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for records relating to a draft decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board claimed no responsive records existed.

During mediation, it was revealed a panel member might have responsive records.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Board conducted a reasonable search and that any records held personally by the panel member were not in the custody or control of the Board.

The appellant requested access to a Memorandum of Agreement between the Ministry, the Ontario Lottery Corporation, the Toronto Raptors, and the NBA regarding the removal of NBA games from the Pro-Line Lottery.

The Ministry granted partial access but withheld portions under the third party information exemption in section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the withheld information was the product of negotiation rather than "supplied" by the third parties, failing part two of the exemption test.

Furthermore, the third parties failed to demonstrate that disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause the harms enumerated in part three of the test.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the remaining clauses of the agreement.

The requester appealed the City of Sault Ste.

Marie's decision to deny access to records regarding lottery reports, ticket sales, revenues, and expenses of a named group issued Break Open Ticket Lottery Licences.

The City claimed the mandatory third party information exemption under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records did not meet the confidentiality or harms tests required for the exemption.

However, the addresses and telephone numbers of the affected party's officers were severed to protect personal privacy under sections 2 and 14 of the Act.

The City was ordered to disclose the remaining records.

The appellant requested access to the blood alcohol test results of a deceased driver involved in a fatal motor vehicle accident.

The Ministry denied access under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the test results constituted medical history under section 21(3)(a) and that the appellant failed to establish a compelling public interest under section 23 that would clearly outweigh the purpose of the privacy exemption.

The appellant requested ongoing access to copies of the Ministry's business names registration microfilm under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry denied access, claiming exemptions under sections 22(a) (information available to the public) and 18(1) (valuable government information and economic interests).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the alternative record-by-record search system did not provide the requested bulk information, and that the raw registration data was neither commercial information nor the property of the Government of Ontario.

The Ministry also failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of prejudice to its economic interests.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the microfilm and provide a schedule for continuing access.

The Chief of Police for the City of London appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to certain records relating to the Special Investigations Unit (SIU).

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) and section 49(a) of the Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained the personal information of the Chief and the SIU Director, and that they qualified for exemption under Branch 2 of section 19 as they were prepared by Crown counsel in contemplation of litigation regarding a potential libel suit.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the exemption but ordered the Ministry to conduct a further search for records relating to an SIU audit process, finding the initial search unreasonable.

The requester sought continuing access to Ontario Provincial Police Media Relations News Releases on a bi-monthly basis for two years under section 24(3) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry denied continuing access, arguing news releases were not the type of records covered by the section.

The Assistant Commissioner found that news releases are produced on a frequent and regular basis and are appropriately included within the scope of section 24(3).

The Ministry was ordered to provide a schedule for continuing access.