Tom Mitchinson

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food denied a freedom of information request for daily live-chicken slaughter reports at a named company, claiming exemptions under sections 17(1)(a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester appealed.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the information was commercial and supplied in confidence, the Ministry failed to establish that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the affected person's competitive position or result in similar information no longer being supplied.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant, acting as an agent for the parents of a child injured in a stone-throwing incident at a school, requested access to the names and addresses of the child who allegedly threw the stone and the children who witnessed the incident.

The School Board denied access, citing the mandatory exemption for personal information under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that the appellant established a legal right to add the child who allegedly threw the stone to an existing civil action, making section 14(2)(d) a relevant consideration that outweighed the child's privacy interests.

The School Board was ordered to disclose the name of the child who allegedly threw the stone, but the decision to withhold the child's address and the names and addresses of the witnesses was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Correctional Services' decision to deny access to parts of a record relating to allegations of wrongdoing and discipline involving the requester.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 14(1)(f), 20, 49(a), and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that section 14(1)(f) did not apply as the Ministry failed to demonstrate that disclosure would deprive anyone of a fair trial or impartial adjudication in an upcoming grievance hearing.

However, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of section 49(b) to certain pages, finding that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other individuals, while ordering the disclosure of the remaining pages.

The Ministry of Health received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to a proposal by a hospital to construct an office building.

The Ministry denied access to five records under sections 13(1) and 17(1) of the Act.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that parts of a consultant's report were exempt under section 13(1) as they revealed advice or recommendations.

However, the remaining records, including a draft lease and property appraisals, did not meet the three-part test for exemption under section 17(1) and were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant requested access to police records concerning himself and his family.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police disclosed some records but withheld others under various exemptions, including section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the police's search for records was reasonable and that the withheld information qualified as personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

Disclosure of the remaining records was found to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b), and the police's decision to deny access was upheld, with the exception of one minor severance.

The requester appealed the Espanola Board of Education's decision to deny access to minutes of 'in camera' meetings regarding the departure of a former employee.

The Assistant Commissioner found that parts of the records containing personal or financial information of an employee were exempt under section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The remaining parts of the records, consisting of administrative details and names of individuals in their professional capacities, did not qualify as personal information and were ordered to be disclosed.

The requester appealed a decision by the City of North York regarding a freedom of information request for records of donations to a community centre.

The City provided a copy of a cash receipt and stated no other responsive records existed.

The sole issue on appeal was whether the City's search for records was reasonable.

The Assistant Commissioner reviewed the City's representations and affidavits detailing the search efforts and concluded that the search was reasonable in the circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Oshawa for the name of the individual who filed a by-law complaint regarding the appellant's property.

The city denied access, citing the law enforcement exemption.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the city's decision, finding that the by-law enforcement process qualifies as law enforcement and that releasing the record would disclose the identity of a confidential source of information under section 8(1)(d) of the Act.

The Ministry of Health received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to a specific law firm and two of its lawyers.

The Ministry denied access to certain invoices, claiming they were sealed by a court order.

The requester appealed.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the unsevered parts of the record were not subject to the court order under the Courts of Justice Act.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the mandatory exemptions under sections 17 and 21 of the Act did not apply to the severed record.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the severed record to the appellant.

The Archives of Ontario received requests for a 1976 report concerning alleged inappropriate staff conduct at the Grandview Training School for Girls.

The Archives denied access under various law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that the law enforcement exemptions did not apply, as the investigation was internal and not for law enforcement purposes.

However, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of the personal privacy exemption to parts of the record containing personal information of identifiable individuals, finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy and that the public interest override did not apply.

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

A student requested access to their assignments, quizzes, exams, and grading evaluations from George Brown College.

The College released most records but withheld six under section 18(1)(h) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the questions formed part of a test bank for future use.

The requester appealed the withholding and claimed additional records existed.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of the six records, finding that section 18(1)(h) does not apply to completed examinations containing the student's answers and scores.

The Assistant Commissioner also found the College's search for additional records was reasonable.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for records relating to his activities as a registered broker.

After the institution disclosed several records during mediation, the sole remaining issue was whether the institution had conducted a reasonable search for additional historical records the appellant claimed should exist.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the institution's search was reasonable, noting that while some historical registration records could not be located and may have been lost or destroyed, the institution had taken adequate steps to search for them.

The appellant requested their institutional file from the Ministry of Correctional Services under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry disclosed the main file and, during mediation, located and released additional records.

The appellant appealed, claiming further records existed.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry's search, which included multiple follow-up searches and affidavits from staff, was reasonable in the circumstances.

The requester appealed the institution's decision to deny access to a consultant's report reviewing matters pertaining to the School of Social and Community Services.

The institution claimed exemptions under sections 13(1), 17(1)(a), 18(1)(f) and (g), and 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that sections 17 and 18 did not apply, and that the section 13(1) exemption was overridden by the section 13(2)(f) exception for reports on institutional performance.

However, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of section 21 to portions of the record containing personal evaluations and recommendations, as their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The institution was ordered to disclose the balance of the record.

The appellant requested the educational history of five individuals, four of whom were employed by the Fuels Safety Branch of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

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

The appellant argued that disclosure was necessary for public scrutiny and safety, alleging the individuals were technically incompetent.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the presumed unjustified invasion of privacy was not rebutted and that there was no compelling public interest in disclosure.

The appellant submitted two requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited for records relating to a partnership agreement between the institution and a consortium.

The institution denied access to three responsive records, claiming exemptions under sections 13(1), 17(1), and 18(1) of the Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that none of the records qualified for exemption under the claimed sections, noting that two of the records were already publicly available in a court file and the institution failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence of expected harms.

The institution was ordered to disclose the records in their entirety.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of wiretap application records relating to the requester under section 14(3) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the institution's decision, finding that the constitutional doctrine of federal legislative paramountcy applies.

The comprehensive secrecy and notification scheme for wiretaps in Part VI of the Criminal Code expressly contradicts the access provisions of the Act, thereby excluding requests for wiretap application records from the scope of the provincial legislation.

The appellant sought access to police records relating to a murder investigation and an arson and fraud investigation concerning him.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General denied access to portions of the records, citing various exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that most of the withheld records contained personal information of other individuals, the disclosure of which would constitute an unjustified invasion of their personal privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner also upheld the application of exemptions for information received in confidence from other governments.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose a few specific pages that did not contain exempt personal information, while the decision to deny access to the remaining records was upheld.

The appellant requested information relating to a review performed by the Ontario Securities Commission regarding a complaint against a stockbroker.

The Ministry of Financial Institutions denied access, claiming the law enforcement exemption under section 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the records were reports prepared in the course of a law enforcement investigation by an agency with the function of enforcing compliance with the Securities Act.

The appellant requested access to records relating to court files in which they were the plaintiff.

The Ministry of the Attorney General initially released a severed version of a record but later retrieved it and claimed exemptions under sections 19 and 49(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that access had already been granted to the severed record, precluding the institution from subsequently claiming discretionary exemptions.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the mandatory exemption under section 21 for the severed portion, finding it contained personal information supplied in confidence by an affected person, the disclosure of which would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.