Other Tribunals

The appellant requested correspondence between a doctor, the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office, and a Patient Advocate.

The Ministry of Health granted partial access, claiming the personal privacy exemption under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the remainder.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the institution's decision makers lacked the delegated authority to deny access, resulting in a deemed refusal.

On the merits, the Assistant Commissioner determined that the severed information was provided by the doctor in his professional capacity and did not qualify as his personal information.

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

The appellant requested access to records relating to a grievance proceeding from the Ontario Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board.

The institution granted partial access, severing the names and addresses of the grievors and co-workers under the personal privacy exemption.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that the addresses were highly sensitive and exempt from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, the names were ordered to be disclosed as the affected persons either consented or the appellant already knew the name, meaning disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The public interest override in section 23 did not apply to the addresses.

The appellant requested access to studies commissioned by the Ontario Government pertaining to automobile insurance.

The Ministry of Financial Institutions denied access to copies of the studies pursuant to several exemptions, including section 12 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records qualified for the mandatory Cabinet records exemption under section 12(1), as their disclosure would permit the drawing of accurate inferences with respect to the substance of deliberations of the Executive Council or its committees.

The head's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to resumes, applications, and selection criteria related to a job competition at the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

The Ministry denied access to the applications and resumes under the personal information exemption.

The Commissioner found that the applications and resumes constituted personal information and their disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant failed to rebut this presumption.

However, the Commissioner ordered the disclosure of portions of the 'Qualifying Guide' after severing identifying information.

The appellant, acting as an agent for a person accused of mischief, requested the names and addresses of two witnesses to the alleged offence from the Metropolitan Toronto Police.

The police denied access, citing privacy exemptions.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the requested information was personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

The Commissioner concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the witnesses' personal privacy, and the presumption against disclosure was not rebutted by the appellant's desire to pursue civil or criminal action against the witnesses.

The appellant requested the names of temporary and part-time employees hired by the Regional Municipality of Sudbury in 1990 and 1991.

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

The Commissioner found that while the names were personal information, section 14(4)(a) applied, meaning disclosure of the names of individuals who are or were employees does not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The institution was ordered to disclose the names.

The appellant requested access to their personnel file and correspondence relating to the management of the Toronto Fire Department.

The City of Toronto granted partial access, severing portions of two letters under the personal information exemption in section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the letters, exchanged between two employees in their professional capacities regarding institution policy, did not contain personal information.

The institution was ordered to disclose the letters in full.

The requester appealed the City of Toronto's decision that it could not locate a 1956 Permanent Ward Order relating to the requester and his siblings.

The City provided evidence that records of this nature were transferred to Metropolitan Toronto or destroyed in 1967 when welfare ceased to be a City function.

The Commissioner found that the City had taken all reasonable steps to locate the record and dismissed the appeal.

The Town of Gravenhurst received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to the employment of its Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk.

The Town denied access to the written employment agreement under the personal privacy exemption in section 14.

On appeal, the Commissioner found that the agreement was a contract of employment, not a contract for personal services.

The Commissioner ordered the disclosure of the agreement, with the exception of the specific salary steps, as disclosure of the classification, salary range, and benefits did not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant sought access to all information contained in the Child Abuse Registry relating personally to them under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services denied access, citing section 67(2) of the Act, which states that the confidentiality provision in section 75(6) of the Child and Family Services Act prevails.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the record was part of the Child Abuse Registry and therefore covered by the prevailing confidentiality provision.

The appellant submitted two requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to Ontario Hydro for historical maps illustrating the location of telephone company equipment and the direction of high-voltage electrical current flow prior to 1951.

Ontario Hydro advised that no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the institution had taken reasonable steps to locate the records and that its search was reasonable in the circumstances.

The requester appealed the Archives of Ontario's decision to deny access to portions of a 1976 memorandum regarding incidents at the Grandview Training School.

The institution claimed the severed portions contained personal information and that disclosure would interfere with ongoing police investigations.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the severed information did not relate to identifiable individuals and therefore did not qualify as personal information.

Furthermore, the institution failed to provide sufficient evidence that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement matters.

The institution was ordered to disclose the record in its entirety.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Kitchener for records relating to a survey marker and property boundaries.

The City informed the appellant that no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that records should exist.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner reviewed the affidavits of search provided by the City's employees and concluded that the institution's search for records was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested access to an investigation report prepared by the Ministry of the Environment.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the record was exempt under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (solicitor-client privilege).

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that the record did not meet the requirements for either branch of the section 19 exemption, as it was not a communication between a client and a legal advisor, nor was it prepared by or for Crown counsel.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record in its entirety.

The Tribunal determined how pay equity adjustments should be incorporated into collective agreements between the hospital and the nurses' union.

The Tribunal held that under subsection 9(3) of the Pay Equity Act, all positions in a job class must be adjusted by the same dollar amount, meaning all levels of the salary schedule must receive the adjustment, not just the job rate.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the newly negotiated collective agreements were 'relevant' under subsection 13(10) because they had not yet taken the pay equity adjustments into account, and therefore the adjusted rates must be incorporated into them.

The appellant requested access to a list of names, dates of birth, and addresses of all babies born in Ontario in early 1991 from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for the purpose of marketing baby food.

The Ministry denied access under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the requested records contained personal information and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, as the information was supplied in confidence under the Vital Statistics Act.

The appellant requested a copy of a legal opinion regarding a potential conflict of interest involving an individual's appointment to a municipal committee.

The municipality denied access, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that while the record was initially privileged, the municipality waived the privilege by releasing a copy to the affected individual.

The Commissioner also determined that although the record contained some personal information, its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14.

The municipality was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant requested access to a list of names and addresses of hairstyling apprentices registered with the Ministry of Skills Development.

The Ministry granted access to the names but denied access to the addresses under the personal privacy exemption.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the appeal was filed within the statutory time limit.

The Assistant Commissioner also reviewed the decision to disclose the names and concluded that both the names and addresses constituted personal information.

The Assistant Commissioner held that disclosure of the names and addresses would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and ordered the Ministry not to disclose either.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' claim that a specific memorandum did not exist.

Following representations from both parties and an independent search by a Compliance Investigator from the Information and Privacy Commissioner's office, the Assistant Commissioner concluded that all reasonable efforts had been made to locate the record and that it could not be found.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt and penalty for discreditable conduct.

The charge arose after the appellant attended a residence at 2:00 a.m. to deliver provincial offence notices for minor infractions to individuals known to be hostile to police and who had been consuming alcohol.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found the appellant's actions were unnecessary, inappropriate, and likely to bring discredit upon the police force.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, sustaining both the finding of guilt and the penalty.