Tom Mitchinson

The appellant requested statistics on the number of abortions performed by specific hospitals and clinics in 1994.

The Ministry of Health denied access to the record under sections 14(1)(e) and (i) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing that disclosure could endanger the life, safety, or security of the facilities and their staff due to the threat of anti-abortion violence.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding sufficient evidence that disclosing the specific numbers of abortions per facility could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of individuals associated with those facilities.

The appellant requested records relating to a police investigation from the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services.

The Ministry initially denied access under section 65(6) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, but later withdrew this claim and transferred the request to the Police under section 25(2), well beyond the 15-day statutory time limit.

The appellant appealed the transfer.

The Assistant Commissioner held that the Commissioner has jurisdiction to review transfer decisions and to uphold late transfers in appropriate circumstances.

However, applying administrative law principles, the Assistant Commissioner found that the delay prejudiced the appellant and the Ministry's late transfer decision was void.

The Ministry was ordered to issue a new access decision.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Labour regarding potential conflicts of interest involving Ontario Labour Relations Board employees providing private arbitration services.

The Ministry denied access to several records, claiming they were excluded under the labour relations and employment-related matters exclusion in section 65(6)3 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that one record was exempt as a Cabinet record under section 12(1)(b).

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records related to employment matters in which the Ministry had a legal interest, and that disclosure of the remaining record would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

The appellant, a genealogist, appealed the Ministry's decision denying access to certified copies of marriage and death records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed the records contained personal information and their disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner allowed the late-filed appeal to proceed but upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the appellant's commercial genealogy business did not constitute a 'research purpose' under section 21(1)(e), and that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply to his private commercial interests.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board to deny access to portions of a motor vehicle accident report and a witness statement under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the withheld information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and its disclosure was presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

The appellant's argument that disclosure would facilitate settlement of a liability claim did not establish a compelling public interest under section 16.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

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

The appellant claimed that further responsive records existed beyond what the City provided.

The City failed to provide representations or evidence of its search efforts.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the City did not discharge its statutory responsibility to conduct a reasonable search and ordered the City to conduct a further search and provide a detailed affidavit.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the police for records relating to a specific occurrence number.

The police granted partial access to an occurrence report and a memorandum, but withheld attachments and certain information under the law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that the withheld personal information of other individuals was exempt under section 38(b) as it was compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

However, the Assistant Commissioner determined that the name of the Regional Solicitor did not qualify as personal information, as it identified him in a professional capacity.

Furthermore, the records did not qualify as "reports" under section 8(2)(a), and disclosing the solicitor's name would not expose him to civil liability under section 8(2)(c).

The police were ordered to disclose the Regional Solicitor's name.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of a General Occurrence Report and police officer's notes relating to an incident investigated by the OPP.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including section 49(b) for invasion of privacy.

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

The Ministry's decision to withhold the records was upheld.

A requester sought access to Ministry of Natural Resources purchase orders.

The Ministry decided to grant full access.

A third party appealed, claiming a purchase order containing pricing details for repair services qualified for exemption under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal, finding that while the record contained commercial information supplied by the third party, the appellant failed to establish that the information was supplied in confidence.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

The Ministry of Natural Resources received a freedom of information request for purchase orders and bid summary sheets.

The Ministry decided to grant full access.

A third party appealed, claiming a one-page Contract Purchase Transaction containing pricing details for camera repair services was exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal, finding that while the record contained commercial and financial information supplied by the third party, the third party failed to establish a reasonable expectation that the information was supplied in confidence.

The appellant requested access to documents relating to a municipal cartage by-law from the City of Vaughan.

The City denied access to certain handwritten notes and notations, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that the records were prepared by a City Solicitor for use in giving legal advice and in contemplation of litigation, thereby qualifying for exemption under Branch 2 of section 12.

The appellant requested access to the ONBIS database and the NUANS tape from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

The Ministry denied access, claiming exemptions under sections 22(a) and 18(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that section 22(a) did not apply because the alternative record-by-record search system did not provide access to the entire database.

However, the Assistant Commissioner held that the ONBIS database as a whole qualified for exemption under section 18(1)(a) because it contained technical information (software and database management system) belonging to the Government of Ontario (via Crown copyright in the compilation) that had potential monetary value.

The appeal regarding the NUANS tape and bulk data elements was deferred for further clarification.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the names of all Town Council members, their staff, and employees related to past or present Council members.

The Town refused the request, claiming it was frivolous and vexatious.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Town's decision, finding that the appellant had engaged in a pattern of conduct amounting to an abuse of the right of access, and that the request was made in bad faith and for a purpose other than to obtain access.

The appellant, a newspaper reporter, appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denying access to computerized versions of 'major news reports-occurrences' (Occurrence Sheets) and 'major news reports-arrest and story' sheets (Arrest Sheets).

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

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Occurrence Sheets did not contain personal information and ordered their disclosure.

However, the Arrest Sheets contained personal information of charged individuals.

The Assistant Commissioner held that while paper versions were routinely disclosed, providing them in bulk computerized format would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The public interest override in section 16 did not apply.

The Police were ordered to disclose the Occurrence Sheets and a severed version of the Arrest Sheets.

The appellant, a former employee of the LCBO, submitted a freedom of information request for records relating to his civil and criminal cases involving the LCBO.

The LCBO denied access to the identified records, claiming they were excluded from the Act under section 65(6), and suggested the appellant contact the OPP for other records.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the LCBO failed to conduct a reasonable search and failed to fulfill its obligations under section 25(1) of the Act to forward the request to other institutions that might have custody or control of responsive records.

The LCBO was ordered to conduct a further search.

The appellant, an employee of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of minutes from Area Managers' meetings.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under the labour relations exclusion in section 65(6)3, and claimed exemptions under sections 18 and 19.

The Assistant Commissioner found that some portions of the records were excluded under section 65(6)3 as they related to matters in which the Ministry had an interest, while others merely reflected concerns and fell within the Act.

The Assistant Commissioner also upheld the application of solicitor-client privilege to certain records and the exemption for a pending policy decision, but ordered the disclosure of other items.

The appellant, a lawyer representing clients involved in incidents with a police officer, submitted a freedom of information request to the Sudbury Regional Police Services Board for the officer's disciplinary records.

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

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records relating to anticipated disciplinary proceedings and legal indemnification fell within the employment and labour relations exclusions of section 52(3)1 and 52(3)3.

As none of the exceptions in section 52(4) applied, the records were outside the scope of the Act, and the Police's decision was upheld.

The appellant, an employee of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, requested access to records relating to a workplace harassment investigation and subsequent review.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6).

The adjudicator found that the records were prepared by the Ministry in relation to meetings and discussions about employment-related matters in which the Ministry has an interest.

The Ministry's decision was upheld, and the records were found to be excluded from the Act.

The appellant, a former police officer, requested access to records concerning his disciplinary matter under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police denied access, claiming the records were excluded under section 52(3) of the Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the records were collected and used in relation to proceedings before a tribunal relating to the employment of a person by the institution.

The records were therefore excluded from the scope of the Act, and the decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant, an employee of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, requested access to email records from backup tapes under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry provided a fee estimate of $6,782.36 for restoring the tapes and computer programming, and denied the appellant's request for a fee waiver.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate and the denial of the fee waiver.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the fee estimate as reasonable and found that the Ministry's decision to deny the fee waiver was fair and equitable, noting the Ministry's efforts to accommodate the appellant and the lack of evidence of financial hardship.