Tom Mitchinson

A party requested reconsideration of an order that directed the disclosure of an entry in a Premier's Office employee's appointment calendar.

The Assistant Commissioner found that an accidental error was made in the original order by failing to recognize that the entry described a social event unrelated to employment responsibilities.

The entry was found to contain personal information, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The original order was rescinded in part, and the decision to deny access to the entry was upheld.

The complainant, the sole owner of a company, filed a privacy complaint after the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board issued a press release and posted it on its website detailing charges against him and his company under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The press release included his name, age, home address, and the charges.

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

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

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board for policies and procedures regarding the investigation of alcohol-related driving offences.

The Police denied access, claiming exemptions under sections 8(1)(a), (b), (c), and (e) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the Police failed to establish that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing investigation, reveal confidential investigative techniques, or endanger the life or physical safety of any person.

The Police were ordered to disclose the record in its entirety.

The appellant requested access to a Phase 3 Environmental Site Assessment report regarding a specified address within the City of Toronto.

The City denied access under sections 10(1)(a) and (c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the record contained third-party scientific and technical information supplied in confidence.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the record contained scientific and technical information supplied in confidence, the City and the affected developer failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the developer's competitive position or result in undue loss.

The City was ordered to disclose the record in its entirety.

The appellant, the wife of a deceased individual who died in a fatal subway accident, requested access to police records relating to the investigation of his death.

The Toronto Police Services Board denied access to portions of the records under the personal privacy exemption.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the appellant did not qualify as a personal representative under section 54(a) of the Act because she did not provide the required documentation and her purpose (contemplating a civil lawsuit) did not relate to the administration of the estate.

The Commissioner further held that the records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumed unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b), and that no compelling public interest outweighed the exemption.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.

The Ministry received the request but did not open the envelope for several weeks due to a backlog, and calculated the 30-day statutory response period from the date the envelope was opened.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner held that the 30-day period under section 26 of the Act begins upon receipt of the request, not when the envelope is opened.

The Ministry was deemed to have refused the request under section 29(4) and was ordered to issue a decision without a time extension.

The complainant, a teacher on medical leave, filed a privacy complaint after the College's Human Resources Manager accessed his medical file under threat of termination.

The College argued the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6)1 because they were maintained in relation to ongoing and anticipated proceedings, including grievances and a human rights complaint.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were collected, maintained, and used in relation to labour relations and employment-related proceedings.

Consequently, the records fell within the section 65(6)1 exclusion and were outside the Commissioner's jurisdiction.

The Ministry of the Environment received a freedom of information request for records relating to contamination on a company's property.

The Ministry decided to disclose several records, and the company appealed, arguing the records were exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third party information.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the records contained technical information supplied in confidence, disclosure of most records could not reasonably be expected to cause the harms outlined in section 17(1).

However, specific records containing unique equipment specifications were found to be exempt under section 17(1)(a) as their disclosure could prejudice the company's competitive position.

The Ministry was ordered to withhold those specific records and disclose the remainder.

The appellant requested access to focus group and polling reports on education-related issues from the Ministry of Education and Training.

The Ministry denied access to several records, claiming they contained advice or recommendations under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the factual results and analysis of public opinion in the focus group reports did not constitute advice or recommendations and ordered their disclosure.

However, specific sections containing strategic conclusions and suggested courses of action were found to be exempt.

The appellant's claim that a compelling public interest under section 23 required full disclosure was dismissed, as the public interest was satisfied by the disclosure of the factual results.

The requester sought access to the electronic appointment schedule of a senior employee in the Premier's Office.

Cabinet Office denied access to portions of the records, claiming they were not in the institution's custody or control, or were exempt under various provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records, which were maintained on a government database, were in the lawful custody of the Premier's Office.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of the Cabinet records exemption (s. 12(1)) for entries reflecting the Premier's priority-setting functions, and the personal privacy exemption (s. 21(1)) for entries relating to the employee's personal and partisan activities, as well as the personal information of third parties.

However, entries relating to the employee's professional activities were ordered disclosed.

A requester appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to an 80-page report prepared by the Greater Toronto Trucking Association regarding the towing industry.

The City claimed the record was exempt under section 10(1)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third party commercial information.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while some pages contained commercial and financial information supplied in confidence, the City only established a reasonable expectation of competitive harm for specific pages detailing actual operating expenses and hook-up times.

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

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision regarding a freedom of information request for records related to the Physician Services Committee's recommendations on travel medicine immunizations.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the labour relations exclusion in section 65(6)3 did not apply because there is no employer-employee relationship between the Government and physicians.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's fee estimate and its application of solicitor-client privilege to several records.

However, the Ministry's claims for exemptions under Cabinet records, advice or recommendations, third party information, and economic interests were partially or fully rejected for various records.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose certain records and to conduct a further search for additional responsive records.

A Regional Councillor requested access to bid documents and related correspondence submitted by two companies for a municipal paving contract.

The Region denied access under the third party information exemption in section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that only the unit pricing information qualified for exemption under section 10(1)(a), as its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the companies' competitive position.

The remaining information, including lists of past projects and sub-contractors, did not qualify for exemption.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, and ordered the Region to disclose the non-exempt portions of the records.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated a complaint that a Board of Education disclosed a student's personal information to a private investigator without the parent's consent.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information provided orally by the student's teachers to the private investigator constituted 'personal information' under section 2(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as it existed in recorded form.

The Assistant Commissioner concluded that the Board's disclosure of this information contravened section 32 of the Act and recommended that the Board implement measures to ensure staff compliance with privacy obligations.

An heir tracer appealed the decision of the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee to deny access to a record indicating whether a specific escheated estate remained solvent or had been claimed.

The PGT claimed the personal privacy exemption under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the record contained personal information, its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, given the diminished privacy interest of the deceased and the public interest in assisting unknown heirs to recover funds.

The PGT was ordered to disclose the record, severed of the deceased's Social Insurance Number and any financial information.

The requester, representing the family of a deceased 17-year-old who drowned in the Niagara River, appealed the Niagara Parks Commission's decision to deny access to police investigation records under the personal privacy exemption of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumed unjustified invasion of privacy under section 21(3)(b).

The Assistant Commissioner also discussed the application of stare decisis to administrative tribunals regarding the Divisional Court's decision in John Doe, but ultimately concluded that even if the presumption were rebuttable, the factors favouring disclosure did not outweigh the privacy interests.

The Commission was ordered to disclose only the information originally provided by the deceased's sister, as withholding it would lead to an absurd result.

The Ministry of the Environment received a freedom of information request for records relating to contamination on a company's property.

The company appealed the Ministry's refusal to provide third-party notification for certain additional records.

Following an earlier interim order, the company consented to the full or partial disclosure of several records.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the Ministry to disclose the records in accordance with the company's consent, with the remaining records to be addressed in a subsequent order.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records regarding complaints about OPP response times.

The records included an internal OPP memorandum, correspondence between the Deputy Mayor and the Premier, and an agreement for police services.

The Assistant Commissioner found that information relating to the Deputy Mayor in his official capacity did not constitute personal information.

However, information relating to a third-party affected person, who was the victim of a break-in, qualified as personal information and was exempt from disclosure under section 21(1) of the Act, as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

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

The appellant sought access to records relating to an OPP investigation of a public complaint made by her husband against two police officers.

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

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the records contained personal information and were compiled during a law enforcement investigation, applying the exemptions to records originally provided by or to the appellant and her husband would lead to an absurd result.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the portions of the records that fell under the absurd result exception, with the disclosure stayed pending a related judicial review.

Ontario Hydro received a freedom of information request for records pertaining to a named individual and his corporate entities.

Following Hydro's restructuring into Ontario Power Generation Company (OPGC), the Information and Privacy Commissioner determined it retained jurisdiction over the ongoing request pursuant to a Transfer Order.

The Assistant Commissioner found that a draft communication strategy was exempt under section 18(1)(c) (economic interests).

Portions of invoices and correspondence containing the names, billing rates, and billed times of the third party and his employees were found to be exempt personal information under section 21(1).

However, the remaining corporate and financial information did not qualify for exemption under section 17(1) (third party information) because it was not supplied in confidence and no reasonable expectation of harm was established.

The public interest override in section 23 did not apply to the exempt information.

OPGC was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the records.