Tom Mitchinson

The appellant requested police records relating to the sudden death of his sister, acting as the estate trustee.

The London Police Services Board denied access under various exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that while the appellant was a personal representative, the request did not relate to the administration of the estate, precluding him from exercising the deceased's access rights.

The records were largely exempt as their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy, having been compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

However, applying the absurd result principle, the Commissioner ordered the disclosure of specific pages containing the appellant's own personal information.

The appellant, a Correctional Officer, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to a workplace investigation into allegations against him.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the factors favouring privacy protection, including the highly sensitive nature of the information and the expectation of confidentiality, outweighed the factors favouring disclosure.

The adjudicator also found that the Ministry's search for responsive records was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for information regarding the ranks and educational levels of former municipal Chiefs of Police who joined the Ontario Provincial Police following police service amalgamations.

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

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner found that while the records related to an employment-related matter, the Ministry failed to establish a sufficient legal interest, as there was no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable dispute that had the capacity to affect the Ministry's legal rights or obligations.

The Ministry was ordered to issue an access decision under the Act.

The appellant requested access to original documents containing the signature of his deceased father-in-law, a former employee of the Town of Ancaster, to verify the signature on the deceased's Will.

The Town denied access under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming it would be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that while the signature qualified as personal information, its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy given the circumstances, including the estate administrator's lack of objection.

The Town was ordered to provide access via an on-site examination.

An employee of the Toronto Police Services Board appealed a decision denying access to 73 pages of his departmental medical file.

The Police claimed the records fell outside the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act pursuant to section 52(3).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were collected and used in relation to an employment-related matter in which the Police had a legal interest, specifically the maintenance of discipline and a potential grievance regarding the employee's transfer.

The records were therefore excluded from the Act's jurisdiction.

A member of the media requested access to a settlement agreement between the City of Hamilton and a former employee regarding a wrongful dismissal lawsuit.

The City denied access, claiming exemptions for economic interests, solicitor-client privilege, and personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the settlement agreement was not exempt under the economic interests or solicitor-client privilege exemptions, as it was an executed contract intended to end litigation and the City failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of financial harm.

The adjudicator also found that, with the exception of a schedule containing a letter of reference, disclosure of the agreement would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, given the public interest in scrutinizing the expenditure of public funds.

The City was ordered to disclose the agreement and two of its schedules.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to deny access to records relating to pay equity funding and redistribution.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, primarily arguing the records would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations (section 12(1)).

The Assistant Commissioner refused to allow the Ministry to raise a new discretionary exemption late in the process.

Most of the records were found to be exempt under section 12(1) as they were Cabinet submissions, drafts, or contained information that would reveal Cabinet deliberations.

However, one record and several fax transmittal sheets were ordered disclosed as they did not qualify for the exemption.

The appellant requested bulk access to a database containing information on all physicians in Ontario from the Ministry of Health.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records contained personal information and disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that while individual physician information is publicly available through the College of Physicians and Surgeons, bulk disclosure by the Ministry raises different privacy concerns and would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The appellant's claim of a compelling public interest under section 23 was also dismissed.

The appellant, representing the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (O.P.S.E.U.), appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to position specifications for essential service positions during a 1996 strike.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were currently being used by the Ministry in relation to ongoing labour relations negotiations.

Consequently, the records fell within the scope of section 65(6)2 and were excluded from the Act.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

A municipal councillor requested access to information regarding the past performance of a construction company that was recommended for a contract despite not being the lowest bidder.

The Township disclosed some information but withheld the names, employers, addresses, and telephone numbers of two individuals who provided references, claiming exemptions for third party information and personal information.

The adjudicator found that the withheld information was neither technical information under section 10(1) nor personal information under section 2(1), as it related to the individuals in their professional capacities.

The adjudicator ordered the disclosure of the withheld information and found the Township's search for records to be reasonable.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to the Inter-ministerial Committee for Aboriginal Emergencies and the Ipperwash Provincial Park occupation.

The sole remaining issue was whether two pages of draft statements to be read in court were exempt under section 19 of the Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that litigation privilege had expired because the injunction application was withdrawn in 1995 and current litigation did not arise from the same subject matter.

Furthermore, the records did not qualify for solicitor-client communication privilege as they were read in court and did not constitute legal advice.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

A requester sought access to contracts between Ontario Hydro and a consulting firm.

Hydro decided to disclose the records.

The consulting firm appealed, claiming the records contained personal information and third party commercial information exempt under sections 21(1) and 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained corporate, not personal, information, and that the consulting firm failed to establish that the commercial information was supplied in confidence or that its disclosure would cause harm.

The appeal was dismissed and Hydro was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant sought access to records relating to the Emergency Planning for Aboriginal Issues Interministerial Committee and Ipperwash Provincial Park.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to certain records, claiming solicitor-client and litigation privilege under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that litigation privilege no longer applied because the specific litigation (an injunction application) had been terminated and ongoing litigation did not arise from the same subject matter.

However, the Commissioner upheld the application of solicitor-client communication privilege for certain legal opinions and advice, while ordering the disclosure of draft court documents and factual information that did not reveal confidential communications.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to the Interministerial Committee for Aboriginal Emergencies and the Core Working Group.

The Assistant Commissioner considered whether the records were exempt under the litigation privilege and solicitor-client communication privilege in section 19, and the personal privacy exemption in section 21(1).

The Assistant Commissioner found that litigation privilege did not apply as the specific litigation had terminated and ongoing litigation did not arise from the same subject matter.

However, some records qualified for solicitor-client communication privilege.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that certain information qualified as personal information and was exempt under section 21(1).

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

The appellant requested access to police records relating to the investigation into her husband's sudden death.

The Police denied access under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The adjudicator found that the appellant did not establish she was the personal representative of her husband's estate under section 54(a).

Furthermore, the records were compiled during a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption of an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b), which could not be rebutted.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

A member of the media requested access to a settlement agreement and related records regarding a human rights complaint involving the Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Police.

The Municipality denied access under the closed meeting and personal privacy exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that some records revealed the substance of closed meeting deliberations and were exempt.

Other records contained personal information subject to a confidentiality clause, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The public interest override did not apply.

Partial disclosure of the settlement agreement and certain appendices was ordered.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of records relating to provincial involvement in a federal investment in a cancer vaccine project.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13, 15, and 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that some severed portions were not responsive to the request.

Most of the remaining records qualified for exemption under section 17(1) as third party commercial or financial information supplied in confidence, or under section 15(b) as information received in confidence from another government.

However, the Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of certain records and portions of records that did not meet the exemption criteria.

The appellant, a suspended police officer, requested access to the notebooks of two other officers relating to the events leading to his suspension.

The Toronto Police Services Board denied access, claiming the records were employment-related and excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3).

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the records were collected in relation to an anticipated disciplinary hearing under the Police Services Act, which constitutes a proceeding relating to employment, thereby excluding the records from the Act's jurisdiction.

The appellant, an unsuccessful candidate for a Legal Counsel position, requested access to job competition records, including interview questions, model answers, and interviewers' notes.

The Ministry of the Attorney General 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 while the records related to an employment matter, the Ministry no longer had a legal interest in the completed competition that could affect its legal rights or obligations.

The records were therefore subject to the Act.

The Ministry was ordered to issue an access decision and conduct a further search for additional responsive records.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated a complaint that amalgamated cities provided incumbent Councillors with access to citizens' personal information, including names, addresses, and real estate transaction details.

The City argued the information was a public record and that Councillors needed it to perform their duties.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information constituted personal information under section 2(1) of the Act.

The public record exclusion in section 27 did not apply because the City itself did not maintain the information as a public record.

Furthermore, the routine disclosure of this information to Councillors was not in accordance with section 32 of the Act, as it was not necessary for the discharge of the City's functions.

The City was ordered to ensure personal information is disclosed only in compliance with section 32.