Tom Mitchinson

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to various records relating to the Ipperwash incident under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that some records were exempt under solicitor-client privilege, Cabinet records, advice or recommendations, relations with other governments, and personal privacy.

However, the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of several records, finding that the public interest override applied to the advice or recommendations exemption, and that the third party information and economic interests exemptions did not apply.

The Ministry was also ordered to conduct a further search for responsive records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to police occurrence reports and a public complaint file.

The Ministry claimed the public complaint file was excluded from the Act under section 65(6) as an employment-related matter.

The Assistant Commissioner found that section 65(6) did not apply because the investigation occurred six years prior and there was no ongoing legal interest or anticipated proceeding.

Regarding the occurrence reports, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the law enforcement exemption because the records were not 'reports'.

However, some personal information of other individuals was exempt under the invasion of privacy exemption, while information originally supplied by the appellant was ordered disclosed to avoid an absurd result.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Education and Training's decision to deny access to records relating to the approval of a registered massage therapy program at a private vocational school.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under section 17(1) (third party information) and section 21(1) (invasion of privacy).

The adjudicator found that certain records contained the personal information of consultants and were exempt under section 21(1).

The adjudicator also found that portions of the records constituted trade secrets of the school and were exempt under section 17(1), as they were supplied in confidence and their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the school's competitive position.

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

The appellant appealed the Ministry's search for records relating to the Emergency Planning for Aboriginal Issues Interministerial Committee and Ipperwash Provincial Park.

In an interim order, the adjudicator found the initial search unreasonable and ordered the Ministry to conduct further searches and provide affidavits detailing the search efforts and record management practices.

The Ministry provided the affidavits and located additional responsive records.

The adjudicator found the Ministry's subsequent search efforts and explanations regarding electronic records satisfactory, but determined the Ministry took an overly restrictive approach by excluding 23 records dated within the requested timeframe simply because the named individual's name did not appear on the face of the record.

The Ministry was ordered to issue an access decision for those 23 records.

An anonymous complainant alleged that the Ministry of Labour violated privacy by providing client telephone numbers to a private company for a client service survey.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether the information constituted 'personal information' and whether it was improperly disclosed.

The Assistant Commissioner concluded that the information was personal information.

Although there was no evidence that an actual disclosure occurred, any such disclosure would not have complied with section 42 of the Act.

The Ministry was recommended to ensure future surveys comply with notice and consent requirements.

The City of Toronto received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to the environmental contamination of a former gasoline service station.

The City decided to disclose the records.

An affected organization appealed, arguing the records were exempt under sections 10(1)(a) and (b) as third party information supplied in confidence.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while some records contained technical or commercial information, none were supplied in confidence with a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure.

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

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee for records relating to his wife's life, health care, and property, acting as her attorney for property and personal care.

The Trustee denied access to 16 pages, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, solicitor-client privilege, and danger to health.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of most records, finding that administrative checklists do not constitute advice, external correspondence is not covered by solicitor-client or litigation privilege, and there was insufficient evidence that disclosing a financial statement would prejudice anyone's health.

However, internal communications between the Trustee's staff and legal counsel were found to be exempt under solicitor-client communication privilege.

The appellant requested access to the service records of three named police officers, including prior or pending complaints and internal discipline procedures.

The Halton Regional Police Services Board estimated a fee of $2,850 based on a search of 957 disciplinary files.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Police interpreted the request too broadly, leading to an unnecessarily high fee estimate.

The Police were ordered to conduct a new search based on the plain wording of the request and issue a new access decision.

In a final order following Interim Order M-1121, the Assistant Commissioner considered whether the Woodstock Police Services Board conducted a reasonable search for 911 audio recordings.

The police provided affidavits explaining that discrepancies in the length of gaps and audio quality between two cassette tapes were due to the use of a 'Multi Music Scan' feature and different volume settings during copying.

The Assistant Commissioner accepted the explanation, found the search reasonable, and reminded the police of their inherent responsibility to retain original records subject to an ongoing access request.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Halton Regional Police Services Board denying access to an occurrence report and police notebook entries relating to an incident involving the appellant.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Police's decision, finding that the records related to an ongoing law enforcement investigation and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with that investigation under sections 8(1)(a) and (b) and 38(a) of the Act.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Halton Regional Police Services Board refusing to confirm or deny the existence of surveillance records concerning him, pursuant to section 8(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that if such records existed, their disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or reveal law enforcement intelligence information under sections 8(1)(a), (b), and (g).

Furthermore, disclosing the mere existence or non-existence of the records would communicate exempt information.

The Police's decision was upheld.

A non-profit environmental coalition appealed the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation's decision to deny access to two archaeological assessment reports related to timber management planning.

The Ministry and affected third parties claimed the records were exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as scientific and technical information supplied in confidence.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records met the three-part test for exemption under section 17(1)(b), as disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in similar information no longer being supplied to the Ministry.

The appellant failed to establish a compelling public interest in disclosure under section 23.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner (PCC) for records relating to an investigation of a police constable.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to certain records, claiming law enforcement and privacy exemptions.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner considered whether the records were excluded from the Act under the labour relations exclusion in section 65(6).

The Assistant Commissioner found that records exchanged between the PCC and the municipal police force were excluded, but internal PCC records were not.

The internal records were ordered disclosed, except for the investigator's notes which were exempt as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry was also ordered to conduct a further search for missing records.

A member of the media appealed Ontario Hydro's decision to deny access to portions of a report concerning the retubing of CANDU nuclear reactors.

Hydro claimed the withheld portions contained confidential technical and commercial information supplied by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), and were exempt under sections 17(1)(a), (b), and (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while section 17(1)(b) did not apply, most of the withheld records qualified for exemption under sections 17(1)(a) and/or (c) because their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice AECL's competitive position or result in undue loss.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as the information already disclosed was sufficient to satisfy the public interest in nuclear safety and cost accountability.

Hydro was ordered to disclose certain portions of the records that contained previously disclosed information, while its decision to withhold the remaining records was upheld.

A reporter appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services' response to a freedom of information request for records relating to the Emergency Planning for Aboriginal Issues Interministerial Committee and Ipperwash Provincial Park.

The appellant argued that more responsive records should exist.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry failed to provide sufficient evidence to show it had made a reasonable effort to identify and locate responsive records.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct further searches and provide detailed affidavits regarding the searches and record management practices.

The appellant requested access to records of catering and meal charges paid by the District School Board Number 26.

The Board provided a fee estimate of $840 for 30 hours of search time but did not provide an interim access decision.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Board failed to provide sufficient information to justify the fee estimate and failed to follow the established procedure of providing an interim access decision.

The fee estimate was disallowed, and the Board was ordered to issue a final access decision.

The appellant sought access to records concerning the Coroner's investigation into the pregnancy and delivery of a stillborn child by his daughter.

The Ministry denied access under the law enforcement exemptions in sections 14(1)(a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, read with section 49(a).

The Assistant Commissioner found that because the police investigation had concluded and charges had been laid, disclosure could not reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing investigation or law enforcement matter.

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

The appellant, a police officer, requested access to an OPP investigation report regarding allegations of his misconduct.

The Ministry denied access under section 65(6)3 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the records related to employment-related matters.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Police is an 'institution' for the purpose of section 65(6) and had a legal interest in the investigation under the Police Services Act.

The records were therefore excluded from the scope of the Act.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to handwritten notes regarding the occupation of Ipperwash Provincial Park.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under various sections, including section 19 (solicitor-client privilege).

The Assistant Commissioner first determined that most of the disputed records were responsive to the request, rejecting the Ministry's narrow interpretation.

However, the Assistant Commissioner found that the records, prepared by a Crown lawyer acting as Assistant Secretary, were prepared for use in giving legal advice.

Therefore, the records qualified for exemption under Branch 2 of section 19.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested an occurrence report from the Halton Regional Police Services Board regarding an alleged assault against him.

The Police disclosed the report but severed references to the alleged assailant, relying on exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the exemptions for law enforcement and invasion of privacy did not apply, as the appellant had originally provided the severed information to the Police.

The Assistant Commissioner also noted that the Police improperly fettered their discretion by relying on a blanket policy of refusing access when criminal charges are before the courts.

The Police were ordered to disclose the entire record.