Tom Mitchinson

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to withhold one page of a record responsive to a freedom of information request.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the record contained the appellant's personal information.

The second paragraph of the record was found to qualify for the advice or recommendations exemption under section 13(1) and the discretionary exemption under section 49(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The remainder of the record was ordered to be disclosed.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the institution's notice of refusal letters did not satisfy the requirements of section 29(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, but declined to order new letters as the substantive issues were resolved.

The requester, an employee of the Ministry of Correctional Services, appealed a decision denying access to three letters of complaint written by inmates about him.

The institution claimed the records were exempt under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained highly sensitive personal information supplied in confidence.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the institution's decision to deny access, concluding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the inmates and other individuals mentioned in the records.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General received a request for an Ontario Provincial Police report.

The Ministry initially denied access but later granted partial access, severing personal information under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester appealed the severances.

The Assistant Commissioner found that some of the severed information qualified as personal information, but ordered the disclosure of the remaining portions that did not qualify for the exemption.

The Ministry of Housing received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for correspondence relating to a property in Guelph.

The Ministry decided to disclose 20 pages of records after notifying affected third parties.

One affected individual appealed the decision, arguing the records contained personal information and were exempt under section 17(1) as confidential commercial information.

The Assistant Commissioner found the records did not contain personal information, but rather technical and financial information about a commercial dwelling.

Applying the three-part test for section 17(1), the Assistant Commissioner concluded that disclosure would not reasonably be expected to result in similar information no longer being supplied to the institution.

The appeal was dismissed and the Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant requested access to records relating to the Health Disciplines Board investigations of two physicians who treated his deceased father.

The Ministry of Health denied access to portions of the records under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the appellant had not established he was his father's personal representative under section 66(a) of the Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the father's medical records, as their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(a).

However, the Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of other records, finding that their release would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to records relating to the potential sale of Connaught Laboratories.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 12(1), 15, 17, and 18 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that certain records were exempt under section 12(1) as they would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

Portions of other records were found exempt under section 17(1) as they contained commercial information supplied in confidence by a third party, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice its competitive position.

The remaining exemptions claimed by the Ministry were not upheld, and the public interest override in section 23 was found not to apply.

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

The appellant requested access to a Health Discipline Board file from the Archives of Ontario.

The institution granted partial access, severing one paragraph of a letter written by a doctor to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, claiming it contained the doctor's personal information and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the paragraph contained the doctor's personal information, it was not highly sensitive and its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The institution was ordered to disclose the severed paragraph.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to a plan of survey prepared for a private citizen regarding a proposed road over Crown land.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 17(1) and 18(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry failed to establish a reasonable expectation of harm under section 17(1) and that the record did not have monetary value for the institution under section 18(1)(a).

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record to the requester.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to certain records relating to the review of a drug submission.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 19 and 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the names of drug product reviewers were exempt as personal information under section 21, and that communications between Ministry lawyers and staff were exempt under solicitor-client privilege pursuant to section 19.

The appellant requested access to occurrence reports regarding the accidental release of an inmate from the Windsor Jail.

The Ministry of Correctional Services denied access under the personal privacy exemption in section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that while the records contained the inmate's personal information, they did not qualify for the presumed unjustified invasion of privacy under section 21(3)(b) as they related to an administrative error, not a violation of law.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the records disclosed with the inmate's name and institution number severed to protect his reputation.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Transportation for records relating to the drafting of a regulation exempting a specific class of drivers from daily trip inspections.

The Ministry provided a fee estimate and disclosed some records.

The appellant appealed, arguing the records were not responsive, the search was inadequate, and the fee should be refunded.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the request was sufficiently detailed, the Ministry's search was reasonable, and the reduced fee of $420.00 was calculated in accordance with the Act.

The appellant requested access to records concerning discussions between the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and a truck and trailer company regarding a plant closure.

The Ministry granted partial access, severing information under section 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that specific financial information relating to the company's capitalization was exempt under section 17(1), but ordered the disclosure of more general information about the company's circumstances.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply to the exempt information.

The appellant requested access to records relating to drug listing applications from the Ministry of Health.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records under sections 17, 19, and 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that some records were exempt under solicitor-client privilege (s. 19) and third-party commercial information (s. 17).

The Assistant Commissioner also held that the names of drug reviewers constituted personal information and their disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the remaining non-exempt records.

The appellant requested access to records, including statements made by three co-workers, which led to a letter of reprimand on his personnel file.

The Ministry of Health denied access to portions of the records under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing an unjustified invasion of the co-workers' personal privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the information was highly sensitive and supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations denying access to the resume of the Registrar of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the resume contained personal information relating to employment and educational history, the disclosure of which is presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner concluded that the presumption was not rebutted by the factors in section 21(2) and that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to a legal opinion regarding the disclosure of client files.

The Ministry claimed the record was exempt under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the record was prepared by Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice, satisfying Branch 2 of the section 19 exemption.

The public interest override in section 23 was found not to apply to section 19.

The head's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to a letter that prompted the Ministry of Transportation to require his client to undergo medical and psychiatric assessments under threat of driver's licence suspension.

The Ministry denied access to the letter under section 20 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure could seriously threaten an individual's safety or health.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the record contained the appellant's personal information and that the Ministry failed to provide evidence raising a reasonable expectation of harm under section 20.

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

The requester appealed the Ministry of Government Services' decision to transfer a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Correctional Services.

The requester argued the transfer was improper and delayed access to the requested Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry of Correctional Services had a greater interest in the record under section 25(3) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as it had the primary role in negotiations.

Although the institution failed to transfer the request within the 15-day statutory limit, no remedial order was made because the transfer was substantively proper and the record had already been released to the requester.

The requester sought access to records relating to the development of the Insurance Amendment Act, 1986.

The Ministry of Financial Institutions denied access to several records, claiming various exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner reviewed the application of exemptions for Cabinet records, advice or recommendations, relations with other governments, third party information, economic interests, and solicitor-client privilege.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of exemptions to certain records and ordered the disclosure of others.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's response to a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a list of persons who had accessed his OHIP records.

The Ministry maintained that no such list existed and detailed its search efforts, which included checking correspondence files where such access requests would be logged.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry's search was reasonable and upheld the decision that the requested record did not exist.