Other Tribunals

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to records relating to a complaint filed against him as an employee of the Emergency Health Services.

The Ministry claimed the records fell outside the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6)3.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected in relation to employment-related matters in which the Ministry had an interest.

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

A newspaper reporter appealed the County of Brant's decision to deny access to monthly billing records submitted by County councillors for mileage and remuneration.

The County claimed the records were exempt under the invasion of privacy provision of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the remuneration figures constituted personal information, their disclosure would not be an unjustified invasion of privacy because the annual totals and per diem rates were already public, and disclosure was desirable for public scrutiny.

The County was ordered to disclose the records in their entirety.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board which reduced their basic production quota by 50% for selling tobacco outside the Board's auction exchange.

The appellants admitted to the illegal sales but sought leniency on compassionate grounds due to severe family health and financial stress.

The Tribunal found that while the breach was a serious offense requiring a significant deterrent, the circumstances warranted compassion.

The Tribunal partially granted the appeal, reducing the penalty to a 40% cancellation of the appellants' basic quota to allow them a better opportunity to remain viable tobacco producers.

The affected person requested a reconsideration of Order M-1036, which had ordered the disclosure of his name from law enforcement records.

The Assistant Commissioner found that an accidental error had been made in the original order regarding the affected person's job title, which directly impacted the finding under section 8(2)(c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Upon reconsideration, the Assistant Commissioner concluded that disclosing the affected person's name could reasonably be expected to expose him to civil liability, as the appellant had a history of commencing civil proceedings against individuals involved in investigating her business.

The original order provisions were rescinded, and the Police's decision to deny access to the records was upheld.

The College of Nurses of Ontario held a discipline hearing regarding a Member who allegedly breached conditions imposed by a previous discipline panel.

The Member failed to submit required employer performance appraisals and falsely informed the College that she was unemployed.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct for contravening the conditions on her certificate of registration and for engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

The Member's certificate of registration was suspended for a total of twelve months.

The appellant appealed the City of Kingston's decision to deny access to a record containing the names and job titles of municipal employees who accepted buyouts under a Voluntary Exit Program.

The Assistant Commissioner first determined that the record was not excluded from the Act under the labour relations provisions in section 52(3).

However, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the City's decision to deny access under section 14(1), finding that the record contained personal information and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant's argument that a compelling public interest in disclosure outweighed the privacy exemption under section 16 was also rejected.

The complainants filed a privacy complaint regarding a county's social services department requiring welfare applicants to obtain signatures from prospective employers on a job search form.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether this requirement resulted in the improper disclosure of personal information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The investigator concluded that the form constructively disclosed the applicants' status as welfare recipients to prospective employers.

The investigator found that the applicants' implicit consent to this disclosure was vitiated by economic duress, as they were told they would not receive benefits without the signatures.

The county was found to be in non-compliance with the Act and agreed to discontinue the practice and amend its forms.

The Association of Ontario Chicken Processors appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario to allocate 450,000 kg of chicken to Farm Fresh Poultry Co-op Inc. for Quota Period A-19 and 550,000 kg for Quota Period A-20.

The Tribunal found that the CFO did not follow normal practice and that the allocation for A-20 was premature.

The Tribunal directed the CFO to set the A-19 allocation at 382,000 kg and revoked the A-20 allocation.

Niagara Country Fresh Poultry Inc., a new entrant building a chicken processing facility, appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario denying its request for an allocation of 1.6 million kilograms of live chicken for Quota Period A-19.

The Tribunal upheld the denial, finding that granting such a large initial allocation to a plant not yet operational would be irresponsible and disruptive to the industry, especially while a review of the supply setting mechanism was underway.

The appellant requested reconsideration of Order M-994, arguing that the order failed to address the Township's search for oral submissions regarding a zoning by-law and access to copies of certain written submissions.

The Inquiry Officer found that these issues were accidentally omitted and granted the reconsideration.

The Township agreed to disclose the written submissions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Township's search for records of oral submissions was reasonable, as no such records existed.

The appellant, representing the widow of a worker killed in an industrial accident, appealed the Ministry of Labour's decision to deny access to a fatal accident investigation report under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed the report was exempt under the law enforcement exemption as charges had been laid under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and a trial was pending.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record met the three-part test for a report prepared in the course of law enforcement under section 14(2)(a) and upheld the Ministry's exercise of discretion to withhold the record.

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

In an interim order, the City was ordered to conduct a further search and provide an affidavit detailing the search.

The City conducted the search, located additional records, and disclosed them to the appellant.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the City had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records and concluded the appeal.

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 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 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, 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 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 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.