Other Tribunals

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Insurance Commission for copies of rate filings made by 13 insurance companies and whether those companies claimed confidentiality under section 17 of the Act.

The OIC denied access to the records under section 17(1) and did not respond to the second part of the request.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the OIC's decision that the rate filings were exempt as third party commercial information and trade secrets supplied in confidence.

However, the Inquiry Officer found that the OIC failed to respond to the second part of the request and ordered it to issue a decision on that issue.

The Township of North Dorchester applied to the Tribunal under s. 58(4) of the Drainage Act to amend By-law 10-97 to reflect the as-constructed Finch Drain Branch 'A'.

During construction, it was discovered that the new tile drain needed to be longer than estimated, increasing the cost.

The engineer prepared an addendum report, which was circulated without objection.

The Tribunal approved the requested amendments on terms, ordering the engineer to modify the addendum report and plan, and the Township to modify and circulate the by-law.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to records relating to their purchase of a home from the City and a subsequent property dispute.

The City claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, primarily relying on solicitor-client privilege and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the majority of the records were exempt under section 12 as they were prepared for or by counsel in contemplation of litigation regarding the property dispute.

A small number of records were found not to be subject to privilege and were ordered disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the City's refusal to disclose certain records containing third-party personal information under section 14(1).

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to an OPP investigation into a complaint of someone impersonating a police officer.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 14(2)(a), 49(a), 21, and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption against disclosure in section 21(3)(b).

The appeal was dismissed and the Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant sought access to correspondence addressed to the Ministry regarding complaints about an organization she represents.

The Ministry denied access under sections 17(1) and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third party information exemption under section 17(1) did not apply, as the records did not contain financial or labour relations information.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the personal privacy exemption under section 21(1) for certain records containing employment history and personal information supplied in confidence, while ordering the disclosure of records written in a professional capacity.

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 Town of Niagara on the Lake applied to the Tribunal for an order amending By-law 2648-93, which adopted a report for the repair and improvement of the Routh Municipal Drain.

Following an appeal by affected landowners regarding the construction of the Mazur Branch, the Town and the landowners entered into an agreement detailing future maintenance responsibilities.

The Tribunal exercised its authority under section 51(1) of the Drainage Act to order the Town to prepare and enact an amending by-law incorporating the terms of the agreement, which will supersede the original maintenance provisions where they conflict.

The Corporation of the Township of Gosfield North applied under section 76 of the Drainage Act for permission to appoint an engineer to procure a report to vary the assessment for the Irwin Drain.

The Township of Mersea, the other affected municipality, had no objections.

The Tribunal granted the application.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Labour's decision to deny access to certain records relating to a specified property and business under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b).

The public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of Order M-1035, arguing that the Commissioner failed to consider letters supporting her position that she should not have been listed as a suspect for harassing telephone calls, as well as the fact that she was never charged.

The Commissioner denied the request, noting that the evidence had been considered in the original inquiry.

The Commissioner reiterated that under section 36(2) of the Act, a request to correct a record cannot be used to substitute one opinion for another, and the request did not meet the grounds for reconsideration under the IPC's policy.

The appellants requested a reconsideration of Order M-1056, arguing that the evidence relied upon in the original decision was inaccurate and could be rebutted.

The original order determined that the Board's search for responsive records was reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the IPC's policy on reconsideration, which requires a fundamental defect in the adjudication process, a jurisdictional defect, or a clerical error.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellants' new information did not alter the conclusion that the Board's search was reasonable and did not meet the grounds for reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The appellant appealed a decision allowing a positive inhibitor test result on a milk sample from its farm to stand.

The appellant argued that the sample collection and handling by the bulk tank milk grader was improper, suggesting the grader's son may have contaminated or switched the sample.

The Tribunal found no evidence to support the appellant's theory and concluded there was no doubt the milk in the bulk tank contained inhibitors.

The appeal was denied, and the penalties and costs assessed were upheld.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $92.00 provided by the Simcoe County Board of Education for processing a freedom of information request for telephone bills.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the $75.00 charge for search time and the $0.20 per page charge for photocopies, finding them reasonable given the volume of records.

However, the $15.00 charge for preparation time was disallowed because the Board failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish its reasonableness.

The appellant requested a fire department inspection report for a building they currently own.

The City of Toronto granted access to the report but redacted the name and address of the addressee, claiming the personal information exemption under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the redactions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the redacted information constituted personal information and that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The City's decision to withhold the information was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to records containing personal information.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, related to eligibility for social service benefits, and described individuals' finances.

As the appellant's personal information was inextricably intertwined with that of other individuals, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellants submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board for a list of items removed from their home during a search and the document authorizing the removal.

The Police denied access, citing sections 38(a) and 8(2)(b) of the Act.

The appellants appealed.

The Inquiry Officer determined that the Information and Privacy Commissioner had no jurisdiction under the Act to deal with the requested records and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to records relating to a consulting contract.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 17(1), 18(1)(f), 18(1)(g), and 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as well as the labour relations exclusion under section 65(6).

The Inquiry Officer found that certain records were excluded under section 65(6)3 as they related to labour relations matters in which the Ministry had an interest.

The Officer also upheld the application of the third-party information exemption under section 17(1) for most of the remaining records, finding they contained trade secrets and commercial information supplied in confidence.

One record was ordered disclosed as it did not meet the criteria for any claimed exemption.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario finding that he had violated marketing regulations by producing and marketing 139,010 kilograms of unreported chicken.

The Board had assessed license fees and levies and cancelled all of his basic production quota.

The Tribunal found clear evidence that the appellant participated in a scheme to shave weights and market unreported chicken.

However, noting this was a first offence, the Tribunal found the penalty too severe and reduced it to a cancellation of 50% of the appellant's basic quota units, while upholding the assessment of $61,391.87 in fees and levies.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing received a freedom of information request for records relating to the requesters, who were members of a residential artists co-operative.

The Ministry decided to disclose portions of the minutes of two in camera board meetings.

The co-operative appealed the decision, arguing the records were exempt from disclosure as third party information under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer applied the three-part test for the exemption and found that while the records contained commercial or financial information, the co-operative failed to establish that the information was supplied to the Ministry in confidence.

The appeal was dismissed and the Ministry's decision to disclose the records was upheld.

The appellant sought access to records relating to the death of her husband at a hospital.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services granted partial access to a Coroner's Investigation Report, withholding four lines under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the redactions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information contained the personal information of an affected person and was highly sensitive.

Balancing the appellant's right of access against the privacy interests of the affected person, and noting the appellant had already received substantial disclosure, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.