IPCO 1991

The requester appealed the Ministry of Treasury and Economics' decision to charge search and preparation fees for a freedom of information request regarding the Skydome, and its refusal to grant a fee waiver.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the institution was justified in charging fees and denying a fee waiver, the estimated search and preparation times were excessive.

The search time was reduced to exclude a secondary review by a senior economist, and the preparation time was reduced to two minutes per severed page.

The appeal was allowed in part to reduce the total fee estimate.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to certain medical and psychiatric records related to a Health Disciplines Board hearing.

The Assistant Commissioner found that all records contained personal information.

Records containing threats against treating physicians were exempted under sections 20 and 49(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to seriously threaten the safety of those individuals.

The institution's claim that disclosure would prejudice the requester's mental health under section 49(d) was rejected due to insufficient evidence.

However, certain records containing sensitive information supplied in confidence by other individuals were exempted under section 49(b) to protect their personal privacy.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the remaining records with appropriate severances.

The appellant filed a freedom of information request with the Ontario Human Rights Commission for her case history file, specifically seeking the Case Disposition sheet and a legal opinion, after the Commission decided not to refer her human rights complaint to a Board of Inquiry.

The Commission denied access, citing law enforcement and other exemptions.

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the records contained personal information but were exempt under sections 14(1)(a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act because their disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement matter, as the appellant had requested a reconsideration of her complaint.

The requester sought access to day care centre health inspection reports from the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Ministry decided to release the reports after notifying affected third parties.

The Medical Officer of Health appealed the decision, arguing the reports were exempt under sections 17(1) and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and raised discretionary exemptions not claimed by the Ministry.

The Assistant Commissioner found that affected parties cannot rely on discretionary exemptions not claimed by the institution.

The Assistant Commissioner also determined that the Ministry had custody of the reports, the section 17(1) exemption did not apply because the reports were not supplied in confidence, and the reports did not contain personal information.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the reports.

The appellant requested access to an internal audit report regarding the travel expense claims of a named employee of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

The institution denied access under the personal privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the report contained personal information, its disclosure (with names severed) was desirable for the purpose of subjecting the institution's activities to public scrutiny.

The institution was ordered to disclose the report with the names of the affected persons severed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General for records relating to any investigations conducted against him.

The Ministry refused to confirm or deny the existence of such records under section 14(3) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records, if they existed, would contain personal information and qualify for exemption under section 14(1)(a) as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for any information recorded about him regarding wiretap applications.

The Ministry refused to confirm or deny the existence of such records under section 14(3) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing this refusal violated his Charter rights.

The Commissioner found no Charter violation, determined that wiretap applications would contain personal information and qualify for the law enforcement exemption under section 14(1), and upheld the Ministry's exercise of discretion to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of the records.

Two appellants sought access to reconsideration reports and legal recommendations regarding their human rights complaints.

The institution denied access, citing various exemptions.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained personal information and qualified as reports prepared in the course of law enforcement under section 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The head's exercise of discretion to refuse disclosure under section 49(a) was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Agriculture and Food's decision to deny access to Annual Animal Usage Reports for 14 publicly funded colleges, universities, and hospitals.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 14(1)(e), 14(1)(i), and 20 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the security of buildings where animal research is conducted, and that no valid distinction could be drawn between publicly funded and commercial facilities regarding security risks.

The appellant requested a copy of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between the Ministry of Correctional Services, the Ministry of Government Services, and Better Beef Limited.

The Ministry denied access under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the record contained commercial information supplied in confidence.

The Commissioner found that while the record contained commercial and financial information, it was the product of negotiation rather than information 'supplied' by the affected party.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

The requester sought access to an internal investigation report regarding a disturbance at the Guelph Correctional Centre.

The Ministry of Correctional Services denied access to the majority of the report under various exemptions, including section 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that the record was a report prepared in the course of law enforcement by an agency with the function of enforcing and regulating compliance with a law.

The head's decision to deny access to the entire record under section 14(2)(a) was upheld.

The requester sought access to documents regarding the ownership of enhancements made to the SkyDome stadium.

The institution denied access to the entire 38-page record under various exemptions and estimated a fee of $43.77.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of the section 18(1)(c) exemption to the financial section and parts of the memo section, finding disclosure could prejudice the institution's economic interests.

The remaining exemptions under sections 18, 17, and 13 were not established for the rest of the memo section.

The Assistant Commissioner also disallowed the $35.00 search fee due to lack of evidence and ordered the remaining minimal fees waived, directing disclosure of the non-exempt portions of the record.

The appellant requested a list of consultants hired by the Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited, including descriptions of work and total payments.

The institution denied access to the payment amounts for three consultants who did not consent, relying on the third-party information exemption under section 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the payment amounts were calculated by the institution and not 'supplied' by the third parties.

As the second part of the section 17 test was not met, the exemption did not apply, and the institution was ordered to disclose the payment amounts.

A requester sought access to records relating to a Certificate of Approval issued to Du Pont Canada Inc. for the production of HCFC-123.

The Ministry of the Environment denied access to portions of the records under section 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming they contained confidential commercial and technical information.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the records revealed scientific, technical, and commercial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice Du Pont's competitive position.

The appellant requested a report from the Ministry of Health and was charged a $30.80 photocopying fee.

The appellant sought a fee waiver, arguing the report contained his personal information and that payment would cause financial hardship.

The Assistant Commissioner found the report did not contain the appellant's personal information and that the appellant failed to establish financial hardship.

The head's decision not to waive the fee was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to records concerning the employment and admitting privileges of a physician at a psychiatric hospital.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Minister had properly delegated decision-making authority to the Deputy Minister.

The records contained personal information.

The Assistant Commissioner held that disclosure of the physician's employment records would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, but disclosure of the physician's hospital practice licence would not, as similar information is publicly available from the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

A draft regulation was found to be exempt from disclosure, while the published version was ordered disclosed.

The public interest override did not apply.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Treasury and Economics' decision to extend the time to respond to two freedom of information requests for records relating to the economic impact of a sovereign Quebec and the recession in Canada.

The Ministry relied on section 27(1)(a) of the Act, citing a large volume of records, but indicated it intended to issue interim notices and fee estimates rather than final access decisions.

The Commissioner held that section 27 is not applicable when an institution intends to issue an interim notice because records are unduly expensive to produce for review.

The Ministry was ordered to issue the interim notices by a specified date.

The requester appealed the institution's decision to deny access to board meeting minutes and other records relating to the Stadium Corporation of Ontario.

The Commissioner upheld the application of discretionary exemptions under sections 18 and 19 for certain records.

However, the Commissioner found that the mandatory exemption under section 17 did not apply to other records because the information was not 'supplied' by the third parties, but rather resulted from negotiations.

The Commissioner also found no compelling public interest to override the exemptions under section 23.

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

A student requested access to letters of recommendation written for an Ontario Graduate Scholarship application.

The Ministry decided to grant access.

A professor who wrote one of the letters appealed the decision, arguing the report was provided in confidence.

The Commissioner found that the student's identifying information and the professor's evaluative comments constituted the student's personal information, to which the student had a right of access.

The professor's identifying information constituted the professor's personal information, but its disclosure would not be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Ministry's decision to disclose the entire report was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Government Services denying access to records relating to an Ombudsman investigation into the North Pickering Project.

The institution claimed the records were not in its custody or control, and alternatively claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for law enforcement and personal privacy.

The Commissioner found that the institution had custody of the records despite conditions imposed by the Ombudsman.

The Commissioner upheld the application of the law enforcement exemption for an OPP report and the personal privacy exemption for interview summaries and personal opinions, but ordered the disclosure of certain non-exempt portions of the records.