Tom Mitchinson

The appellants appealed the Town of Milton's decision to deny access to records relating to complaints made against them regarding their property.

The records included police and by-law enforcement occurrence reports, statements, a videotape, and photographs.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Town's decision, finding that the records contained the personal information of other identifiable individuals and were compiled as part of an ongoing law enforcement investigation.

Disclosure was presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and Record 10 was exempt under section 38(a) as its disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing investigation.

The appellant requested access to police notebook entries regarding an incident involving a local transit authority.

The Toronto Police Services Board denied access to a witness's personal information under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing the presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

After being ordered to reconsider its exercise of discretion, the Police provided further representations.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Police's decision, finding that they had properly weighed the competing interests and exercised their discretion in favour of protecting the third party's privacy.

A journalist requested information from the Ontario Realty Corporation regarding all properties sold since 1995, specifically seeking the purchaser's name, address, and purchase price.

The ORC denied access to information about individual purchasers under the personal privacy exemption and to some business purchasers under the third-party commercial information exemption.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the business purchaser information did not meet the test for exemption under section 17(1) and ordered its disclosure.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the individual purchaser information was exempt under section 21(1), except where consent was provided, but deferred the final decision to seek representations on whether the compelling public interest override in section 23 applied.

The appellant requested a correction of personal information contained in two letters sent to him by the Ministry of Finance regarding his property assessment and an access request.

The Ministry denied the request, arguing that some of the information was not personal information and that the rest was accurate.

The Assistant Commissioner found that all the information at issue was the appellant's personal information.

However, the Assistant Commissioner concluded that the appellant failed to establish that the information was inexact, incomplete, or ambiguous, and dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant's right to file a statement of disagreement.

The requester appealed the Township of Edwardsburgh's decision regarding access to a May 1999 environmental monitoring report prepared by a consultant.

The Township claimed the report was not in its custody or control, as it had been rejected and returned to the consultant, who retained physical possession.

The Assistant Commissioner applied a purposive approach to the 'custody or control' test under section 4(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Finding that the consultant acted as an agent for the Township in fulfilling its statutory core function of obtaining a Certificate of Approval, the Assistant Commissioner concluded the record was under the Township's control and ordered the Township to obtain the record and issue an access decision.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Correctional Services for records relating to his incarceration, including medical and detention centre records.

The Ministry denied access to several records, claiming they were excluded under the labour relations and employment provisions of section 65(6) due to an anticipated civil lawsuit by the appellant against the Crown.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were not excluded under section 65(6) because the anticipated proceedings did not arise in an employment or labour relations context.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the exemption of the Correctional Officers' names under section 49(b) to protect their personal privacy, but ordered the disclosure of the remaining portions of the records, finding that the Ministry failed to establish that disclosure would jeopardize the security of the detention centre under section 14(1)(k).

The Ministry's search for records was deemed reasonable.

The appellant sought access to police notebook entries regarding an incident involving the local transit authority.

The Police granted partial access, withholding information relating to a witness under the personal privacy exemption.

In a previous interim order, the Assistant Commissioner found the Police failed to exercise their discretion under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

After reviewing the Police's subsequent representations on their exercise of discretion, the Assistant Commissioner found the Police still failed to properly balance the competing interests of access and privacy, and ordered them to reconsider their exercise of discretion.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General for records relating to the movements of a named individual at Camp Ipperwash.

The Ministry refused to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records pursuant to section 21(5) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that disclosing the mere existence or non-existence of the records would reveal personal information about the named individual's involvement in law enforcement activities, constituting an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

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

The appellant appealed the Niagara Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to call trace records obtained from Bell Canada.

In an interim order, the Assistant Commissioner found the records fell under the presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy exemption but ordered the Police to exercise their discretion under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police subsequently provided representations explaining their decision to withhold the records, balancing the right of access against the privacy rights of third parties.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Police's exercise of discretion and found the records exempt under section 38(b).

The appellants appealed the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care's decision to deny access to records relating to the regulation of osteopathic practitioners.

In an interim order, the Assistant Commissioner deferred consideration of certain records pending notification of affected persons.

The affected persons consented to disclosure.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the remaining records did not qualify for exemption under sections 13(1), 18(1)(g), 19, or 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, except for one portion containing personal information of an unidentified individual.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records with that single severance.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the South Bruce-Grey Police Services Board for records relating to police investigations involving himself.

The Police disclosed some records but withheld others under the law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions, and refused to confirm or deny the existence of records relating to a specific incident.

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the withheld records did not qualify as law enforcement reports but were exempt as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Commissioner also held that the Police could not refuse to confirm or deny the existence of the remaining records, but found those records were also exempt under the personal privacy exemption.

A conflict of interest allegation against the Police's FOI Co-ordinator was dismissed.

The appellant, through their lawyer, submitted a freedom of information request to the Peel Regional Police Services Board for records relating to a fraud investigation involving the appellant.

The Police granted partial access but denied access to the majority of the records under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant appealed, arguing the decision letter was inadequate, the "absurd result" doctrine should apply since they knew the identities of the individuals involved, and the search for records was incomplete.

The Assistant Commissioner found the initial decision letter inadequate but noted a revised letter had been provided.

The Assistant Commissioner rejected the application of the "absurd result" doctrine, upheld the privacy exemption as the records were compiled during a law enforcement investigation, and concluded the Police conducted a reasonable search.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested records relating to a job competition for a Legal Counsel position with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act pursuant to section 65(6)3.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the records related to an employment-related matter, the Ministry did not have a sufficient legal interest in the records to bring them within the ambit of section 65(6)3, as all possible avenues to challenge the outcome of the competition had been exhausted.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records, subject to a stay pending judicial review.

The appellant submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for financial records of a day care operator from 1994 to 1998.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services provided wage subsidy statements but stated no other financial records existed, as the day care was not required to submit annual audited financial statements.

The appellant appealed, arguing that further records should exist under the Day Nurseries Act and other funding arrangements.

The adjudicator found that the Ministry had made reasonable efforts to search for responsive records and provided sufficient explanations for why additional records did not exist.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a lawyer representing a client injured in a transit incident, requested police notebook entries containing a witness statement.

The Police treated the request as a general records request under Part I of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and denied access under section 14(1), relying on the presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy in section 14(3)(b).

The adjudicator found that because the lawyer was acting as an agent for the client, the request should have been processed as a request for personal information under Part II of the Act.

While the section 14(3)(b) presumption applied, the Police were ordered to reconsider their exercise of discretion under section 38(b) in light of the specific circumstances of the case.

The appellant requested access to call trace records obtained by the Niagara Regional Police Services Board during an investigation into harassing phone calls.

The Police denied access under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, treating it as a Part I request.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the request fell under Part II because the records contained the personal information of the appellant's clients.

While the presumption of an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) applied, the Police were ordered to exercise their discretion under section 38(b) to determine whether to disclose the records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Environment's decision to deny access to portions of a successful proposal for the Drive Clean Program.

The Ministry and the affected third party company claimed the records contained trade secrets and commercial information supplied in confidence.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records met the three-part test for exemption under section 17(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the competitive position of the company.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board denying access to records relating to the death of his daughter and the alleged theft of her property.

The appellant sought access as the personal representative of his daughter's estate under section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the appellant was the personal representative, only the records relating to the alleged theft related to the administration of the estate.

However, all records were found to be exempt from disclosure under sections 14(1) and 38(b) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, given they were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The requester appealed Ontario Hydro's decision to deny access to records produced by a consultant regarding options for its Nuclear Division.

Ontario Power Generation (OPG), acting on behalf of Hydro, claimed exemptions under sections 13(1) and 18(1)(c) and (d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained commercially sensitive financial information and advice regarding the divestiture of nuclear assets, qualifying for the claimed exemptions.

The Assistant Commissioner also determined that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as the records related to a commercial transaction rather than public safety or health.

The decision to withhold the records was upheld, though OPG agreed to disclose certain portions during the inquiry.

The appellants appealed the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care's decision to deny access to records relating to the regulation of osteopathic practitioners.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 12, 13, 18, 19, and 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found the Ministry's decision letter inadequate but required no further action.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of several records, finding they did not qualify for the claimed exemptions, while upholding the Ministry's decision to deny access to the remainder based on Cabinet records, solicitor-client privilege, advice or recommendations, and personal privacy exemptions.