Tom Mitchinson

The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations received a request for access to documents mentioning the requester's name in connection with a Star Trek fan club.

The Ministry decided to release a transmittal letter and Form 1 corporate documents, and notified the affected person who had submitted them.

The affected person appealed, arguing the records were exempt under sections 17 and 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records did not contain commercial information under section 17, and that their disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21, as the forms were submitted with the understanding they would be placed on a publicly accessible database.

The Ministry's decision to disclose the records was upheld.

A requester sought access to documents mentioning his name in connection with a Star Trek fan club.

The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations identified a transmittal letter and Form 1 corporate documents, and decided to release them.

The affected person appealed, arguing the records were exempt under sections 17 (third party information) and 21 (personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the records did not contain commercial information and that their disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, as the forms were submitted for a publicly accessible registry.

The Ministry's decision to disclose the records was upheld.

The appellant submitted two requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to Ontario Hydro for historical maps illustrating the location of telephone company equipment and the direction of high-voltage electrical current flow prior to 1951.

Ontario Hydro advised that no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the institution had taken reasonable steps to locate the records and that its search was reasonable in the circumstances.

The requester appealed the Archives of Ontario's decision to deny access to portions of a 1976 memorandum regarding incidents at the Grandview Training School.

The institution claimed the severed portions contained personal information and that disclosure would interfere with ongoing police investigations.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the severed information did not relate to identifiable individuals and therefore did not qualify as personal information.

Furthermore, the institution failed to provide sufficient evidence that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement matters.

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

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General's decision to deny access to a four-page RCMP investigation report.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the record contained personal information and qualified for exemption under section 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as a report prepared in the course of law enforcement.

The Assistant Commissioner also upheld the head's exercise of discretion under section 49(a) to deny the appellant access to his own personal information contained in the report.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested access to financial records filed by a trust company with the Ministry of Financial Institutions.

The Ministry denied access under sections 17(1)(b) and (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and the affected trust company also raised section 17(1)(a).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained financial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of the trust company or result in undue loss or gain.

The records were held to be exempt under section 17(1) and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General for medical reports, search warrants, and other records related to specific Ontario Provincial Police detachments.

The institution responded that no responsive records existed, prompting the appellant to appeal on the basis that the search was unreasonable.

The Assistant Commissioner reviewed the steps taken by the institution, including contacting the appellant for clarification, searching occurrence report and warrant files at the relevant detachments, and consulting an officer familiar with the appellant's 1986 occurrence.

The Assistant Commissioner concluded that the institution's search was reasonable and satisfactory.

The appellant requested access to his personnel file and documentation of allegations made against him that led to his dismissal.

The Ministry of Government Services denied access to portions of the records, citing exemptions for threats to health and safety and unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the records did not pose a serious threat to health or safety.

However, the Commissioner upheld the privacy exemption for a consultant's report containing highly sensitive information supplied in confidence by affected persons.

The Commissioner ordered the disclosure of summaries of a disciplinary hearing, as the appellant had a right to attend and cross-examine witnesses at that hearing, negating any expectation of confidentiality.

The appellant requested access to an investigation report prepared by the Ministry of the Environment.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the record was exempt under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (solicitor-client privilege).

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that the record did not meet the requirements for either branch of the section 19 exemption, as it was not a communication between a client and a legal advisor, nor was it prepared by or for Crown counsel.

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

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Environment for legal advice given to a District Supervisor regarding the need to take into account a City's Official Plan when issuing a holding tank/septic tank approval.

The Ministry denied access pursuant to the solicitor-client privilege exemption under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing the advice was not confidential and the privilege was waived.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the record satisfied the test for common law solicitor-client privilege, the communication was confidential, and the privilege had not been waived.

The head's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to a list of names, dates of birth, and addresses of all babies born in Ontario in early 1991 from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for the purpose of marketing baby food.

The Ministry denied access under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the requested records contained personal information and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, as the information was supplied in confidence under the Vital Statistics Act.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for wiretap applications pertaining to him.

The Ministry of the Attorney General refused to confirm or deny the existence of any responsive records pursuant to section 14(3) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Following an interim order requiring the institution to reconsider its exercise of discretion, the Assistant Commissioner reviewed the additional representations and upheld the head's decision to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of the requested records.

The appellant requested access to a list of names and addresses of hairstyling apprentices registered with the Ministry of Skills Development.

The Ministry granted access to the names but denied access to the addresses under the personal privacy exemption.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the appeal was filed within the statutory time limit.

The Assistant Commissioner also reviewed the decision to disclose the names and concluded that both the names and addresses constituted personal information.

The Assistant Commissioner held that disclosure of the names and addresses would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and ordered the Ministry not to disclose either.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' claim that a specific memorandum did not exist.

Following representations from both parties and an independent search by a Compliance Investigator from the Information and Privacy Commissioner's office, the Assistant Commissioner concluded that all reasonable efforts had been made to locate the record and that it could not be found.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Financial Institutions' decision to deny access to various records relating to legal proceedings against the appellant and an automobile club.

The Assistant Commissioner reviewed the application of several exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including advice to government, law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, and personal privacy.

The Commissioner ordered the disclosure of certain records that did not meet the exemption criteria, while upholding the Ministry's decision to withhold the majority of the records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Community and Social Services for records relating to a day care centre.

The Ministry granted partial access, but the appellant appealed, claiming additional records existed.

During mediation, the Ministry identified and released additional records, but the appellant believed more existed.

The sole issue was whether the Ministry conducted a reasonable search.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the initial search was unreasonable, the expanded search conducted during the appeal satisfied the requirement to make all reasonable efforts to locate responsive records.

The appellant sought access to a complaint letter submitted to the Ministry of Financial Institutions concerning the appellant's business activities, including the author's name.

The Ministry denied access to the identifying portions of the record under the law enforcement exemption in section 14(1)(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the investigation into the complaint qualified as a law enforcement matter and that the information was provided with a reasonable expectation of confidentiality.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General's decision to deny access to records relating to an OPP investigation into allegations of assault made by the requester against an OPP constable.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

One record was also found to be exempt under section 19 as it was subject to solicitor-client privilege.

A local organization requested correspondence containing allegations of impropriety from the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Ministry decided to release the records after notifying affected persons.

One affected person appealed, arguing the record contained her personal information and its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the correspondence, submitted on behalf of an organization and signed by the appellant in her capacity as a spokesperson, did not qualify as her personal information under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

A local organization requested correspondence containing allegations of impropriety from the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Ministry decided to release the records, prompting an appeal by an affected person whose confidential correspondence was included.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the record contained the appellant's personal information and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, as it was submitted in confidence.

The Ministry was ordered not to disclose the record.