IPCO 1992

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Durham Regional Police Service for records of calls for assistance made in 1965.

The institution denied access on the basis that no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that records should still exist.

The institution provided evidence that records from that era were likely destroyed following the 1974 amalgamation of police departments, and that current retention periods are 15 months.

The Commissioner reviewed the steps taken by the institution to locate the records, including searching historical ledgers, automated systems, microfilm, and contacting a former officer.

The Commissioner concluded that the search was reasonable and upheld the institution's decision.

The appellant requested access to records concerning the Halton Board of Education's Key Communicator program, including the names of the Key Communicators.

The institution denied access to the names under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Commissioner found that while the names constituted personal information, their disclosure was desirable for the purpose of subjecting the activities of the institution to public scrutiny.

The Commissioner ordered the institution to disclose the names of the Key Communicators.

The requester appealed the City of North York's decision to deny access to the application and resume of the successful applicant for a citizen member appointment to the Board of Health.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the requested records contained personal information relating to employment and educational history, the disclosure of which is presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner also found no compelling public interest to override the exemption.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to withhold a record under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

In an interim order, the Inquiry Officer ordered the OHRC to reconsider its exercise of discretion because it had previously released similar personal information to the appellant.

After receiving the OHRC's representations on its reconsideration, the Inquiry Officer upheld the OHRC's decision to withhold the record.

The requester appealed the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to deny access to records related to a human rights complaint against him, including the written complaint, investigator's notes, and counsel's notes.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records did not qualify for the law enforcement exemptions under sections 14(1) and 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, certain notes were exempt under solicitor-client privilege (section 19) and section 49(a).

The Inquiry Officer also found that disclosure of some records would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 49(b), but ordered the OHRC to reconsider its exercise of discretion regarding the handwritten complaint, as a typewritten version had already been disclosed.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a police inspection report.

The Ministry granted partial access, denying parts under sections 14 and 21.

The requester appealed.

The Commissioner upheld most of the Ministry's exemptions, finding that the severed information contained personal information and law enforcement details whose disclosure could interfere with an investigation or endanger safety.

However, the Commissioner ordered the disclosure of two pages where the exemptions did not apply.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Transportation's decision to deny access to a nine-page investigation report regarding complaints against a company holding licences under the Truck Transportation Act.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 14 and 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the record met the three-part test for exemption under section 14(2)(a) as a report prepared in the course of an investigation by an agency with the function of enforcing compliance with a law.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services denied a request for access to two psychiatric reports concerning the requester's client, claiming they fell outside the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(2).

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the records were in respect of a psychiatric patient, they were copies rather than original 'clinical records' as defined by the Mental Health Act, and thus did not fall under section 65(2)(a).

Furthermore, because the records were maintained by the Ministry for a non-clinical purpose, they did not satisfy the requirements of section 65(2)(b).

The Ministry was ordered to issue a proper access decision.

The requester sought access to funding proposals and evaluations submitted to the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines under the Northern Ontario Development Agreement.

The Ministry denied access, claiming exemptions for intergovernmental relations and third-party information.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that disclosure would not prejudice intergovernmental relations, as the Ministry's concerns related to industry relations rather than relations between governments.

Furthermore, the third-party information exemption did not apply because the Ministry failed to establish that the proposals were supplied in confidence.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to the signatures of individuals on a letter related to a complaint.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded as clinical records under the Mental Health Act and exempt under the personal privacy provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the signatures did not constitute a clinical record, but upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access, concluding that the signatures were personal information and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The requester submitted ten requests to the Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited (SkyDome) for information relating to the proposed sale of SkyDome.

SkyDome denied access, claiming no records existed.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that while SkyDome's position that it had no responsive records was reasonable, it failed to fulfill its obligations under section 25(1) of the Act to transfer the requests to the Ministry of Treasury and Economics, which had custody or control of the negotiating committee's records.

SkyDome was ordered to transfer the requests.

The Ministry of Natural Resources received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to a five-year contract for growing tree seedlings.

The Ministry denied access to certain records under the mandatory exemption for third party commercial information in section 17(1)(a).

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while the records contained commercial and financial information, the affected person failed to establish that the information was supplied in confidence or that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice its competitive position.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Education's decision to deny access to a list of retail stores in Cornwall that were given FUTURES program placements.

The Ministry claimed the records were neither in its custody nor under its control.

The Inquiry Officer found that the FUTURES program was delivered by a third-party agency under a purchase of service contract, and the Ministry's right to access the records was limited to audit and accountability purposes.

The Inquiry Officer concluded the records were not in the custody or under the control of the Ministry and upheld the decision.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Natural Resources for records concerning the history and disposition of a specific lot.

After receiving access to the file, the appellant appealed, alleging that additional responsive records existed but were missing.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the affidavits detailing the Ministry's manual searches of the Crown Land Registry and district office files, and concluded that the Ministry's search for the requested records was reasonable in the circumstances.

The appellant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of the Attorney General for access to and correction of a court transcript and other records.

The access request was resolved when the Ministry released all responsive records.

For the correction request, the appellant sought to have the records destroyed because they were allegedly inaccurate, but refused to sign an undertaking not to request them again.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to identify the specific information she believed was incorrect or provide sufficient facts to substantiate her allegations of inaccuracy.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to portions of a prosecution case file and exhibits from a criminal trial involving the requester.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld records contained personal information and were properly exempt under section 19 (solicitor-client and Crown counsel privilege) and section 49(b) (unjustified invasion of personal privacy of witnesses).

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to the salary ranges and benefits of the Chief Executive Officer and Senior Vice-President of Investments of the Teachers' Pension Plan Board under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board denied access, claiming exemptions under sections 18(1)(c) and 21(1).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Board's evidence of prejudice to its economic interests was speculative and that the section 18(1)(c) exemption did not apply.

Furthermore, while the information was personal information, its disclosure fell under section 21(4)(a) as the individuals were officers or employees paid from public funds, meaning disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Board was ordered to disclose the salary ranges and benefit entitlements.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to a paragraph of a memorandum under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed the record was exempt under section 19 due to common law solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record did not meet the test for solicitor-client privilege because it was a communication between Ministry administration staff, not between a client and a legal advisor, and it was not created for a lawyer's brief.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

Four requesters appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to records relating to wards at the Grandview Training School for Girls.

The Ministry claimed the records fell under the federal Young Offenders Act (YOA) and refused to provide them to the Information and Privacy Commissioner for review.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the YOA's disclosure prohibitions expressly contradict the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, rendering the provincial act constitutionally inoperative for YOA records.

However, the Commissioner retained jurisdiction to determine if the records actually fell under the YOA.

As the YOA prohibited disclosure of the records to the Commissioner without a youth court order, the Ministry was ordered to provide a detailed affidavit describing the records to allow the Commissioner to determine jurisdiction.

The appellant requested access to records relating to Georgian College's decision to serve a Notice of Trespass on him.

The College denied access to several records, claiming exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the internal investigation leading to the Notice of Trespass did not qualify as a 'law enforcement' matter under section 14.

However, certain records were exempt under section 19 due to solicitor-client privilege.

The Commissioner ordered the disclosure of several records, while upholding the exemption for others and severing highly sensitive personal information of third parties.