Tom Mitchinson

The Ministry of Community and Social Services denied a request for access to two psychiatric reports concerning the requester's client, claiming they fell outside the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(2).

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the records were in respect of a psychiatric patient, they were copies rather than original 'clinical records' as defined by the Mental Health Act, and thus did not fall under section 65(2)(a).

Furthermore, because the records were maintained by the Ministry for a non-clinical purpose, they did not satisfy the requirements of section 65(2)(b).

The Ministry was ordered to issue a proper access decision.

The requester sought access to funding proposals and evaluations submitted to the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines under the Northern Ontario Development Agreement.

The Ministry denied access, claiming exemptions for intergovernmental relations and third-party information.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that disclosure would not prejudice intergovernmental relations, as the Ministry's concerns related to industry relations rather than relations between governments.

Furthermore, the third-party information exemption did not apply because the Ministry failed to establish that the proposals were supplied in confidence.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Niagara Regional Board of Commissioners of Police asking why a specific individual was not charged with possession of stolen property.

The Police responded that no such report existed.

The appellant appealed.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Police's search for the requested records, which included database searches, incident report reviews, and officer interviews, was reasonable in the circumstances, particularly given the request was phrased as a question rather than a request for specific records.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to the signatures of individuals on a letter related to a complaint.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded as clinical records under the Mental Health Act and exempt under the personal privacy provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the signatures did not constitute a clinical record, but upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access, concluding that the signatures were personal information and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The requester submitted ten requests to the Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited (SkyDome) for information relating to the proposed sale of SkyDome.

SkyDome denied access, claiming no records existed.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that while SkyDome's position that it had no responsive records was reasonable, it failed to fulfill its obligations under section 25(1) of the Act to transfer the requests to the Ministry of Treasury and Economics, which had custody or control of the negotiating committee's records.

SkyDome was ordered to transfer the requests.

The appellant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of the Attorney General for access to and correction of a court transcript and other records.

The access request was resolved when the Ministry released all responsive records.

For the correction request, the appellant sought to have the records destroyed because they were allegedly inaccurate, but refused to sign an undertaking not to request them again.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to identify the specific information she believed was incorrect or provide sufficient facts to substantiate her allegations of inaccuracy.

The appellant requested access to the salary ranges and benefits of the Chief Executive Officer and Senior Vice-President of Investments of the Teachers' Pension Plan Board under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board denied access, claiming exemptions under sections 18(1)(c) and 21(1).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Board's evidence of prejudice to its economic interests was speculative and that the section 18(1)(c) exemption did not apply.

Furthermore, while the information was personal information, its disclosure fell under section 21(4)(a) as the individuals were officers or employees paid from public funds, meaning disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Board was ordered to disclose the salary ranges and benefit entitlements.

Four requesters appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to records relating to wards at the Grandview Training School for Girls.

The Ministry claimed the records fell under the federal Young Offenders Act (YOA) and refused to provide them to the Information and Privacy Commissioner for review.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the YOA's disclosure prohibitions expressly contradict the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, rendering the provincial act constitutionally inoperative for YOA records.

However, the Commissioner retained jurisdiction to determine if the records actually fell under the YOA.

As the YOA prohibited disclosure of the records to the Commissioner without a youth court order, the Ministry was ordered to provide a detailed affidavit describing the records to allow the Commissioner to determine jurisdiction.

The appellant requested access to records relating to Georgian College's decision to serve a Notice of Trespass on him.

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

The Assistant Commissioner found that the internal investigation leading to the Notice of Trespass did not qualify as a 'law enforcement' matter under section 14.

However, certain records were exempt under section 19 due to solicitor-client privilege.

The Commissioner ordered the disclosure of several records, while upholding the exemption for others and severing highly sensitive personal information of third parties.

The requester appealed the City of Etobicoke's decision to sever the names of complainants from a memorandum regarding a by-law infraction on the requester's property.

The City relied on the law enforcement exemption under section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that by-law enforcement qualifies as law enforcement and that the complainants had a reasonable expectation of confidentiality, making their identities exempt as confidential sources of information.

The requester appealed the Management Board of Cabinet's decision to deny access to a memorandum summarizing a draft Cabinet Submission.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the record qualified for the mandatory exemption under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as its disclosure would reveal the substance of deliberations of a committee of the Executive Council.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

Six care-givers employed by the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital requested access to their personal information contained in the files of the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office (PPAO).

The Ministry of Health denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(2)(b) as they related to the care or treatment of psychiatric patients.

The Assistant Commissioner found that PPAO records do not have a clinical purpose, nature, or value, and therefore do not fall within the scope of section 65(2)(b).

The Ministry was ordered to issue a proper access decision.

The appellant requested access to a report submitted to the Town Council.

The Town denied access under section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the record revealed the substance of deliberations of an in-camera meeting.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Town's decision, finding that the record was discussed during an authorized in-camera meeting and that the Town properly exercised its discretion under section 38(a) to deny the appellant access to his own personal information contained within the record.

An individual appealed the decision of the Ottawa Board of Commissioners of Police to grant a requester partial access to a police investigation report.

The appellant argued that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of their personal privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the records contained personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation, raising a presumption of an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Police properly exercised their discretion under section 38(b) to grant partial access.

The decision of the Police was upheld and disclosure was ordered.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Housing's decision to deny access to parts of a memorandum under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 19 (solicitor-client privilege) and 21 (personal privacy).

The Assistant Commissioner found that section 19 did not apply because the communication was not between a client and a legal advisor.

However, the Assistant Commissioner found that several parts of the record contained personal information of other individuals, the disclosure of which would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the parts of the record containing only the requester's personal information and to withhold the rest.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Peterborough for fire inspection records.

The City denied access to certain records, claiming solicitor-client privilege and law enforcement exemptions, and argued that Fire Prevention Officers' notes and diaries were not in its custody or control.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of a transmittal memorandum, finding it did not qualify for solicitor-client privilege.

The Assistant Commissioner also affirmed jurisdiction to review law enforcement records, determined that the officers' notes and diaries were in the City's custody or control, and ordered the City to issue a new access decision and provide an affidavit detailing its search for records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the London Board of Commissioners of Police seeking records of any investigations into them, including wiretap applications.

The Police refused to confirm or deny the existence of any records under section 8(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that wiretap application records fall outside the scope of the Act due to federal legislative paramountcy.

Regarding non-wiretap investigation records, the Assistant Commissioner held that the Police failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence that disclosing the mere existence of such records would compromise a law enforcement activity.

The Assistant Commissioner confirmed that no non-wiretap investigation records existed.

The requester appealed the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to deny access to portions of their human rights complaint file under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner reviewed the application of several exemptions, including personal privacy, law enforcement reports, confidential sources, and advice or recommendations.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of several records, finding they did not qualify as formal law enforcement reports or reveal confidential sources, but upheld the exemption for certain records containing other individuals' personal information and staff advice to decision-makers.

The requester appealed Toronto Hydro's decision to deny access to a memorandum regarding the relationship between the requester and her supervisor under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Toronto Hydro claimed the record consisted of personnel evaluations and its release would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the record contained personal information, Toronto Hydro failed to establish that disclosure would result in an unjustified invasion of the supervisor's personal privacy.

Toronto Hydro was ordered to disclose the record to the requester, with the exception of one sentence containing only the supervisor's personal information.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Environment's decision to deny access to two reports regarding the proposed establishment of the Ontario Water and Sewer Crown Corporation.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under the Cabinet records exemption in section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the first record contained policy options submitted to a Cabinet committee, and the second record's disclosure would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.