Tom Mitchinson

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

The Ministry located records for one agency and decided to grant partial access, applying exemptions under sections 17(1) and 21(1).

The agency appealed the decision to release the records, and the requester appealed the decision to sever them.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records did not meet the three-part test for exemption under section 17(1) as the evidence of potential harm was too speculative.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records, subject to severances for personal information.

The appellant requested records relating to a job competition and any subsequent investigation from the Ministry of Correctional Services.

The Ministry denied access to question and answer sheets under sections 18(1)(c) and (d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and refused to confirm or deny the existence of investigation records under section 21(5).

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of the question and answer sheets, finding the economic exemptions did not apply.

However, while rejecting the Ministry's refusal to confirm or deny the existence of investigation records, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the denial of access to those records, concluding they contained highly sensitive personal information whose disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The requester sought access to records concerning a Liquor Licence Board of Ontario investigation into his restaurants.

The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations refused to confirm or deny the existence of the records under section 14(3) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry failed to justify its refusal to confirm or deny the existence of the records.

However, upon reviewing the responsive records, the Assistant Commissioner determined that most were exempt from disclosure under sections 14(1)(b) and 14(1)(d) as their release would interfere with an ongoing law enforcement investigation or reveal a confidential source.

One record, a statement provided by the requester's partner, was ordered disclosed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Housing's decision letters responding to his freedom of information requests regarding the Ontario Home Renewal Program for Disabled Persons.

The appellant argued that the records provided were not responsive and that the decision letters should not contain opinions or explanations.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the institution's decision letters satisfied the requirements of sections 26 and 29(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that offering additional explanations is consistent with the spirit of the Act.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of Health regarding himself.

The Ministry granted partial access, but the appellant appealed, claiming an additional record (notes of a telephone conversation) existed.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry conducted a reasonable search, supported by an affidavit from the Administrator stating no notes were taken, and dismissed the appeal.

The requester appealed a decision by Ontario Hydro regarding a request for performance appraisals and notes from a meeting.

Ontario Hydro disclosed the appraisals but claimed the meeting notes did not exist.

During the appeal, the institution provided an affidavit from the alleged author explaining that brief notes were taken but subsequently destroyed.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the institution provided a credible explanation and conducted a reasonable search for the records.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested a copy of a report concerning rebate and tax sharing arrangements between the racing industry and the provincial government.

The Management Board of Cabinet denied access under the mandatory Cabinet records exemption in section 12 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the record contained policy recommendations and was considered by Cabinet, thus satisfying the criteria for exemption under section 12(1)(b).

The appellant requested correspondence between a doctor, the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office, and a Patient Advocate.

The Ministry of Health granted partial access, claiming the personal privacy exemption under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the remainder.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the institution's decision makers lacked the delegated authority to deny access, resulting in a deemed refusal.

On the merits, the Assistant Commissioner determined that the severed information was provided by the doctor in his professional capacity and did not qualify as his personal information.

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

The appellant requested access to records relating to a grievance proceeding from the Ontario Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board.

The institution granted partial access, severing the names and addresses of the grievors and co-workers under the personal privacy exemption.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that the addresses were highly sensitive and exempt from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, the names were ordered to be disclosed as the affected persons either consented or the appellant already knew the name, meaning disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The public interest override in section 23 did not apply to the addresses.

The requester appealed the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to deny access to two memoranda prepared by its legal counsel regarding a human rights complaint.

The institution claimed the records were exempt under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) and section 49(a) of the Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained personal information and qualified for exemption under both branches of section 19, as they were confidential communications prepared by Crown counsel for the purpose of giving legal advice.

The institution's exercise of discretion to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to studies commissioned by the Ontario Government pertaining to automobile insurance.

The Ministry of Financial Institutions denied access to copies of the studies pursuant to several exemptions, including section 12 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records qualified for the mandatory Cabinet records exemption under section 12(1), as their disclosure would permit the drawing of accurate inferences with respect to the substance of deliberations of the Executive Council or its committees.

The head's decision was upheld.

The requester sought access to the investigator's file regarding a human rights complaint made by their client against a university.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission denied access to the records, claiming exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that most of the records qualified for exemption under the law enforcement provisions, as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with the ongoing reconsideration of the complaint.

However, certain administrative records were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant requested financial statements filed with the Public Trustee by the National Cancer Institute of Canada and the Canadian Cancer Society.

The institution denied access, claiming the records were currently available to the public under section 22(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were not available through a regularized system of access and ordered their disclosure, noting the institution's handling of the request was not in keeping with the spirit of the Act.

The appellant requested access to notes taken by his supervisor regarding an allegation made against him by another employee.

The Ministry of Correctional Services denied access, claiming the notes were not in its custody or control, and alternatively claiming exemptions under sections 14(1)(f) and 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the notes were in the custody and control of the institution as they were created in the course of employment.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the notes contained only the appellant's personal information and did not qualify for exemption under section 14(1)(f) or section 19.

The institution was ordered to disclose the record to the appellant, subject to severing the personal information of other individuals.

The appellant sought access to all information contained in the Child Abuse Registry relating personally to them under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services denied access, citing section 67(2) of the Act, which states that the confidentiality provision in section 75(6) of the Child and Family Services Act prevails.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the record was part of the Child Abuse Registry and therefore covered by the prevailing confidentiality provision.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of Health relating to inducements offered by drug manufacturers to pharmacists.

The Ministry denied access to most records under various exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records qualified for exemption under section 13 (advice to government) and section 14 (law enforcement), as they related to investigations of drug pricing compliance and contained confidential source information.

The appellant submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of Financial Institutions for records relating to complaints, inspections, and briefing notes concerning two mortgage brokerage firms that were placed in receivership.

The Ministry denied access to several records, claiming exemptions under sections 12, 14, 17, and 21 of the Act.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that the law enforcement exemption under section 14(2)(a) applied to two investigation reports but not to routine inspection reports.

The third-party commercial information exemption under section 17(1) was not established, as the information was either not supplied in confidence or its disclosure would not reasonably cause the specified harms.

The Cabinet records exemption under section 12 did not apply because the briefing notes did not contain policy options or recommendations.

Finally, the personal privacy exemption under section 21 applied to certain personal information, requiring severances in several records and the complete withholding of one record.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records and severed portions.

The appellant, a former university student, appealed a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission denying access to various records related to his human rights complaint against the university.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the institution's decision to withhold certain records, finding that they contained personal information of other individuals compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

The Commissioner ordered the disclosure of other records that did not fall under the personal privacy exemptions.

The appellant requested that the Ministry of Correctional Services correct his personal information contained in two employee separation and work performance records.

The Ministry denied the request, stating the information was not inaccurate, and invited the appellant to submit a statement of disagreement.

The appellant appealed.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the information qualified as personal information, the requested changes amounted to a substitution of opinion rather than a correction of factual error.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Ministry's decision not to change the records was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Environment's decision to deny access to portions of records relating to the discharge of NDMA from the Elmira water treatment plant.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13(1) and 18(1)(g) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that certain severances containing advice and draft orders were properly exempt under section 13(1).

However, other severances containing statements of apparent solutions and action plans did not qualify as advice or recommendations, nor did they constitute proposed plans, policies, or projects under section 18(1)(g).

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt severances to the requester.