Tom Mitchinson

The appellant appealed a decision by Ontario Hydro to disclose records relating to a contract for financial advisory services.

The appellant claimed the records, including a transaction fee schedule and a purchase order, were exempt from disclosure under sections 17(1)(a) and (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third party commercial and financial information.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the purchase order was responsive to the request.

Furthermore, the Assistant Commissioner determined that the financial information in the records was the result of negotiations between the parties and was not 'supplied' in confidence.

As the second part of the section 17(1) test was not met, the records did not qualify for the exemption and were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Health seeking documentation regarding the spending of government money on the lease of a named independent health facility.

The Ministry denied access to five responsive financial records under the third party information exemption in section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that while the detailed breakdown of funding arrangements and specific operating costs qualified for exemption under sections 17(1)(a) and (c) due to potential competitive harm and security concerns, the overall funding levels did not.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the overall funding levels.

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

The Ministry provided third party notice to the company for 17 records but refused to provide notice for additional records it intended to disclose.

The company appealed the refusal to provide notice.

The Assistant Commissioner held that the refusal to provide notice is an appealable decision under the Act.

The Assistant Commissioner further found that the Ministry had reason to believe the additional records might contain exempt third party information and therefore failed to fulfil its notification obligations under section 28(1)(a).

The Ministry was ordered to disclose records not requiring notice, while a supplementary notice of inquiry was issued for the remaining records.

The complainant, a member of a Girl Guide organization, made comments about the local Police Service which were overheard and reported to the Police.

The Police subsequently investigated the matter, collecting statements and contacting the Girl Guide organization.

The complainant filed a privacy complaint alleging the Police improperly collected, used, and disclosed her personal information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information was the complainant's personal information and that the Police's collection, indirect collection, use, and disclosure of this information were not for a valid law enforcement purpose and therefore violated sections 28(2), 29(1), 31, and 32 of the Act.

The Police were ordered to ensure staff awareness of the Act's collection provisions.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for OPP investigation records relating to a fatal motor vehicle accident involving his son.

The Ministry denied access to several witness statements and police notes, citing personal privacy exemptions, and withheld police 'ten-codes' under the law enforcement exemption.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the personal information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and its disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b) of the Act.

The Commissioner also upheld the exemption of the ten-codes under section 14(1)(l), as their release could compromise police communications and officer safety.

The appellant appealed the LCBO's decision to deny access to records relating to a named winery's application to relocate its retail store.

The LCBO claimed exemptions under sections 13(1), 17(1), and 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that several records were exempt under solicitor-client privilege and the third-party commercial information exemption.

However, the Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of certain records that did not qualify as advice or recommendations or confidential third-party information.

The appellant requested records relating to a job competition for a Legal Counsel position with the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6)3 as employment-related matters in which the Ministry had an interest.

The Assistant Commissioner found that because the job competition was completed and all dispute resolution avenues were exhausted, the Ministry no longer had a legal interest in the records.

The records were found to be within the scope of the Act and ordered disclosed.

The appellant requested access to various manuals used by the Centre for Forensic Sciences.

The Ministry granted partial access and charged search and photocopying fees.

The appellant argued the manuals should be available in a public reading room under sections 33 and 35 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, precluding search fees.

The Assistant Commissioner found the manuals met the criteria for public availability and ordered them placed in a reading room, ruling that search and preparation fees cannot be charged for such records.

The Ministry's exemption claims under sections 14(1)(l) and 14(1)(i) were largely rejected, though specific explosives testing procedures and personal information were exempted.

The appellant requested access to performance appraisal notes and forms under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

In a previous order, the Commissioner found that section 65(6)3 did not apply because there was no ongoing grievance, and ordered a further search.

The Ministry subsequently denied access, claiming the records did not exist.

After the appellant filed a grievance, the Ministry argued the records were now excluded under section 65(6)3.

The Commissioner rejected the appellant's argument that issue estoppel prevented reconsideration of the jurisdictional issue, finding that the new grievance constituted a special circumstance.

The Commissioner concluded that the records, if they exist, relate to an employment-related matter in which the Ministry has an interest due to the ongoing grievance, and are therefore excluded from the Act's jurisdiction.

Two former employees of the Township of North Stormont requested access to reports regarding a water and sewer project.

The Township denied access to a five-page letter written by a third party, claiming exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the record was not excluded under section 52(3)3 because the Township no longer had a legal interest in the employment matter following a settlement.

The Commissioner also rejected the Township's claims that the record was exempt as third party information under section 10(1)(b) or as revealing closed meeting deliberations under section 6(1)(b).

The Township was ordered to disclose the record, with the third party's home address severed.

The appellant, who was found by the courts to have a 50% interest in a winning lottery ticket, requested to view the original ticket under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ontario Lottery Corporation denied the request, citing security concerns and the privacy of the other 50% owner whose personal information was on the ticket.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered the OLC to allow the appellant to view the original ticket, finding that the privacy exemption did not apply because the appellant already knew the information, and that viewing the original ticket was reasonably practicable with appropriate security measures.

The appellant requested records relating to the Report of the Ontario Justice of the Peace Remuneration Commission.

The Management Board Secretariat denied access to the records, claiming exemptions under sections 12(1) and 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that most of the records were exempt under section 12(1) as their disclosure would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

Portions of other records were found exempt under section 13(1) as advice or recommendations.

The Assistant Commissioner rejected the appellant's arguments that the public interest override in section 23 applied, and that section 11(d) of the Charter required disclosure to ensure judicial independence.

The institution was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the records, subject to a stay pending a judicial review on a jurisdictional issue.

The appellant requested records relating to the Report of the Ontario Justice of the Peace Remuneration Commission.

The Ministry denied access to the records, claiming exemptions for Cabinet records, advice or recommendations, and solicitor-client privilege.

The Assistant Commissioner found that most of the records were exempt under the claimed provisions.

The Assistant Commissioner also determined that the public interest override did not apply to the records exempt under the advice or recommendations provision, and that the constitutional requirement to ensure judicial independence under section 11(d) of the Charter did not mandate disclosure of the records under the Act.

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

The requester appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to a shareholders' agreement of a forest management company under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The agreement was submitted to the Ministry to obtain a Sustainable Forest Licence under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the agreement contained commercial and financial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the competitive position or interfere with the contractual negotiations of the affected party.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant sought access to records from the Cabinet Office regarding the Red Tape Commission's communications with the Ministry of the Environment.

The Cabinet Office denied access to several records, claiming exemptions under sections 12(1) and 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Red Tape Commission plays an integral role in the Cabinet decision-making process.

Consequently, the records qualify for exemption under the introductory wording of section 12(1), as their disclosure would reveal the substance of deliberations of the Executive Council or its committees.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Environment's decision to deny access to records relating to the Red Tape Commission under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 12(1) as Cabinet records.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Red Tape Commission performs an integral role in the Cabinet decision-making process and that disclosure of the records would reveal the substance of deliberations of Cabinet or its committees.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to a Ministry of Labour investigation report regarding a fatal industrial accident.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the report, witness statements, and investigator notes under the personal information exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, triggering the presumption against disclosure in section 21(3)(b).

The adjudicator also found that the appellant's regulatory mandate did not establish a compelling public interest under section 23 that would outweigh the privacy exemption.

The Ministry requested a reconsideration of Order P-1575, which had ordered a further search for records relating to the appellant's performance appraisal.

The Ministry argued that the appellant's subsequent filing of a grievance constituted new evidence that brought the records under the employment-related exclusion in section 65(6)3 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner denied the reconsideration request, finding that he was functus officio as there was no jurisdictional defect or accidental error in the original decision.

Furthermore, the reconsideration was moot because the Ministry had already fully complied with the original order.

The Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board requested a reconsideration of Order MO-1167, which had found that certain employment-related records requested by an employee were subject to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board provided new evidence that a grievance had in fact been filed, contrary to the factual finding in the original order.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the original decision was based on an accidental error of fact regarding the existence of the grievance, permitting reconsideration under the doctrine of functus officio.

Upon reconsideration, the Assistant Commissioner concluded that the records related to an employment-related matter in which the Board had a legal interest, bringing them within the scope of section 52(3) and outside the jurisdiction of the Act.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Lindsay Police Services Board denying access to a line-by-line budget document under the closed meeting exemption in section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the budget was discussed in camera, the Police failed to establish that a statute authorized holding the meeting in the absence of the public, as the discussions did not qualify as 'intimate financial matters' under the Police Services Act or the Board's By-Law.

The Police were ordered to disclose the record.