Tom Mitchinson

An occasional supply teacher requested records from the Toronto District School Board regarding teacher hirings and supply lists.

The Board denied access, claiming the records fell under the labour relations exclusion in section 52(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester appealed.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Board's decision, finding that because the requester had subsequently filed a grievance, the records were being maintained in relation to a labour relations proceeding before an arbitrator, thereby excluding them from the Act's jurisdiction.

The appellant, an employee of the Ministry of the Attorney General, requested access to notes made by evaluators during her performance appraisal.

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.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry did not have a legal interest capable of affecting its rights or obligations, as the time to grieve the appraisal had expired.

The Assistant Commissioner also found the Ministry's search for records unreasonable because it failed to look for recreated notes after the originals were improperly destroyed, and ordered a further search.

The appellant appealed Ontario Hydro's response to a freedom of information request for records relating to a report on metal discharges from a nuclear generating station.

The issues included the scope of the request, whether the identity of a reference facility was exempt as third-party commercial information, whether notes of Expert Panel members were in Hydro's custody or control, and the reasonableness of Hydro's search for records.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of the reference facility's identity, finding it did not meet the test for exemption under section 17(1).

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the Expert Panel members' notes were not in Hydro's custody or control and that Hydro's search for responsive records was reasonable.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for bulk access to the data elements of the ONBIS database.

The Ministry denied access, arguing that producing the record would require new computer programs and unreasonably interfere with its operations.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that extracting the data elements would require hardware, software, and technical expertise not normally used by the Ministry, and would cause significant service interruptions.

Consequently, the requested bulk data did not meet the definition of a 'record' under section 2 of the Act and section 2 of Regulation 460.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat (ONAS) for records relating to the Point Grondine #3 land claim.

ONAS denied access to numerous records, claiming various exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed.

On reconsideration, the Assistant Commissioner allowed ONAS to raise late discretionary exemptions due to the complexity of the records and potential prejudice to land claim negotiations.

The Assistant Commissioner found that many records were exempt under section 15(a) (intergovernmental relations), section 12(1) (Cabinet records), section 13(1) (advice or recommendations), and section 19 (solicitor-client privilege).

However, several records did not meet the criteria for these exemptions or for sections 15(b) and 18(1)(a), and were ordered to be disclosed.

The Ontario Federation of Justices of the Peace Associations appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's refusal to disclose records relating to the 1995 Report of the Ontario Justice of the Peace Remuneration Commission.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6)3 as they related to employment-related matters.

The Assistant Commissioner found that because justices of the peace are independent judicial officers and not employees of the Crown, the employment-related exclusion did not apply.

The Ministry was ordered to issue a new access decision.

The appellant, the Ontario Federation of Justices of the Peace Associations, appealed a decision by the Management Board Secretariat denying access to records relating to the Report of the Ontario Justice of the Peace Remuneration Commission.

The Secretariat claimed the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6)3 as they related to employment-related matters.

The Assistant Commissioner found that because justices of the peace are independent judicial officers and not employees of the Crown, the employer/employee relationship required to trigger section 65(6)3 did not exist.

The Secretariat was ordered to issue a new decision letter processing the request under the Act.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for a legal opinion obtained by the Ministry of Natural Resources regarding its authority to charge anchoring fees in a provincial park.

The Ministry denied access, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant argued the Ministry waived privilege by referencing the opinion in correspondence.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the record was subject to common law solicitor-client privilege and that the Ministry's minimal references to the opinion outside of a litigation context did not constitute an implied waiver.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

Ontario Hydro requested a reconsideration of an order requiring it to disclose a contract with a named individual.

Hydro argued there were jurisdictional defects in the interpretation of sections 65(6), 65(7), 18(1)(c), 14(1)(e), and 17(1) of the Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found no jurisdictional errors, noting that Hydro's arguments related to findings of fact and the weighing of evidence.

The request for reconsideration was denied, but a temporary stay of the order was granted pending settlement discussions regarding a judicial review application.

The appellant requested access to records detailing the number and species of animals used by Ontario research facilities from 1990 to 1997.

The Ministry denied access under several exemptions, including section 14(1)(i) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing that disclosure could endanger the security of the facilities by making them targets for animal rights extremists.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision for the majority of the records, finding that the information could be used to identify specific facilities and endanger their security.

Records pertaining to ten facilities that consented to disclosure were ordered to be released with identifying information severed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) for all records relating to him, including those not in the public files.

The OMB denied the request, claiming it was frivolous and vexatious under section 10(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the OMB failed to establish that the request was part of a pattern of conduct amounting to an abuse of the right of access or that it was made in bad faith.

The OMB was ordered to make an access decision in response to the request.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Town of Fort Erie for an audit report regarding allegations of fraud by a senior municipal official.

The Town denied access, claiming it did not have custody or control of the draft report, which was held by its external counsel and prepared by an accounting firm retained by counsel.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the draft report was prepared for the Town's benefit and paid for by the Town, meaning it belonged to the Town under the principles of solicitor-client file ownership.

Consequently, the record was under the Town's control within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Town was ordered to produce the record to the IPC so the inquiry could proceed on the claimed exemptions.

A newspaper reporter appealed the County of Brant's decision to deny access to monthly billing records submitted by County councillors for mileage and remuneration.

The County claimed the records were exempt under the invasion of privacy provision of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the remuneration figures constituted personal information, their disclosure would not be an unjustified invasion of privacy because the annual totals and per diem rates were already public, and disclosure was desirable for public scrutiny.

The County was ordered to disclose the records in their entirety.

The appellant, acting as the Estate Trustee for a deceased individual, requested access to a police report regarding the individual's death.

The Niagara Regional Police Services Board denied access under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The sole issue on appeal was whether the appellant qualified under section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to exercise the deceased's right of access.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the appellant was the personal representative and required the records to administer the estate, specifically to determine if a major beneficiary was disentitled due to criminal conduct.

The Police were ordered to issue a new decision.

The affected person requested a reconsideration of Order M-1036, which had ordered the disclosure of his name from law enforcement records.

The Assistant Commissioner found that an accidental error had been made in the original order regarding the affected person's job title, which directly impacted the finding under section 8(2)(c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Upon reconsideration, the Assistant Commissioner concluded that disclosing the affected person's name could reasonably be expected to expose him to civil liability, as the appellant had a history of commencing civil proceedings against individuals involved in investigating her business.

The original order provisions were rescinded, and the Police's decision to deny access to the records was upheld.

The appellant appealed the City of Kingston's decision to deny access to a record containing the names and job titles of municipal employees who accepted buyouts under a Voluntary Exit Program.

The Assistant Commissioner first determined that the record was not excluded from the Act under the labour relations provisions in section 52(3).

However, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the City's decision to deny access under section 14(1), finding that the record contained personal information and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant's argument that a compelling public interest in disclosure outweighed the privacy exemption under section 16 was also rejected.

The appellant appealed the City of Orillia's response to a freedom of information request for records relating to the Mayor's Action Committee.

In an interim order, the City was ordered to conduct a further search and provide an affidavit detailing the search.

The City conducted the search, located additional records, and disclosed them to the appellant.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the City had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records and concluded the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to records relating to the investigation into the death of his son.

The Police claimed the records were exempt under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (invasion of privacy).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained personal information of the deceased son and other identifiable individuals.

Applying section 14(3)(b), the Assistant Commissioner determined that disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy because the information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The decision of the Police to deny access under section 38(b) was upheld.

The appellant, representing a non-profit housing co-operative board, appealed the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's decision to deny access to portions of a letter sent by an MPP to the Minister.

The Ministry claimed the severed portions contained personal information and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the severed information on page one constituted the personal information of two board members and was exempt from disclosure absent their consent.

However, the severed information on page two did not contain personal information and was ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant faxed a letter to the Ministry of Environment requesting a copy of Electromagnetic Leachate Mapping.

The Ministry advised the appellant to submit a formal request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Co-ordinator.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's response instead.

The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's letter did not constitute a proper request under the Act because it did not include the prescribed fee or specify that it was made under the Act.