Tom Mitchinson

The appellant requested access to police investigation records relating to the death of a named individual, for which the appellant was convicted of murder.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General granted partial access, withholding certain pages and severing others under the personal privacy exemptions of the Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the severed information constituted the personal information of affected persons, and its disclosure would result in a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy because the records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

The presumption was not rebutted by the appellant's claim that the records were relevant to a fair determination of rights.

A requester sought access to the name of a proposed supplier and fuel in connection with an application by Steetley Lime and Aggregates for a Certificate of Approval under the Environmental Protection Act.

The Ministry of the Environment initially refused disclosure but later decided to disclose the information.

Steetley appealed, arguing the information was exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that Steetley failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence of a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure, and ordered the Ministry to disclose the requested information.

The appellant requested copies of letters and an investigative report regarding complaints made about him as an employee of the Ministry of Correctional Services.

The Ministry denied access under sections 13, 21, and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant argued he had already been given access because the records were read to him during a disciplinary meeting.

The Assistant Commissioner found that reading the records did not constitute access under the Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold most of the records to protect the personal privacy of the authors and to protect advice or recommendations, but ordered the disclosure of one excerpt containing factual comments by the appellant's supervisor.

The appellant sought access to records relating to a job competition in which he was an unsuccessful candidate, specifically requesting the personal information of the successful candidate.

The institution denied access to several records, citing the personal privacy exemption.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the successful candidate's resume, evaluations, and salary information were presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under sections 21(3)(d), (f), and (g) of the Act.

The appellant failed to rebut these presumptions under sections 21(2) or 21(4), and the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

Partial access was ordered for records that merely implemented the hiring decision without revealing exempt personal information.

The requester, a staff member of an Ontario Provincial Police detachment, sought access to an internal investigation report and related notes regarding a morale problem at the detachment.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General denied access to most of the record, citing exemptions for personal information.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while some introductory and recommendation sections did not contain personal information and must be released, the majority of the record contained highly sensitive personal information of other individuals.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the institution's decision to deny access to those portions under the mandatory exemption in section 21 and the discretionary exemption in section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant submitted multiple requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to Algonquin College for records relating to an incident and the College Ombudsman's reports.

The institution disclosed some records but withheld others, and claimed that records held by the College Ombudsman were not in its custody or control.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the College Ombudsman operates independently and its records are not in the custody or under the control of the institution under section 10(1) of the Act.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the institution conducted a reasonable search for records and responded to the requests in a reasonable and proper manner.

The appellant sought access to a report written by a subordinate employee submitted in support of a Workers' Compensation Board claim, alleging it contained derogatory remarks used against him in a promotion competition.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General denied access under the personal privacy exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the record contained highly sensitive personal information supplied in confidence, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's personal privacy under section 49(b).

The requester sought access to records seized by the OPP from the office of a former employee of the Office of the Premier.

The institution claimed the records were political party records and not subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were in the physical possession of the institution and integrated into its operations, thus falling under its custody.

The Assistant Commissioner further determined that the records contained personal information.

Applying the mandatory exemption under section 21, the Assistant Commissioner held that disclosure of one record would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy regarding financial history, while the remaining records could be disclosed without such an invasion.

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

The requester appealed a fee estimate of $222.64 for search time related to a freedom of information request for records concerning a proposed national sales tax.

The requester also appealed the institution's decision not to waive the fees.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the fee calculation, finding the 232 hours of search time reasonable given the original broad scope of the request.

The Assistant Commissioner also upheld the decision not to waive the fees, as the requester failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a fee waiver under section 57(3) of the Act.

The requester appealed the fee estimate and the decision not to waive fees for an access to information request made to the Ministry of Treasury and Economics.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the institution improperly calculated the search and preparation charges and ordered them to be recalculated.

However, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the institution's decision not to waive the fees, finding that the requester did not provide sufficient evidence to support a fee waiver.

The appellant requested access to information regarding wiretap applications that might apply to him.

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

The Assistant Commissioner found that if such records existed, they would contain personal information and qualify for the law enforcement exemption under section 14(1).

However, the Assistant Commissioner found that the head did not properly exercise his discretion under sections 14(3) and 49(a) and ordered the head to reconsider the exercise of discretion.

The appellant requested access to notes and statements taken by a police officer at the site of an automobile collision.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General granted partial access, severing a portion containing a statement from another driver.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the severed portion contained personal information and that its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as it was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The institution was ordered not to disclose the record.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to certain medical and psychiatric records related to a Health Disciplines Board hearing.

The Assistant Commissioner found that all records contained personal information.

Records containing threats against treating physicians were exempted under sections 20 and 49(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to seriously threaten the safety of those individuals.

The institution's claim that disclosure would prejudice the requester's mental health under section 49(d) was rejected due to insufficient evidence.

However, certain records containing sensitive information supplied in confidence by other individuals were exempted under section 49(b) to protect their personal privacy.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the remaining records with appropriate severances.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Treasury and Economics' decision to charge search and preparation fees for a freedom of information request regarding the Skydome, and its refusal to grant a fee waiver.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the institution was justified in charging fees and denying a fee waiver, the estimated search and preparation times were excessive.

The search time was reduced to exclude a secondary review by a senior economist, and the preparation time was reduced to two minutes per severed page.

The appeal was allowed in part to reduce the total fee estimate.

The appellant filed a freedom of information request with the Ontario Human Rights Commission for her case history file, specifically seeking the Case Disposition sheet and a legal opinion, after the Commission decided not to refer her human rights complaint to a Board of Inquiry.

The Commission denied access, citing law enforcement and other exemptions.

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the records contained personal information but were exempt under sections 14(1)(a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act because their disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement matter, as the appellant had requested a reconsideration of her complaint.

The requester sought access to day care centre health inspection reports from the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Ministry decided to release the reports after notifying affected third parties.

The Medical Officer of Health appealed the decision, arguing the reports were exempt under sections 17(1) and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and raised discretionary exemptions not claimed by the Ministry.

The Assistant Commissioner found that affected parties cannot rely on discretionary exemptions not claimed by the institution.

The Assistant Commissioner also determined that the Ministry had custody of the reports, the section 17(1) exemption did not apply because the reports were not supplied in confidence, and the reports did not contain personal information.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the reports.

The appellant requested access to an internal audit report regarding the travel expense claims of a named employee of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

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

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the report contained personal information, its disclosure (with names severed) was desirable for the purpose of subjecting the institution's activities to public scrutiny.

The institution was ordered to disclose the report with the names of the affected persons severed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General for records relating to any investigations conducted against him.

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

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records, if they existed, would contain personal information and qualify for exemption under section 14(1)(a) as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter.

Two appellants sought access to reconsideration reports and legal recommendations regarding their human rights complaints.

The institution denied access, citing various exemptions.

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

The head's exercise of discretion to refuse disclosure under section 49(a) was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Agriculture and Food's decision to deny access to Annual Animal Usage Reports for 14 publicly funded colleges, universities, and hospitals.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 14(1)(e), 14(1)(i), and 20 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the security of buildings where animal research is conducted, and that no valid distinction could be drawn between publicly funded and commercial facilities regarding security risks.