Tom Mitchinson

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Leeds, Grenville and Lanark District Health Unit for records relating to employee group insurance policies and her own employment.

The Health Unit provided some records, but the appellant appealed, arguing more records should exist.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Health Unit failed to provide sufficient evidence to show it had made a reasonable effort to identify and locate all responsive records, and ordered the Health Unit to conduct a further search.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board for a police incident report regarding a fraud investigation.

The Police disclosed some records but withheld others under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that disclosure of information originally provided by the appellant would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

Furthermore, a supplementary occurrence report did not qualify as a 'report' under the law enforcement exemption because it merely recorded observations rather than formal results.

The Police were ordered to disclose the improperly withheld portion, while the decision to withhold the remaining records was upheld.

The appellant requested access to the 1985 and 1995 contracts between the City of Toronto and the Toronto Humane Society for animal sheltering services.

The City denied access under sections 10(1)(a) and (c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the contracts were negotiated agreements and did not contain information 'supplied' by the Society in confidence.

As the second part of the three-part test for the third party information exemption was not met, the City was ordered to disclose the contracts in their entirety.

The appellant requested access to the monthly water usage rates for high volume consumers for 1994 from the City of Toronto.

The City denied access, claiming the records were exempt as third party information under sections 10(1)(a) and (c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the records contained financial information, the information was created by the City itself rather than supplied by the customers in confidence.

As the three-part test for the exemption was not met, the City was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to a questionnaire and a fax cover sheet under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed exemptions for third party commercial information and personal information.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the questionnaire did not qualify for the third party information exemption because the identical information had already been disclosed to the media, negating any reasonable expectation of harm.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the name on the fax cover sheet was provided in a professional capacity and did not qualify as personal information.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The requester, an employee of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to certain records related to her grievance and her supervisor's grievance.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, specifically section 49(b) for unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of records containing only the requester's personal information but upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold records containing the personal information of other affected persons, finding that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to a pre-sentence report.

The requester argued that additional records, specifically interview tools and transfer reports, should exist.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable, as an affidavit from the Area Manager confirmed that no such interview tools were used and no transfer report was prepared.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a tender call for a project manager for a library expansion.

The Town of Penetanguishene denied access to several proposals and an internal memorandum, citing third party information and solicitor-client privilege exemptions.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered the disclosure of the proposals, finding that the information was too general to prejudice the competitive position of the bidders.

However, the Commissioner upheld the Town's decision to withhold the internal memorandum, as it qualified for common law solicitor-client privilege.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board to deny access to portions of records relating to an incident where the appellant was stopped and searched.

The Police relied on exemptions for invasion of privacy and law enforcement.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the name and telephone numbers of a security official who provided information to the Police were exempt under section 38(a) as a confidential source.

However, the name of another individual provided by the appellant to the Police was not exempt under section 38(b) and was ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board to deny access to an Occurrence Report and Supplementary Reports concerning break and enter charges at premises owned by the appellant's clients.

The Police denied access under the law enforcement exemption in section 8(1)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing that disclosure could interfere with ongoing fraud charges against the clients arising from the same occurrence.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained the personal information of the clients and qualified for exemption under section 38(a) read with section 8(1)(a), as disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement matter.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant, an unsuccessful candidate in a job competition, requested the total scores of the other five candidates with their names severed.

The Ministry denied access under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming it would be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the scores alone, without names or other identifiers, could not be linked to identifiable individuals and therefore did not constitute personal information under section 2(1) of the Act.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the scores.

The appellant, a journalist, requested access to records concerning a police investigation into the disappearance of handguns.

The Thunder Bay Police Services Board disclosed some records but withheld others under various exemptions, including personal information and law enforcement, and denied a fee waiver.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of certain pages and portions of pages, finding they did not qualify for exemption, but upheld the decision to withhold the remaining portions and to deny the fee waiver.

The appellant requested access to notes and memoranda prepared by Metropolitan Licencing Commission inspectors after visiting adult entertainment parlours to observe lap dancing.

The Commission denied access under the section 8(1)(b) law enforcement exemption of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the records disclosed, finding that the investigation was undertaken to gather facts for policy development regarding lap dancing, not with a view to a law enforcement proceeding.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to an investigation of an alleged assault upon the appellant.

The Police denied access to all 88 pages of responsive records, claiming exemptions for law enforcement, right to a fair trial, and discretion to refuse a requester's own information.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the decision to withhold most of the records, finding that their disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement matter.

However, the Police were ordered to disclose the appellant's own victim statement, as its disclosure would not interfere with the investigation or constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's privacy.

The parents of an elementary school student appealed the Ottawa Board of Education's decision to deny access to records concerning an investigation into an incident involving their son and his former teacher.

The Board claimed the records were exempt under the personal privacy provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that disclosure of the teacher's personal information in the investigation notes would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy and ordered them disclosed.

However, portions of other records containing the personal information of other parents, students, and teachers were found to be exempt and were withheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Labour's decision to deny access to eight records relating to an investigation into a fatal workplace accident.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) and section 14(1)(a) (law enforcement) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that all eight records were prepared by or for Crown counsel in contemplation of or for use in litigation, satisfying the requirements of Branch 2 of the section 19 exemption.

The Ministry's decision to withhold the records was upheld.

The requester sought access to background information, guidelines, and legislative history regarding section 207(4) of the Education Act.

The Ministry of Education and Training provided a copy of the section and a related letter, but claimed no other responsive records existed.

The requester appealed, arguing that legislative intent implies the existence of background documents.

The Assistant Commissioner reviewed the Ministry's affidavit detailing its search efforts, including consultations with legal counsel from the time the section was introduced, and concluded that the Ministry's search was reasonable.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to the signatures on a 1987 letter.

The Ministry initially claimed an exemption under section 65(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, but withdrew it following a previous order.

The Assistant Commissioner considered the mandatory personal information exemption under section 21(1).

Based on an affidavit provided by one signatory, the Assistant Commissioner found implied consent for the release of that individual's name under section 21(1)(a).

However, the remaining names were found to be exempt under section 21(1) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry was ordered to release the one name and withhold the rest.

The Ministry of Natural Resources denied a freedom of information request for a Stage 2 grievance report, claiming exemptions under sections 13(1), 17(1)(d), 18(1)(c), 19, and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester appealed.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the record did not qualify for exemption under section 18(1)(c) (economic interests) or section 19 (solicitor-client privilege).

However, certain parts of the record were found to contain advice or recommendations exempt under section 13(1), and personal information exempt under section 21(1).

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the record.

The appellant requested access to an investigation report concerning her allegation of sexual harassment.

The Ministry of Education disclosed parts of the report but withheld the names and interview notes of the affected persons under the personal privacy exemption.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the withheld information qualified as personal information and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected persons' personal privacy, particularly given their expectation of confidentiality.