Tom Mitchinson

The requester sought access to an internal investigation report regarding a disturbance at the Guelph Correctional Centre.

The Ministry of Correctional Services denied access to the majority of the report under various exemptions, including section 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that the record was a report prepared in the course of law enforcement by an agency with the function of enforcing and regulating compliance with a law.

The head's decision to deny access to the entire record under section 14(2)(a) was upheld.

The requester sought access to documents regarding the ownership of enhancements made to the SkyDome stadium.

The institution denied access to the entire 38-page record under various exemptions and estimated a fee of $43.77.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of the section 18(1)(c) exemption to the financial section and parts of the memo section, finding disclosure could prejudice the institution's economic interests.

The remaining exemptions under sections 18, 17, and 13 were not established for the rest of the memo section.

The Assistant Commissioner also disallowed the $35.00 search fee due to lack of evidence and ordered the remaining minimal fees waived, directing disclosure of the non-exempt portions of the record.

The appellant requested a list of consultants hired by the Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited, including descriptions of work and total payments.

The institution denied access to the payment amounts for three consultants who did not consent, relying on the third-party information exemption under section 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the payment amounts were calculated by the institution and not 'supplied' by the third parties.

As the second part of the section 17 test was not met, the exemption did not apply, and the institution was ordered to disclose the payment amounts.

The appellant requested a report from the Ministry of Health and was charged a $30.80 photocopying fee.

The appellant sought a fee waiver, arguing the report contained his personal information and that payment would cause financial hardship.

The Assistant Commissioner found the report did not contain the appellant's personal information and that the appellant failed to establish financial hardship.

The head's decision not to waive the fee was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to records concerning the employment and admitting privileges of a physician at a psychiatric hospital.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Minister had properly delegated decision-making authority to the Deputy Minister.

The records contained personal information.

The Assistant Commissioner held that disclosure of the physician's employment records would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, but disclosure of the physician's hospital practice licence would not, as similar information is publicly available from the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

A draft regulation was found to be exempt from disclosure, while the published version was ordered disclosed.

The public interest override did not apply.

The appellant, an unsuccessful applicant for employment as an O.P.P. constable, requested access to his background investigation file.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General denied access to portions of the record containing interviews with previous employers under section 49(c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the severed information qualified as personal information and met the three-part test for exemption under section 49(c), as it was evaluative material compiled solely for employment suitability and provided in confidence.

The head's decision to deny access was upheld.