Tom Mitchinson

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for various police records, including records of telephone calls and a police report regarding a meeting.

The Police disclosed some records but advised that no records of the telephone calls or the specific report existed.

The appellant appealed, claiming more records should exist.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Police's searches, which included computer and manual searches, consultations, and review of log books, were reasonable in the circumstances, noting the two-month retention schedule for 911 calls and the policy that no report was required for the landlord/tenant matter in question.

The appellant requested access to records pertaining to a former employee of the Ministry of Health.

The Ministry refused to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records under sections 14(3) and 21(5) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence that disclosing the mere existence of the records would compromise a law enforcement activity or constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

Furthermore, the Ministry had already confirmed to the appellant that an investigation had taken place.

The Ministry was ordered to issue a substantive decision under the access provisions of the Act.

The appellant appealed the decision of Seneca College to deny access to a booklet of final examination questions under section 18(1)(h) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The College argued the questions were part of a 'test bank' for future use.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the exemption does not apply to questions used in examinations that have already been completed, ordering the College to release the record.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission (OC Transpo) regarding a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a letter of reprimand allegedly issued in 1990.

OC Transpo claimed no such record existed after conducting searches.

The Assistant Commissioner found that OC Transpo's search was reasonable, noting that under the collective agreement, minor disciplinary entries are removed after two years, meaning the record would likely have been destroyed if it ever existed.

A requester sought access to information submitted by short-listed advertising agencies during a competition for the jobsOntario program.

The Management Board of Cabinet decided to release portions of the responses.

One of the agencies appealed, arguing the information was exempt under sections 17(1)(a) (third party information) and 21 (personal information) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information did not meet the three-part test for section 17(1)(a) as it was not a trade secret and there was no reasonable expectation of harm.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the information did not qualify as personal information under section 21.

The institution's decision to release the records was upheld.

A requester sought access to information submitted by short-listed advertising agencies during a competition for the jobsOntario program.

The Management Board of Cabinet decided to release portions of the submissions.

One of the agencies appealed, arguing the information was exempt under sections 17(1)(a), 17(1)(c), and 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the appellant failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence of a reasonable expectation of harm under section 17(1), and that the information did not qualify as personal information under section 21.

The decision to release the records was upheld.

The requester sought access to information submitted by short-listed advertising agencies for the 'jobsOntario' program.

The Management Board of Cabinet decided to release responses to certain questions.

One of the agencies appealed, claiming the information was exempt under sections 17(1) (third party information) and 21 (personal information) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information did not meet the three-part test for exemption under section 17(1), as it did not constitute trade secrets and the appellant failed to establish a reasonable expectation of harm.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the information did not qualify as personal information under section 21.

The decision to release the records was upheld.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of the Attorney General relating to a complaint filed with the Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner.

The Ministry denied access to two memoranda under the law enforcement and advice/recommendations exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the records did not qualify as law enforcement records because they related to administrative processes rather than investigatory functions.

However, the Commissioner upheld the application of the advice/recommendations exemption to specific sentences within the records, ordering the Ministry to sever those sentences and disclose the remaining factual information to the appellant.

The Ministry of Health received a transferred freedom of information request for records relating to six companies.

The president of one of the companies submitted a second request asking for the identity of the original requester.

The Ministry decided to release the original request letter and transfer letter with the original requester's name and address severed.

The original requester appealed.

The Assistant Commissioner found that only the name of the appellant was responsive to the second request, and the remaining parts of the records, including the address, were not responsive and should not be released.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Financial Institutions' decision that no records existed responsive to a request for documents concerning the Superintendent of Insurance.

The Ministry provided an affidavit detailing its search efforts, which located one responsive memorandum that it agreed to release.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry's search was reasonable, noting that other records from the relevant time period would have been destroyed in accordance with records retention schedules.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the located memorandum.

The appellant requested access to an Ontario Municipal Board file from the Town of Gravenhurst under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Town denied access to seven records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations under section 7(1) and solicitor-client privilege under section 12.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records did not contain advice or recommendations, nor did they meet the criteria for common law solicitor-client privilege or preparation for counsel.

The Town was ordered to disclose all seven records to the appellant.

The requester appealed a decision by the Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited (SkyDome) to charge an estimated fee of $360 for manual search time to process a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that SkyDome failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate its fee estimate, as it provided no explanation regarding the search location, volume of records, or other relevant factors.

Consequently, SkyDome was precluded from charging any fee for processing the request, and the issue of a fee waiver was rendered moot.

The Ministry of Health received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to the Church of Scientology.

The Ministry denied access to portions of several records under various exemptions.

The requester appealed.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the records did not fall under the exclusions for psychiatric clinical records in sections 65(2)(a) and (b), they were exempt from disclosure under the mandatory personal privacy exemption in section 21(1).

The Assistant Commissioner also upheld the Ministry's application of the discretionary exemptions for advice or recommendations (section 13(1)) and solicitor-client privilege (section 19).

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to the minutes of the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board.

The Ministry decided to release the minutes with some severances, and the Board appealed, arguing the minutes were exempt under section 17(1) as confidential commercial information.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while some portions contained commercial or financial information supplied in confidence, the Board and the Ministry failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence that disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause the harms enumerated in section 17(1).

The Ministry was ordered to release the minutes subject to the original severances.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a 1989 labour dispute between the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and various Ontario Government Ministries.

The Ministry of Health denied access to several records, claiming exemptions under sections 13(1), 18(1)(c), 18(1)(e), and 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that none of the exemptions applied.

The records did not contain advice or recommendations, the Ministry failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence of prejudice to economic interests or that the records contained positions for negotiations, and the record claimed under solicitor-client privilege did not directly relate to seeking, formulating, or giving legal advice.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The requester appealed a decision by the Ministry of Housing denying access to notes made by a Board member during a pre-hearing conference at the Rent Review Hearings Board.

The Ministry claimed the notes were not in the custody or control of the Board.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the notes were created for the Board member's personal use, were kept separate from Board files, and were not regulated by the Board.

Therefore, the notes were not in the custody or under the control of the Board and were not accessible under the Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested access to correspondence and inspection files regarding a specific address from the City of Peterborough.

After the City disclosed some records, the appellant appealed, claiming additional records should exist.

In an interim order, the Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of one record and a proper decision letter regarding Fire Prevention Officers' notes.

The City complied.

The sole remaining issue was whether the City's search for additional records was reasonable.

The Assistant Commissioner reviewed the City's affidavit detailing its manual searches and consultations, and concluded that the City had taken all reasonable steps to locate additional responsive records.

The requester appealed the Archives of Ontario's decision to deny access to records relating to his past employment at the Grandview Training School for Girls.

The Archives claimed exemptions under section 14 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing disclosure would interfere with an ongoing police investigation into alleged criminal misconduct at the facility.

The Assistant Commissioner found that two records detailing operational procedures and staff activities qualified for exemption under section 14(1)(b).

However, three other records, including a job description memo and a site plan, did not qualify for the law enforcement exemption.

The site plan was ordered disclosed subject to severances protecting the security of a portion of the site currently used as a detention centre.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Thunder Bay Police Services Board for records detailing charges against a deceased individual between 1970 and 1989.

The Police initially denied access under sections 8(2)(a) and 14(1)(f), but later clarified that no responsive records existed for the specified time period.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Assistant Commissioner reviewed the steps taken by the Police to locate the records, including searches of index cards, online databases, and hard-copy records, and concluded that the search was reasonable in the circumstances.

The appellant submitted freedom of information requests to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board and the Public Complaints Commissioner for records relating to a complaint he filed.

The Police denied access to portions of the records under various exemptions.

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner determined that most of the withheld records contained personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, the Commissioner found that certain records containing only the appellant's personal information did not qualify as 'reports' under section 8(2)(a) and ordered their disclosure.

The appeal was allowed in part.