IPCO 1990

The appellant appealed a fee estimate and the denial of a fee waiver by the Ministry of Health regarding a request for Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee meeting minutes.

The Assistant Commissioner found the Ministry's fee estimate for severing and photocopying was excessive and reduced it.

However, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to deny a fee waiver, finding the appellant did not establish financial hardship or that dissemination of the record would benefit public health or safety.

The Ministry was also ordered to issue a proper access decision.

The requester appealed a fee estimate of $688.40 and the denial of a fee waiver for a request for Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee meeting minutes from the Ministry of Health.

The Assistant Commissioner found the fee estimate for severing and photocopying was excessive and reduced the total fee to $117.40.

However, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to deny a fee waiver, finding the requester failed to prove financial hardship or that dissemination of the record would benefit public health or safety.

The Ministry was also ordered to issue a proper access decision.

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.

A requester sought access to information regarding the sales of specific scooter models by a third party manufacturer through the Ministry of Health's Assistive Devices Program.

The Ministry decided to grant access to a record of approvals for sales.

The third party appealed the decision, arguing the record contained confidential commercial information exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the appeal, finding that the information was generated by the Ministry based on data supplied by dealers and purchasers, not the appellant, and was not supplied in confidence.

The Ministry was ordered to release the record.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to extend the time limit for responding to a freedom of information request by 100 days.

The institution cited the need to search through approximately 9,600 pages of complex records and consult with 14 external agencies.

The Assistant Commissioner found the 100-day extension reasonable under subsection 27(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and upheld the head's decision.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to extend the time limit to respond to a freedom of information request by 90 days.

The institution argued the extension was necessary due to a large volume of records and the need for consultations.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the institution improperly grouped four separate requests together to justify the extension and failed to provide sufficient evidence that consultations were necessary.

The extension was deemed unreasonable, and the institution was ordered to issue an access decision within 14 days.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to extend the time limit to respond to a freedom of information request by 90 days.

The institution argued the extension was necessary due to a large volume of records and the need for consultations.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the institution improperly grouped four separate requests together to justify the extension and failed to provide sufficient evidence that the extension was reasonable for the specific request at issue.

The institution was ordered to provide its access decision within 14 days.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to extend the time limit for responding to a freedom of information request by 90 days.

The institution argued the extension was necessary due to the large volume of records across four separate requests and the need for consultations.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the institution improperly grouped the four requests together to justify the extension and failed to provide sufficient evidence that consultations were necessary.

The extension was deemed unreasonable, and the institution was ordered to issue its access decision within 14 days.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to extend the time limit to respond to a freedom of information request by 90 days.

The institution claimed the extension was necessary due to a large volume of records and the need for consultations.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the institution improperly grouped four separate requests together to justify the extension and failed to provide sufficient evidence that consultations were necessary.

The 90-day extension was deemed unreasonable, and the institution was ordered to issue its access decision within 14 days.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Municipal Affairs' decision to sever names and addresses from a petition and related correspondence requesting a review of a municipal council.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13(1) and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to justify the section 13(1) exemption for a public servant's name.

Regarding the personal information of the petitioners, the Inquiry Officer held that signing a petition implies consent to the disclosure of that information, thus falling under the exception in section 21(1)(a).

The Ministry was ordered to disclose all severed information.

The requester appealed a decision by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs denying access to the names of individuals who signed a petition requesting an inquiry into the City of Belleville.

The Ministry claimed the names were exempt from disclosure under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as personal information.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the names constituted personal information, the signatories had implicitly consented to their disclosure by signing a public petition.

Furthermore, disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry was ordered to release the names.

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 appellants sought access to an investigation report regarding a sexual harassment complaint at the Ontario Women's Directorate.

The institution denied access to parts of the report, citing exemptions for advice or recommendations, litigation privilege, and unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered the release of the factual findings and interview summaries, finding they were not prepared for litigation and their disclosure would not unjustifiably invade personal privacy.

The Commissioner upheld the exemption for the investigators' recommendations.

The appellant, a former contract employee of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, requested access to a draft policy paper he had authored regarding AIDS-related discrimination.

The institution provided a copy but imposed conditions on its use, claiming the request was an abuse of process since the appellant already had a copy.

The institution also claimed the record was exempt under the advice or recommendations exemption.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner held that conditional access is not permitted under the Act and the request was not an abuse of process.

The Commissioner found that portions of the record containing advice or recommendations were exempt from disclosure, but ordered the release of factual and other non-exempt portions.

The Commissioner also ruled that the public interest override did not apply and that continuing access provisions were inapplicable to a single draft document.

The appellant requested access to board meeting minutes, briefing notes, financial summaries, memos regarding previous FOI requests, and technical assessments of the SkyDome roof design from the Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited.

The institution denied access to several records under various exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that some records were exempt under sections 18(1)(a), 18(1)(e), 19, and 17, while others were not exempt under sections 13(1) or 18(1)(c) and (g).

The Commissioner ordered the disclosure of non-exempt records, required the institution to notify third parties regarding records potentially exempt under section 17, and ordered the head to provide representations on the exercise of discretion for the exempt records.