IPCO 1991

A news director requested the names and addresses of victims of an armed robbery from the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police.

The institution denied access under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the requested information was personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Commissioner also found that the public interest in disclosure did not clearly outweigh the purpose of the exemption, particularly given the victims' expressed desire for anonymity and the ongoing nature of the investigation.

The appellant requested the specific salaries and wages paid to employees of the Town of Listowel.

The Town disclosed salary ranges but refused to disclose exact salaries for senior management positions, claiming it would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant appealed, arguing the $10,000 range for senior management was unacceptable.

The Commissioner found that exact salary figures for specific positions with one incumbent constitute personal information.

The Commissioner held that disclosing exact salaries would be a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(f) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which was not rebutted by the public scrutiny or salary range provisions.

The decision of the head was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the City of Oshawa denying access to the name and address of an individual who made a by-law complaint about the appellant's property.

The institution relied on the law enforcement exemption under section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner upheld the institution's decision, finding that the by-law enforcement process qualified as law enforcement and that disclosure of the record could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source of information.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police for a report concerning an incident at a restaurant.

The institution granted partial access but denied the remainder, citing exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Commissioner found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

The Commissioner concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's personal privacy under section 38(b) of the Act and upheld the institution's decision to deny access.

The appellant requested access to a legal opinion provided to the Town of Ancaster regarding the noise impact of the Hamilton Airport.

The institution denied access, claiming the record was exempt under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1989 due to solicitor-client privilege.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the privilege was waived when the institution released a subsequent legal opinion on the same matter.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the requested record was a confidential communication directly related to seeking legal advice and thus subject to common law solicitor-client privilege.

The Commissioner concluded that the release of the subsequent opinion did not constitute a waiver of privilege for the earlier opinion, and upheld the institution's decision to deny access.

The requester appealed the City of Toronto's decision to extend the 30-day statutory time limit to respond to a freedom of information request by an additional 60 days.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the 60-day extension was not reasonable, as the institution did not provide sufficient information to justify the length of the extension for searching three boxes of records.

However, taking into account that this was the institution's first request requiring third-party notices, the Commissioner ordered the institution to provide its decision by the date it had already set.

The appellant sought access to an audit report and related documents concerning the management practices of a former Sheriff.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access, citing several exemptions including law enforcement and personal privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the institution's decision to withhold the records under section 14(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that because the Sheriff had been charged under the Criminal Code and the matter was proceeding to trial, disclosure of the report could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter.

The appellant, a former employee of the Ministry of Correctional Services, requested access to witness statements made by three young offenders regarding an incident at Camp Dufferin.

The Ministry denied access, claiming exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained personal information and that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the young offenders, upholding the Ministry's decision to withhold the records.

The appellant sought access to her social assistance file from the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Ministry granted access to most records but withheld certain third-party information from an Eligibility Review Officer's report under subsection 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the withheld information qualified as personal information and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected persons' personal privacy, as it was compiled during an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Citizenship, which was forwarded to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, seeking access to his human rights complaint file.

The Commission granted partial access, denying access to certain records under the law enforcement, advice or recommendations, and personal privacy exemptions.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that the Commission conducted a reasonable search and that the head's powers were properly delegated.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of several internal memoranda and notes that did not qualify as 'reports' under the law enforcement exemption, but upheld the Commission's decision to withhold formal reports and third-party personal information.

The Assistant Commissioner issued a Final Order disposing of an outstanding issue from Interim Order 210.

The head of the institution was ordered to reconsider the exercise of discretion under subsection 49(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act regarding portions of records qualifying for exemption under subsection 15(b).

The head provided representations, raising subsection 49(e) for the first time.

The Assistant Commissioner noted it is unacceptable to consider factors from an un-claimed discretionary exemption when exercising discretion under another.

However, based on other factors, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the head's decision to withhold the portions of the records.

The requester appealed the institution's decision to deny access to letters of agreement between the Stadium Corporation and consortium members regarding preferred supplier rights.

The institution claimed exemptions under sections 17 and 18 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that most of the records did not meet the tests for exemption, as they were negotiated agreements rather than information supplied in confidence, and their disclosure would not reasonably prejudice economic interests.

However, two records were found to be exempt under sections 17(1) and 18(1)(c) respectively.

The institution was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited for documents relating to Pepsi's approach to become a consortium member.

The institution denied access, claiming exemptions under sections 17, 18, and 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that the records did not meet the three-part test for third-party commercial information under section 17, as there was insufficient evidence of a reasonable expectation of harm.

The Assistant Commissioner also rejected the institution's claims under section 18 (economic interests) and section 19 (solicitor-client privilege).

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

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Health denying access to the name and title of an individual who had previously requested the appellant's personal information.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the original requester's name and title constituted personal information, its disclosure would not be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant's interest in knowing the identity of the person who sought their sensitive personal information outweighed the original requester's interest in anonymity.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the information.

The requester sought access to two letters from the Ministry of Health.

The Ministry decided to grant access, but an affected person appealed the decision, arguing the records were part of their clinical file and excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were compiled in a psychiatric facility in respect of a patient and were therefore 'clinical records' under the Mental Health Act.

Consequently, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act did not apply to the records.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of the Solicitor General regarding an OPP investigation.

The Ministry failed to respond within the 30-day statutory time limit, resulting in a deemed refusal appeal.

The Ministry subsequently extended the time limit by 90 days under section 27(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to consult with other institutions.

The appellant appealed the time extension.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while some extension was reasonable due to the volume of records and necessary consultations, 90 days was unreasonable.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered a 70-day extension and directed the Ministry to issue any necessary third-party notices and a final access decision by a specified date.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Natural Resources seeking to verify whether a named individual held an antlerless deer permit.

The Ministry refused to confirm or deny the existence of the record under subsection 21(5) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that the requested information, if it existed, would constitute personal information and its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of the record, finding no error in the exercise of discretion.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to extend the 30-day statutory time limit for responding to a freedom of information request by an additional 90 days.

The Assistant Commissioner found the 90-day extension unreasonable, determining that the necessary consultations could be completed within a 60-day extension.

The institution was ordered to send any necessary third-party notices within 10 days and to issue its access decision by January 28, 1991.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to certain records and challenged the adequacy of the Ministry's search for records.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold portions of the records under the exemptions for advice or recommendations (s. 13(1)) and solicitor-client privilege (s. 19), and found the head properly exercised discretion under s. 49(a).

However, the Assistant Commissioner found the Ministry failed to establish that its search for records was reasonable and ordered a new search to be conducted in the presence of a Compliance Investigator.

The appellant requested access to notes and statements taken by a police officer at the site of an automobile collision.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General granted partial access, severing a portion containing a statement from another driver.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the severed portion contained personal information and that its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as it was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The institution was ordered not to disclose the record.