Tom Mitchinson

The appellant requested access to a workplace harassment investigation report prepared by an independent consultant for the City of Welland.

The City denied access, claiming the report was excluded under section 52(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as an employment-related record, or alternatively exempt under sections 38(a) and 38(b).

The Assistant Commissioner found that section 52(3) did not apply because there were no ongoing or reasonably anticipated proceedings, and the City lacked a sufficient legal interest.

The section 38(a) exemption for advice or recommendations was rejected as the report was largely factual.

However, the section 38(b) exemption for unjustified invasion of personal privacy was partially upheld to protect the personal information of other identifiable individuals, while ordering disclosure of the portions outlining the substance of the appellant's complaint.

The Family Responsibility Office (FRO) inadvertently mailed a Statement of Arrears containing the personal information of a support recipient and her payor-partner to an unrelated payor.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated the privacy breach.

The Commissioner found that the disclosed records contained personal information under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that the disclosure was not authorized under section 42.

The Commissioner commended FRO's prompt response and made recommendations to improve mailing procedures and privacy training.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines for records relating to the development of the Mining Act Part VII Regulation and Mine Rehabilitation Code, specifically concerning financial assurances for mine closures.

The Ministry denied access to several records, claiming they contained advice and recommendations from the Ministry of Finance.

The adjudicator found that the records qualified for exemption under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they contained suggested courses of action for the deliberative process.

The adjudicator also dismissed the appellant's claim that a compelling public interest in disclosure outweighed the exemption under section 23, noting a lack of evidence of broadly-based public concern.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

A member of the media requested records detailing the results of all Police Services Act disciplinary hearings involving members of the Niagara Regional Police Services Board over a five-year period.

The Police denied access, claiming the records fell outside the jurisdiction of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3).

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the records were collected and maintained in relation to employment-related matters in which the Police have a statutory interest.

Consequently, the records were excluded from the scope of the Act and the appeal was dismissed.

A member of the media requested records detailing the results of all Police Act hearings involving members of the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board over a five-year period.

The Police denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)3.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the Police had construed the request too narrowly, all responsive records were collected or maintained in relation to employment-related matters in which the Police had an interest.

Consequently, the records were excluded from the Act's jurisdiction and the appeal was dismissed.

The complainant alleged that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board improperly disclosed her personal information in a press release and on its Internet web site regarding charges laid against her and her company under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were not excluded under the labour relations or public records provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

While the disclosure of the complainant's name and charge details in the press release was a consistent purpose under section 42(c), the disclosure of her age and home address, as well as the posting of any personal information on the Internet web site, violated the Act.

The Board was recommended to cease such disclosures.

The appellant appealed the Guelph Police Services Board's decision to deny access to severed portions of a consultant's report under the invasion of privacy exemption in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the severed information on pages 65 and 97 constituted personal information and its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

However, the severed information on page 98 did not constitute personal information as it related to management practices rather than an identifiable individual.

The Police were ordered to disclose the severed information on page 98.

The appellant requested access to her Employee Health Services file from the City of Toronto under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The City denied access, claiming the records fell outside the Act's jurisdiction under section 52(3) as they related to labour relations and employment-related matters.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that the records were collected and used in relation to meetings and communications about the appellant's employment and WSIB claims, in which the City had a current legal interest.

The appellant sought access to records relating to the Minister's approval of the exhumation of his grandson's body.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access, claiming exemptions including solicitor-client privilege and invasion of privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records, which consisted of legal advice and supporting materials prepared by Crown counsel and an articling student, were subject to solicitor-client communication privilege.

The Ministry's decision to deny access under sections 19 and 49(a) of the Act was upheld.

A journalist requested information regarding all properties sold by the Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) since 1995.

The ORC denied access to the names, locations, and purchase prices of individual purchasers under the personal privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the compelling public interest in the disclosure of the records, given the ongoing public debate and investigations into ORC land dealings, clearly outweighed the purpose of the section 21 exemption.

The ORC was ordered to disclose the withheld information.

The Ministry of the Environment received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a draft environmental inspection report prepared by a consulting firm.

The Ministry decided to disclose the record.

The company that commissioned the report appealed, arguing the record was exempt under sections 17(1)(a), (b), and (c) as third party information supplied in confidence.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the report contained technical information supplied in confidence, the appellant failed to establish a reasonable expectation of probable harm from disclosure.

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

The appellant requested budget information for service provider agencies receiving funding from the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.

The Ministry denied access under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the records contained third party commercial information.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the records contained commercial and financial information, it was not supplied in confidence, and there was no detailed and convincing evidence that disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause harm.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the requested information.

A journalist requested access to the expense records of the Chair of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO).

The LCBO disclosed most of the records but withheld the names of individuals who attended lunch or dinner meetings with the Chair, claiming it was personal information and its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that while some of the severed information constituted personal information, the public interest in subjecting the activities of the LCBO and its Chair to public scrutiny outweighed any privacy interests.

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

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation for a computer printout listing a specified lottery ticket purchased at a variety store.

The OLGC denied access to the transaction report under sections 18(1)(c) and (d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would prejudice its economic interests and be injurious to the financial interests of the Government of Ontario.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the OLGC failed to establish the requirements for exemption under section 18(1)(c).

However, the Commissioner upheld the exemption under section 18(1)(d) for the serial and offset numbers, as their disclosure could compromise security procedures and require significant financial investment to remedy.

The OLGC was ordered to disclose the remainder of the record.

The appellant requested records regarding an internal review of an Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) investigation into his son's death.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under the labour relations and employment-related exclusions in sections 65(6)1 and 3.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that because the OPP and OCCPS reviews of the appellant's complaints had been completed more than a year prior, there were no ongoing or anticipated proceedings, and the Ministry had no continuing legal interest in the matter.

The records were therefore subject to the Act, and the Ministry was ordered to issue an access decision.

A lawyer representing two individuals interviewed during a homicide investigation requested copies of their witness statements, police notes, and crime scene photographs from the Toronto Police Services Board.

The Police denied access under various exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of the appellants' own witness statements, finding that applying the personal privacy exemption to their own statements would lead to an absurd result.

However, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the Police's decision to deny access to the police notes and crime scene photographs, as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement investigation.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for records relating to his incarceration.

The Ministry transferred a portion of the request to the Toronto Police Services Board, which granted partial access to the records.

The appellant appealed the Police's decision to deny access to severed portions of a Crown Brief Cover, a Confidential Crown Envelope, and a Record of Arrest.

The adjudicator found that the appellant's request for a new digital photograph was outside the scope of the request and accepted the Police's explanation that better copies of the records were unavailable.

The adjudicator upheld the Police's decision to withhold the personal information of other individuals under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

However, the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of the remaining portions of the Crown Brief Cover, finding that the information did not qualify for exemption under section 38(a) read with section 9(1)(d) because it was not received in confidence and any litigation privilege had terminated.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Toronto for records relating to job descriptions for Council staff members.

The City denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under the labour relations and employment-related matters exclusions in sections 52(3)2 and 3.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the records did not relate to negotiations or anticipated negotiations, nor did the City have a sufficient legal interest in the employment-related matters to trigger the exclusions.

The City was ordered to issue an access decision in accordance with the Act.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General's decision to deny access to records relating to a 1993 shooting incident at Camp Ipperwash.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under the law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ontario Provincial Police investigation into the incident remained active and ongoing, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with the investigation.

The Ministry's decision to deny access under section 14(1)(b) was upheld.

Counsel for the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund requested a copy of a Coroner's Investigation Statement regarding a deceased uninsured driver from the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

The Ministry denied access under the personal privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant argued that section 8 of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act gave the Fund the right to access the deceased's personal information to defend a civil action.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the MVACA does not provide a right of access under the FOI Act and that the record contains medical information whose disclosure is presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.