Tom Wright

The appellant requested copies of work orders issued by the City of Cambridge against various rental residential properties.

The institution denied access to portions of the records, claiming exemptions for personal privacy and the right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication.

The Commissioner found that municipal addresses do not constitute personal information under the Act.

The Commissioner also found that the institution failed to provide sufficient evidence that disclosure could reasonably be expected to deprive a person of the right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication.

The institution was ordered to disclose the records with the names and addresses of the owners severed.

The appellant requested copies of work orders issued by the City of Waterloo against various rental residential properties.

The City denied access, claiming the records contained personal information and were exempt under law enforcement provisions.

The Commissioner found that municipal addresses and property repair information do not constitute personal information.

The Commissioner also found that the work orders were not 'reports' prepared in the course of law enforcement, and their disclosure would not interfere with a law enforcement matter since the orders had already been complied with.

The City was ordered to disclose the records with the owners' names and addresses severed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission (OC Transpo) denying access to personal information, arguing that the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applied.

OC Transpo claimed it was a federal undertaking exempt from the Act because it operated an interprovincial bus service into Quebec.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that while OC Transpo is an interprovincial undertaking, the Act is a valid provincial law of general application.

The Commissioner held that the Act does not conflict with federal legislation and does not impair the essential federal function or vital management of the transit service.

The Commissioner ordered OC Transpo to process the access request under the Act.

The appellant requested an unedited copy of a 1978 Metropolitan Toronto Police Department report regarding an investigation of the Metropolitan Licensing Commission.

The institution denied access to portions of the record under the law enforcement exemption in section 8(2)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner applied a three-part test and found that the record was a report prepared in the course of law enforcement by an agency with the function of enforcing compliance with a law.

The Commissioner upheld the institution's decision to deny access to the severed portions.

The requester appealed the Wentworth County Board of Education's decision to deny access to a legal opinion regarding the validity of noon hour bible clubs.

The institution claimed the record was exempt under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act due to solicitor-client privilege.

The Commissioner found that a solicitor-client relationship existed and the confidential written communication was directly related to seeking legal advice.

The Commissioner upheld the head's decision to deny access, noting that the public interest override in section 16 does not apply to section 12.

The appellant sought access to an engineering report regarding an underground garage from the City of North York under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The City denied access, claiming exemptions for law enforcement and investigations under sections 8(1)(a) and (b).

The third-party owner objected to disclosure under section 10 (third-party information) and section 12 (solicitor-client privilege).

The Commissioner found that the City failed to provide sufficient evidence that disclosure would interfere with a law enforcement matter.

The Commissioner also found that the third-party harms test under section 10 was not met, and declined to apply section 12 as it was not raised by the institution.

The City was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Durham Regional Police Service for records of calls for assistance made in 1965.

The institution denied access on the basis that no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that records should still exist.

The institution provided evidence that records from that era were likely destroyed following the 1974 amalgamation of police departments, and that current retention periods are 15 months.

The Commissioner reviewed the steps taken by the institution to locate the records, including searching historical ledgers, automated systems, microfilm, and contacting a former officer.

The Commissioner concluded that the search was reasonable and upheld the institution's decision.

The appellant requested access to records concerning the Halton Board of Education's Key Communicator program, including the names of the Key Communicators.

The institution denied access to the names under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Commissioner found that while the names constituted personal information, their disclosure was desirable for the purpose of subjecting the activities of the institution to public scrutiny.

The Commissioner ordered the institution to disclose the names of the Key Communicators.

The requester appealed the City of North York's decision to deny access to the application and resume of the successful applicant for a citizen member appointment to the Board of Health.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the requested records contained personal information relating to employment and educational history, the disclosure of which is presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner also found no compelling public interest to override the exemption.

The appellant appealed a decision by Ontario Hydro denying access to agendas and minutes of the Senior Ontario Hydro/AECL Technical Information Committee (SOATIC).

Ontario Hydro claimed exemptions under sections 13, 15, 17, 18, and 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that certain items were exempt under sections 15(a), 15(b), 18(1)(a), and 21.

However, the Commissioner ordered the disclosure of other items, finding they did not qualify for exemption under sections 13, 17, or 18(1)(g).

The Commissioner also found a compelling public interest in the disclosure of nuclear safety-related information that would override the section 17 exemption, and rejected arguments that the application of the Act to AECL information raised a constitutional issue.

The requester sought access to an Ontario Provincial Police investigation report compiled after he complained about a private investigation firm's conduct.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General denied access to portions of the record.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the record contained personal information of individuals other than the requester, and its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as it was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited for various records relating to the financing, construction, and operation of the SkyDome.

The institution denied access to several records, claiming exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for third-party commercial information, advice to government, economic interests, and solicitor-client privilege.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the mandatory third-party commercial information exemption did not apply to the records in question, as the information was either not supplied in confidence or its disclosure would not reasonably be expected to cause the specified harms.

The Commissioner also rejected arguments that confidentiality provisions in the Income Tax Act and Corporations Tax Act, or the tax liability exemption in the Act, prevented disclosure.

However, the Commissioner upheld the institution's discretionary exemptions for certain other records, finding no compelling public interest that outweighed the purpose of those exemptions.

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

A news director requested the names and addresses of victims of an armed robbery from the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police.

The institution denied access under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the requested information was personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Commissioner also found that the public interest in disclosure did not clearly outweigh the purpose of the exemption, particularly given the victims' expressed desire for anonymity and the ongoing nature of the investigation.

The appellant requested the specific salaries and wages paid to employees of the Town of Listowel.

The Town disclosed salary ranges but refused to disclose exact salaries for senior management positions, claiming it would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant appealed, arguing the $10,000 range for senior management was unacceptable.

The Commissioner found that exact salary figures for specific positions with one incumbent constitute personal information.

The Commissioner held that disclosing exact salaries would be a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(f) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which was not rebutted by the public scrutiny or salary range provisions.

The decision of the head was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the City of Oshawa denying access to the name and address of an individual who made a by-law complaint about the appellant's property.

The institution relied on the law enforcement exemption under section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner upheld the institution's decision, finding that the by-law enforcement process qualified as law enforcement and that disclosure of the record could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source of information.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for any information recorded about him regarding wiretap applications.

The Ministry refused to confirm or deny the existence of such records under section 14(3) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing this refusal violated his Charter rights.

The Commissioner found no Charter violation, determined that wiretap applications would contain personal information and qualify for the law enforcement exemption under section 14(1), and upheld the Ministry's exercise of discretion to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of the records.

The appellant requested a copy of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between the Ministry of Correctional Services, the Ministry of Government Services, and Better Beef Limited.

The Ministry denied access under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the record contained commercial information supplied in confidence.

The Commissioner found that while the record contained commercial and financial information, it was the product of negotiation rather than information 'supplied' by the affected party.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

A requester sought access to records relating to a Certificate of Approval issued to Du Pont Canada Inc. for the production of HCFC-123.

The Ministry of the Environment denied access to portions of the records under section 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming they contained confidential commercial and technical information.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the records revealed scientific, technical, and commercial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice Du Pont's competitive position.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police for a report concerning an incident at a restaurant.

The institution granted partial access but denied the remainder, citing exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Commissioner found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

The Commissioner concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's personal privacy under section 38(b) of the Act and upheld the institution's decision to deny access.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Treasury and Economics' decision to extend the time to respond to two freedom of information requests for records relating to the economic impact of a sovereign Quebec and the recession in Canada.

The Ministry relied on section 27(1)(a) of the Act, citing a large volume of records, but indicated it intended to issue interim notices and fee estimates rather than final access decisions.

The Commissioner held that section 27 is not applicable when an institution intends to issue an interim notice because records are unduly expensive to produce for review.

The Ministry was ordered to issue the interim notices by a specified date.