Tom Wright

The requester appealed the institution's decision to deny access to board meeting minutes and other records relating to the Stadium Corporation of Ontario.

The Commissioner upheld the application of discretionary exemptions under sections 18 and 19 for certain records.

However, the Commissioner found that the mandatory exemption under section 17 did not apply to other records because the information was not 'supplied' by the third parties, but rather resulted from negotiations.

The Commissioner also found no compelling public interest to override the exemptions under section 23.

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

A student requested access to letters of recommendation written for an Ontario Graduate Scholarship application.

The Ministry decided to grant access.

A professor who wrote one of the letters appealed the decision, arguing the report was provided in confidence.

The Commissioner found that the student's identifying information and the professor's evaluative comments constituted the student's personal information, to which the student had a right of access.

The professor's identifying information constituted the professor's personal information, but its disclosure would not be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Ministry's decision to disclose the entire report was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Government Services denying access to records relating to an Ombudsman investigation into the North Pickering Project.

The institution claimed the records were not in its custody or control, and alternatively claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for law enforcement and personal privacy.

The Commissioner found that the institution had custody of the records despite conditions imposed by the Ombudsman.

The Commissioner upheld the application of the law enforcement exemption for an OPP report and the personal privacy exemption for interview summaries and personal opinions, but ordered the disclosure of certain non-exempt portions of the records.

The appellant requested access to a legal opinion provided to the Town of Ancaster regarding the noise impact of the Hamilton Airport.

The institution denied access, claiming the record was exempt under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1989 due to solicitor-client privilege.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the privilege was waived when the institution released a subsequent legal opinion on the same matter.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the requested record was a confidential communication directly related to seeking legal advice and thus subject to common law solicitor-client privilege.

The Commissioner concluded that the release of the subsequent opinion did not constitute a waiver of privilege for the earlier opinion, and upheld the institution's decision to deny access.

The appellant requested access to an Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) report regarding an investigation into the conduct of Metropolitan Toronto Police officers.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General initially granted partial access but later denied access entirely, claiming law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions.

On appeal, the Commissioner first determined that the delegation of the head's powers to the decision-makers was valid, even though it was made by a former Minister.

The Commissioner then found that while the record contained personal information and its disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of privacy under s. 21(3)(b) of the Act, this presumption was rebutted.

The Commissioner concluded that the public interest in subjecting the institution to public scrutiny and ensuring public confidence in the police outweighed the privacy interests of the officers involved.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record with one minor severance.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to certain records relating to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The Commissioner found that the records contained the appellant's personal information.

The Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to exempt certain records under section 15(a) (intergovernmental relations) and section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, one record was ordered disclosed as it was not prepared in contemplation of litigation involving the Ministry.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Culture and Communications' decision to extend the time to respond to a freedom of information request by 30 days.

The Ministry claimed the extension was necessary to consult with other institutions, as the appellant had requested the matter not be transferred.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the 30-day extension was not reasonable, as the Ministry should have known earlier that consultations were required.

However, the Ministry was ordered to provide its decision on access by the extended date of August 15, 1990.

The appellant requested access to all documentation relating to a sexual harassment complaint against him.

The Ministry of Government Services denied access to certain interview notes and parts of an investigation report, citing exemptions for law enforcement and personal privacy under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the internal investigation did not qualify as a 'law enforcement' matter under the Act.

Furthermore, balancing the appellant's need for the information to respond to allegations of unprofessional conduct against the privacy interests of the affected persons, the Assistant Commissioner concluded that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant requested access to press releases pertaining to lottery prize winners of $10,000 or more.

The Ontario Lottery Corporation denied access, citing the protection of personal privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained personal information and that the winners had not consented to the disclosure of this information to the public upon request.

The Assistant Commissioner concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, as it could expose the winners to pecuniary or other harm.

The public interest override did not apply, and the decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Lottery Corporation's decision to deny access to a list of names and communities of lottery winners of $10,000 or more.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the requested record contained personal information and that the winners had not consented to the disclosure of this information in the form of a list.

The Assistant Commissioner concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, the record could not be reasonably severed, and the public interest override did not apply.

The institution's decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Agriculture and Food's decision to deny access to the annual reports of 15 commercial animal research facilities.

The institution claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing that disclosure could endanger the security of the facilities due to potential threats from animal rights extremists.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the institution's decision, finding that disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger building security under section 14(1)(i) of the Act, and that the records could not be reasonably severed.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to portions of a Lotteries Task Force Report regarding Nevada tickets and charitable gaming.

The Ministry relied on the advice or recommendations exemption under subsection 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the record contained advice or recommendations, it fell within the mandatory exception under subsection 13(2)(j) for reports of a task force established to prepare a report on a particular topic.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the responsive portions of the record.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Labour's decision to deny access to records containing critiques or analysis of Bill 162, The Workers' Compensation Amendment Act, 1988.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 12(1)(e) (Cabinet records) and 13(1) (advice to government) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records did not qualify for the Cabinet records exemption as there was no evidence they were prepared for or considered by Cabinet.

However, parts of the records qualified for the advice or recommendations exemption under section 13(1).

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the Ministry to sever the exempt advice and disclose the remaining factual material to the requester.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission to deny access to the tender documents submitted by the successful tenderer for a construction project.

The institution claimed the mandatory exemption for third party commercial and financial information under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner applied the three-part test for the exemption and found that while some sections of the tender and the Bid Bond did not meet the test and must be disclosed, other sections containing unit prices and alternative prices were supplied in confidence and their disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the successful tenderer's competitive position.

The appeal was partially allowed.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Labour's decision to withhold portions of records relating to pay equity under the advice to government exemption in subsection 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that most of the withheld records contained advice or recommendations and were properly exempted.

However, one paragraph containing 'concerns' rather than a suggested course of action did not qualify as advice and was ordered disclosed.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that no further information could be reasonably severed from the remaining records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to the curricula vitae of members of the Health Disciplines Board and unreported court decisions regarding the Board's practices.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the curricula vitae contained personal information whose disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy, and that the public interest override did not apply.

The Assistant Commissioner also upheld the refusal to disclose the unreported court decisions, as they were publicly available through the court registry.