IPCO 1991

The appellant, an unsuccessful applicant for employment as an O.P.P. constable, requested access to his background investigation file.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General denied access to portions of the record containing interviews with previous employers under section 49(c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the severed information qualified as personal information and met the three-part test for exemption under section 49(c), as it was evaluative material compiled solely for employment suitability and provided in confidence.

The head's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to an Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) report regarding an investigation into the conduct of Metropolitan Toronto Police officers.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General initially granted partial access but later denied access entirely, claiming law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions.

On appeal, the Commissioner first determined that the delegation of the head's powers to the decision-makers was valid, even though it was made by a former Minister.

The Commissioner then found that while the record contained personal information and its disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of privacy under s. 21(3)(b) of the Act, this presumption was rebutted.

The Commissioner concluded that the public interest in subjecting the institution to public scrutiny and ensuring public confidence in the police outweighed the privacy interests of the officers involved.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record with one minor severance.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to certain records relating to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The Commissioner found that the records contained the appellant's personal information.

The Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to exempt certain records under section 15(a) (intergovernmental relations) and section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, one record was ordered disclosed as it was not prepared in contemplation of litigation involving the Ministry.

The appellant sought access to records relating to a drug manufacturer's applications for listing in the Ontario Formulary.

The Ministry of Health denied access to parts of the records, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 19 and the personal information exemption under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the severed records were confidential communications related to legal advice and that disclosing the names of the independent drug reviewers would constitute an unjustified invasion of their personal privacy.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs' decision to extend the time limit for responding to 15 separate freedom of information requests by 100 days.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the requests involved a large number of records and that meeting the original 30-day time limit would unreasonably interfere with the institution's operations.

The Commissioner upheld the 100-day time extension as reasonable under section 27(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987.

The appellant, a former employee of the Ministry of Labour, appealed the Ministry's response to her request for access to her personal information spanning a 10-year period.

The Commissioner found that the Ministry's 21-day time extension was reasonable given the large number of records.

However, the Commissioner ordered the Ministry to provide copies of the records rather than requiring the appellant to view them at the Ministry's premises, finding that the Ministry had not established that copying was not reasonably practicable.

The Commissioner also found that a recent amendment to the Act prohibited the Ministry from charging a fee for access to personal information.

Finally, the Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to exempt certain records under the advice or recommendations exemption, the solicitor-client privilege exemption, and the mandatory exemption for the personal information of other individuals, while ordering the disclosure of a few specific records.

The appellant requested a correction to his attendance records to change 'sick' days to 'WCB' days, reflecting decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board.

The Ministry of Correctional Services refused, arguing the WCB decisions were under appeal.

The Commissioner found the information was personal information and ordered the Ministry to attach a memorandum to the records reflecting the WCB's findings, as the WCB decisions had not been set aside.

The appellant requested access to records related to decisions and appeals of the Mining and Lands Commissioner from the Ministry of Natural Resources.

The Ministry denied access to some records, claiming the M&L Commissioner was not an institution under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the M&L Commissioner is an independent tribunal and not a ministry, and therefore not covered by the Act.

The Commissioner ordered the Ministry to provide access to certain existing records in its custody, such as hearing notices, but found it was not obligated to create new records like a schedule of pending appeals.

The appellant requested access to the aggregate interview scores of the two successful candidates in a job competition at the Ministry of Housing.

The Ministry denied access under the personal privacy exemption of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the scores constituted personal information, their disclosure would be a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy as they related to personnel evaluations, and the records could not be reasonably severed without revealing the identities of the candidates.

The requester, an employee of a union involved in negotiations with the government, sought access to information regarding the contracting out of services by various ministries.

The institution denied access to portions of the records, relying on the discretionary exemptions in subsections 18(1)(c), (d), (f), and (g) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the institution failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet the tests for any of the claimed exemptions.

Furthermore, the Commissioner determined that the institution failed to fulfill its obligations under section 25 of the Act by not forwarding the request to other ministries for records it did not have in its custody or control.

The institution was ordered to disclose the records and forward the request to the appropriate ministries.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Ministry of Community and Social Services to withhold certain records requested under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The records were withheld under exemptions for advice or recommendations, solicitor-client privilege, and personal privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the advice or recommendations exemption did not apply to the record in question.

Regarding solicitor-client privilege, the Assistant Commissioner found that some records were exempt while others were not.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of the personal privacy exemption to one record and found that the exempt records could not reasonably be severed.

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

The appellant requested access to records concerning the prohibition of funeral homes being located on or operated in conjunction with cemeteries.

The Ministry denied access to four records, claiming they were exempt under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as their disclosure would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that although the records themselves were never placed before Cabinet, parts of them were incorporated into Cabinet submissions, and their disclosure would permit accurate inferences about Cabinet deliberations.