Tom Mitchinson

The requester appealed the fee estimates provided by the Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited (SkyDome) for processing two freedom of information requests.

SkyDome estimated fees for search and preparation time but did not make a substantive decision on access.

The Assistant Commissioner found that SkyDome provided insufficient evidence to substantiate its fee estimates, failing to justify the search costs or explain the preparation charges.

Consequently, SkyDome was ordered to issue a decision on access without charging any fee for searching and preparing the records.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for police records relating to an investigation of harassing phone calls.

The Police released 21 pages of records with some severances.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional responsive records should exist.

The Assistant Commissioner reviewed the detailed representations and sworn affidavit provided by the Police regarding their search efforts and concluded that the Police had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to complaints made by other persons against a named OPP officer.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained the personal information of the named officer and other identifiable individuals.

In the absence of representations from the requester, the Assistant Commissioner concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access.

The appellant requested a mailing list of all persons on contract with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to provide subsidized home child care services.

The Municipality denied access under the personal privacy exemption in section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the record contained personal information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant requested access to a summary of disbursements and an accounts list from the Norfolk Board of Education.

The Board denied access to the names on the accounts list, claiming the personal privacy exemption under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the names of employees receiving expense reimbursements and individuals receiving fee-for-service payments did not qualify as personal information under section 2(1) of the Act, as the payments related to their professional or employment capacities.

The Board was ordered to disclose the record in its entirety.

The Norfolk Board of Education received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for supportive documentation for a committee meeting, including an accounts list.

The Board denied access to the names of individuals on the accounts list, claiming the personal information exemption under section 14(1).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the names of employees and co-op students reimbursed for expenses, and individuals paid for fee-for-service work, did not constitute personal information under section 2(1).

The Board was ordered to disclose the record in its entirety.

The appellant requested access to an accounts report listing cheques issued by the Norfolk Board of Education.

The Board denied access to the names on the list, claiming the personal privacy exemption under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the names of employees, co-op students, and fee-for-service providers receiving payments in their professional or employment capacity did not qualify as personal information under section 2(1).

The Board was ordered to disclose the record in its entirety.

The appellant, a non-custodial father, appealed the Windsor Board of Education's decision to deny access to a registration maintenance screen for his child.

The record contained emergency contact information, including the address and telephone number of the student's mother and her spouse.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the appellant did not have lawful custody under section 54(c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The information was determined to be personal information, and its disclosure was found to constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the student, her mother, and her mother's spouse under section 14(1).

The Board's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records relating to promotion processes from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, claiming exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained the personal information of the appellant and other affected persons.

The exemption for advice or recommendations under section 13(1) was not upheld, but the exemption for unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 49(b) was upheld for specific portions of the records supplied in confidence.

The appellant sought access to funding proposals and evaluations submitted to the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

The Ministry denied access to an unnumbered proposal and its evaluation, claiming exemptions under sections 15(a) and 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry failed to establish that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice intergovernmental relations under section 15(a).

Furthermore, the Ministry and the affected person failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence that disclosure would result in similar information no longer being supplied, thus failing the third part of the section 17(1) test.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to audit investigation reports relating to the activities of named employees.

The Ministry denied access to two reports, claiming the personal privacy exemption under section 21(1).

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained personal information but that the presumption against disclosure of employment history did not apply to expense claims and use of government assets.

Balancing the public interest in scrutinizing government expenditures against the potential damage to the employees' reputations, the Assistant Commissioner ordered the records disclosed with the names and positions of the affected employees severed.

The requester appealed the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton's decision to deny access to three complaint-driven restaurant investigation reports under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Municipality claimed the records were exempt under section 8(2)(a) as reports prepared in the course of law enforcement.

The Assistant Commissioner applied a three-part test and found that the records were reports, prepared in the course of law enforcement inspections, by an agency with the function of enforcing compliance with the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

The Municipality's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to the reasons why a former Ontario Provincial Police officer resigned.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access to a four-line section of the record, claiming it contained personal information exempt under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the severed portion contained personal information regarding the affected person's marital status and employment history, and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The requester appealed the Halton Region Board of Commissioners of Police's decision to deny access to a Professional Standards Branch report.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the discretionary exemptions under sections 6(1)(b) and 8 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act did not apply, as the record did not reveal the substance of deliberations and the investigation was an internal employment matter rather than a law enforcement activity.

However, the mandatory personal information exemption under section 14(1) applied to specific portions of the record containing information about criminal charges against an individual.

The Police were ordered to release the record with those specific portions severed.

In a final order following Interim Order M-71, the Assistant Commissioner reviewed the Nipissing Board of Education's written representations regarding its exercise of discretion under section 38(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Board had properly considered factors personal to the requester and upheld the Board's decision to withhold the records from disclosure.

The appellant requested records from the Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited (SkyDome) regarding accidents, fatalities, and safety violations.

SkyDome provided fee estimates for search and preparation time but did not substantiate the calculations.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the fee estimates did not comply with section 57(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and ordered SkyDome to process the requests without charging search and preparation fees.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Commissioners of Police to deny access to portions of a General Occurrence Report, a Supplementary Report, and police notebook entries.

The Police claimed the severed portions contained personal information of other individuals and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, raising a presumption of an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The decision of the Police was largely upheld, though one page was ordered disclosed with a signature severed.

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation requested access to the home phone numbers of its members from the Wellington County Board of Education under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board denied the request, claiming disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(1)(f).

The Federation appealed.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Board's decision, finding that the Federation's status as bargaining agent and the provisions of Part II of the Act were not relevant factors favouring disclosure under section 14(2).

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to an OPP investigation into allegations that the requester had been wrongfully convicted of murder.

The Assistant Commissioner found that most of the withheld records contained personal information of other individuals and were exempt under the mandatory personal privacy exemption in section 21(1) or the discretionary exemption in section 49(b).

However, the Ministry failed to establish that disclosure of one page would jeopardize the security of a detention centre under section 14(1)(k), and failed to establish that police notes were prepared for litigation under section 19.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt pages.

The appellants requested access to a student's intellectual assessment from the Lincoln County Board of Education under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board denied access to portions of the intelligence test answer booklet, claiming exemptions under sections 11(h) and 10(1).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the remaining portions of the record, which included only the student's answers and scores and the examiner's comments, did not contain questions to be used in an examination under section 11(h), nor did they contain trade secrets or other protected information under section 10(1).

The Board was ordered to disclose the severed record.