IPCO 1990

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited for various records relating to the construction, financing, and operation of the SkyDome.

The institution allowed the appellant to view the records to narrow the request, but subsequently withheld numerous records under various exemptions and charged preparation and copying fees.

The Commissioner found that viewing the records did not constitute access under section 30 of the Act.

The Commissioner upheld the application of solicitor-client privilege to certain records, but found that the institution failed to provide sufficient evidence of harm to justify withholding many records under the economic interests exemptions.

The institution was ordered to disclose certain records, notify third parties regarding records withheld under section 17, and provide representations on the exercise of its discretion for records qualifying for discretionary exemptions.

The Commissioner upheld the institution's decision to charge fees and refuse a fee waiver.

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 Labour's decision to deny access to certain records relating to the amendment of the Employment Standards Act.

The Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records were properly exempt under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as Cabinet records, advice or recommendations, and solicitor-client privileged communications.

The Commissioner also found that the records could not be reasonably severed and that the public interest override did not apply.

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.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to certain records related to a criminal case against the requester.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to exempt seven records under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, finding they were prepared by or for Crown counsel for use in litigation.

The Commissioner also found that no additional responsive records existed.

However, the Commissioner agreed with the requester that the Ministry's notice of refusal failed to comply with subsection 29(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, as it merely quoted the statutory provision without explaining the reason it applied to the records.

The appellant requested access to records relating to an investigation conducted by the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) that led to the termination of his employment.

The Ministry of Financial Institutions denied access to certain records, citing law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner held that the law enforcement exemptions did not apply because the OSC conducted the investigation as an employer, not as a regulatory agency.

The Commissioner ordered the release of most records, but upheld the exemption of names and telephone numbers of third parties to protect their personal privacy.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Labour denying access to records relating to a temporary help corporation and complaints filed against it.

The Ministry claimed the records contained personal information and disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Commissioner found that the records contained personal information relating to employment history, the disclosure of which is presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

However, the Commissioner ordered the Ministry to sever the exempt personal information and disclose the remaining parts of the records to the appellant.

The appellant requested access to their father's probation record from the Ministry of Correctional Services.

The Ministry granted partial access and the appellant appealed the decision.

The Ministry argued the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction because the appeal was not filed within the 30-day period under subsection 50(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the Act should be interpreted liberally in favour of access, noting the delay was insignificant and the Ministry showed no prejudice.

The Commissioner concluded he had jurisdiction to proceed with the appeal.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to certain records pertaining to a proposed youth shelter in Scarborough.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner reviewed the application of several exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner upheld exemptions for Cabinet records, records containing negotiation positions, third-party financial information supplied in confidence, and records subject to solicitor-client privilege.

However, the Commissioner ordered the disclosure of other records, including a public petition, finding that the signatories had implicitly consented to the release of their personal information.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records and severable portions of partially exempt records.

A requester sought access to an Internal Audit Branch report regarding an archaeological grant awarded to a university.

The institution decided to grant access to the record.

A third party appealed the decision, objecting to the release of personal information under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the severed portions of the record contained personal information and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the third party's personal privacy, as it could unfairly damage their reputation and the information was of questionable accuracy.

The Commissioner ordered the institution not to disclose the severed portions.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Housing's decision to deny access to certain records related to a Rent Review Hearings Board decision.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the records, which included a draft order and a worksheet containing legal advice, were exempt from disclosure under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they were subject to common law solicitor-client privilege.

The Commissioner ordered the severance of handwritten notes from one record for release, but upheld the exemption for the remaining records.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council to deny access to portions of a proposal for a Centre for Women's Health.

The institution claimed the severed portions contained personal information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Commissioner found that the severed portions contained personal information and upheld the privacy exemption.

However, the Commissioner ordered the disclosure of certain non-personal information and affiliations that could be reasonably severed without identifying individuals.

The Commissioner also found that the appellant failed to demonstrate a compelling public interest that would override the privacy exemption.

The requester appealed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision to deny access to a memorandum and recommendations relating to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The institution claimed exemptions under s. 12(1)(b) (Cabinet records) and s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations).

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the record did not qualify for the Cabinet records exemption as there was no evidence it was submitted or prepared for submission to the Executive Council.

However, the Commissioner found that parts of the record contained advice or recommendations of a public servant and were exempt under s. 13(1).

The Commissioner ordered the institution to sever the exempt portions and disclose the remaining factual information pursuant to s. 10(2).

The requester appealed the Stadium Corporation of Ontario's decision to sever and withhold parts of requested Board of Directors minutes under various exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the institution failed to provide sufficient evidence of expected harm to justify most of the discretionary exemptions claimed under section 18, upholding only one severance relating to ongoing negotiations.

The Commissioner also rejected the application of solicitor-client privilege under section 19 and upheld only a small portion of a severance claimed as advice or recommendations under section 13.

The Commissioner ordered the institution to notify affected third parties regarding the mandatory exemptions claimed under section 17 and to provide representations on the exercise of discretion for the upheld discretionary exemptions.

The requester appealed a decision by the Ministry of Community and Social Services granting partial access to records relating to an eligibility review investigation.

The Commissioner considered whether the Ministry could raise new exemptions during the appeal, whether the records contained personal information, and whether exemptions for unjustified invasion of personal privacy and confidential law enforcement sources applied.

The Commissioner ordered partial disclosure, protecting the identities of non-consenting informants and an unidentified neighbour, while ordering the release of information about the requester's husband and consenting informants.

The appellant requested access to board minutes of the Stadium Corporation of Ontario.

The institution denied access to parts of the records under various exemptions.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the institution's discretionary exemptions under subsections 13(1) and 18(1) for certain severances.

However, the Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of other severances, finding that the mandatory exemption under subsection 17(1) did not apply because the commercial information was generated through negotiations rather than being supplied in confidence by the third parties.