Tom Wright

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Management Board Secretariat for electronic versions of the Revised Statutes of Ontario and Revised Regulations of Ontario.

The institution denied access under section 22(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the information was publicly available.

The Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the statutes and regulations were available for purchase on CD-ROM and accessible for free on the Internet.

The Commissioner also dismissed the appellant's Charter arguments, noting that section 22(a) directs requesters to alternative sources rather than denying access.

A member of a news organization appealed the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat's decision to deny access to the minutes of the Interministerial Committee of Aboriginal Emergencies meeting held during the 1995 Ipperwash Provincial Park occupation.

The institution claimed exemptions under solicitor-client privilege, right to a fair trial, and advice or recommendations.

The Commissioner found that portions of the record were subject to solicitor-client privilege, except where privilege had been waived by the Attorney General in the Legislature.

The fair trial exemption did not apply.

While the advice or recommendations exemption applied to certain options listed in the minutes, the Commissioner ordered their disclosure, finding that the compelling public interest in the government's handling of the Ipperwash crisis clearly outweighed the purpose of the exemption.

The appellant requested electronic copies of the 1995 property assessment rolls for the region of Ottawa-Carleton from the Ministry of Finance.

The Ministry denied access under section 22(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, stating the information was publicly available for viewing at municipal offices or for purchase on computer tape for approximately $1,700.

The Commissioner found that while viewing the rolls at individual municipalities did not satisfy the request for a compiled record, the availability of the computer tape through a regularized system of access meant the information was 'published or available to the public'.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, a frequent user of freedom of information legislation, appealed decisions of the London Police Services Board denying his requests for records.

The Board argued the requests were frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The Commissioner found that while the Act does not explicitly grant authority to deny requests on these grounds, the Commissioner has implied authority to control abuses of process.

Given the excessive volume, broad scope, and coordinated nature of the appellant's requests, the Commissioner concluded they constituted an abuse of process and imposed strict numerical limits and conditions on the processing of the appellant's future requests and appeals.

The appellant appealed the fee estimates provided by the Board of Education for the City of York for two freedom of information requests seeking expense-related information of school board trustees and a copy of the Board's cheque register.

The Commissioner upheld the Board's revised fee estimates of $754.09 and $349.20, finding they were calculated in accordance with the Act.

The Commissioner also provided a postscript encouraging government organizations to make expenditure-related information routinely available to the public to improve accountability and reduce costs.

The appellant's lawyer requested an adjournment of the dates set for receipt of written and oral representations.

The London Police Services Board did not object.

The Commissioner granted the adjournment and set a new schedule for written representations and the oral hearing, noting that the dates will not be further rescheduled.

A newspaper reporter appealed the County of Grey's decision to deny access to Notices of Intent submitted under its Tree By-law.

The County claimed exemptions for invasion of privacy and third party information, and attempted to raise additional discretionary exemptions late in the process.

The Commissioner refused to consider the late exemptions.

The Commissioner found that the information related to individuals in their business capacities, not personal capacities, so the privacy exemption did not apply.

Furthermore, the third party information exemption did not apply because the information was not supplied in confidence.

The County was ordered to disclose the Notices.

The requester appealed a decision by the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat denying access to letters related to a First Nation's land claim.

The Secretariat claimed the records were exempt under section 15(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which protects intergovernmental relations.

The Commissioner restated the test for section 15(a) and found that the relations between Ontario and Canada regarding the land claim were intergovernmental.

The Commissioner concluded that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice these relations, given the sensitive nature of the negotiations.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested copies of a mailing list and comment sheets compiled from a public meeting held by the City of Toronto's Planning and Development Department.

The City withheld the names, addresses, and phone numbers under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the withheld information constituted personal information and that no factors favoured its disclosure.

The City was ordered to disclose the comments with identifying information severed, along with the appellant's own personal information.

The appellant requested access to a report prepared by the Toronto Board of Education's Equity Advisor - Women regarding a job competition.

The Board denied access to portions of the report under various exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that certain portions contained advice or recommendations exempt under section 7(1), but rejected the Board's claim of solicitor-client privilege under section 12, finding the report was not prepared for the dominant purpose of litigation.

The Commissioner also upheld the exemption of another candidate's interview ranking under section 38(b) as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Board was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the record.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to portions of agreements relating to the creation of Teranet, a public-private partnership.

The Commissioner found that the name of a corporate shareholder did not qualify as personal information under section 21.

The Commissioner upheld the Ministry's application of the discretionary exemption under section 18(1)(d) for most of the withheld information, finding that disclosure could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the financial interests of the Government of Ontario.

The Commissioner rejected the application of section 17 to a specific clause regarding development costs, finding insufficient evidence of expected harm.

Finally, the Commissioner found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as the public interest had been satisfied by the significant disclosure already made.

The appellant appealed a decision by the London Police Services Board to deny access to witness statements and an investigating officer's report regarding an arson investigation.

The Commissioner found that the records contained personal information of individuals other than the appellant.

Applying the presumption that disclosure of information compiled during a law enforcement investigation constitutes an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, the Commissioner upheld the Police's decision to withhold the records under sections 14(1) and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant requested lists of Limited Market Dealers and Securities Dealers from the Ontario Securities Commission.

The OSC denied access under section 22(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing the records were publicly available through a private company, Micromedia Limited.

The Commissioner held that availability through a private vendor does not constitute a regularized system of access available to the public generally.

The exemption under section 22(a) did not apply, and the OSC was ordered to disclose the records.

Six caregivers employed by the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital requested access to their personal information held by the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office (PPAO).

The Ministry of Health denied access, claiming the records were not in its custody or control.

On appeal, the Commissioner found that the PPAO is an internal program of the Ministry, meaning the records are under the Ministry's custody and control.

However, the Commissioner upheld the denial of access under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, finding that the records contained highly sensitive personal information of psychiatric patients supplied in confidence, and disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of their personal privacy.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission (OC Transpo) for records relating to a grievance file and records retention policies.

OC Transpo claimed the grievance records were outside the jurisdiction of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act due to interjurisdictional immunity, as it is a federally regulated interprovincial undertaking.

The Commissioner agreed, finding that disclosure of grievance records would affect labour relations governed by the Canada Labour Code.

The Commissioner also found that OC Transpo conducted a reasonable search for the records retention policies.

The appellant sought access to his personnel and grievance records from the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commission denied access, arguing the records fell outside the Act's jurisdiction.

The Commissioner determined that the records related to grievance proceedings governed by the federal Canada Labour Code.

Applying the principle of interjurisdictional immunity, the Commissioner concluded that applying the provincial Act to these records would affect the labour relations of an interprovincial undertaking.

Consequently, the records were found to be outside the jurisdiction of the Act.

A requester sought access to records containing their personal information from the Halton Board of Education.

The Board decided to grant access, and an affected person (a school trustee) appealed the decision, arguing the records contained their personal information.

The Commissioner found that the views and opinions expressed by the appellant in the records were made in their capacity as a publicly elected official, not in a personal capacity.

Therefore, the records did not contain the appellant's personal information, and the Board's decision to disclose the records was upheld.

The appellant requested copies of final examinations and the correct answers from Northern College of Applied Arts and Technology.

The College provided the exams but withheld the correct answers under section 18(1)(h) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner held that section 18(1)(h) applies only to 'questions' and not to 'answers'.

The College was ordered to disclose the correct answers to the appellant.

A requester sought records revealing which Regional Councillors participated in a voluntary unpaid leave program.

The Region decided to disclose the records, and a councillor appealed, arguing the records contained personal information exempt under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that while the records contained personal information, disclosure of the councillors' identities would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, given the public interest in accountability and the reduced expectation of privacy for elected officials.

The Region was ordered to disclose the records, subject to severing the appellant's employee number, a handwritten note, and the specific pay period for the deduction.

A City Councillor requested access to the City of Toronto's mailing lists related to development at two locations.

The City provided partial access, withholding certain names and addresses under the personal privacy exemption in section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that names and addresses of individuals acting in a professional or business capacity did not constitute personal information and ordered their disclosure.

However, the remaining names and addresses were personal information, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Commissioner rejected the requester's argument that administrative ease and cost savings justified disclosure.