IPCO 1992

The appellant requested access to records concerning discussions between the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and a truck and trailer company regarding a plant closure.

The Ministry granted partial access, severing information under section 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that specific financial information relating to the company's capitalization was exempt under section 17(1), but ordered the disclosure of more general information about the company's circumstances.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply to the exempt information.

The appellant requested access to records relating to drug listing applications from the Ministry of Health.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records under sections 17, 19, and 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that some records were exempt under solicitor-client privilege (s. 19) and third-party commercial information (s. 17).

The Assistant Commissioner also held that the names of drug reviewers constituted personal information and their disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21.

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

The appellant requested access to records, including statements made by three co-workers, which led to a letter of reprimand on his personnel file.

The Ministry of Health denied access to portions of the records under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing an unjustified invasion of the co-workers' personal privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the information was highly sensitive and supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations denying access to the resume of the Registrar of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the resume 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 21(3)(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner concluded that the presumption was not rebutted by the factors in section 21(2) and that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to a legal opinion regarding the disclosure of client files.

The Ministry claimed the record was exempt under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the record was prepared by Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice, satisfying Branch 2 of the section 19 exemption.

The public interest override in section 23 was found not to apply to section 19.

The head's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to a letter that prompted the Ministry of Transportation to require his client to undergo medical and psychiatric assessments under threat of driver's licence suspension.

The Ministry denied access to the letter under section 20 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure could seriously threaten an individual's safety or health.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the record contained the appellant's personal information and that the Ministry failed to provide evidence raising a reasonable expectation of harm under section 20.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record to the appellant.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Government Services' decision to transfer a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Correctional Services.

The requester argued the transfer was improper and delayed access to the requested Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry of Correctional Services had a greater interest in the record under section 25(3) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as it had the primary role in negotiations.

Although the institution failed to transfer the request within the 15-day statutory limit, no remedial order was made because the transfer was substantively proper and the record had already been released to the requester.

The requester sought access to records relating to the development of the Insurance Amendment Act, 1986.

The Ministry of Financial Institutions denied access to several records, claiming various exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner reviewed the application of exemptions for Cabinet records, advice or recommendations, relations with other governments, third party information, economic interests, and solicitor-client privilege.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of exemptions to certain records and ordered the disclosure of others.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's response to a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a list of persons who had accessed his OHIP records.

The Ministry maintained that no such list existed and detailed its search efforts, which included checking correspondence files where such access requests would be logged.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry's search was reasonable and upheld the decision that the requested record did not exist.

A requester sought access to the name of a proposed supplier and fuel in connection with an application by Steetley Lime and Aggregates for a Certificate of Approval under the Environmental Protection Act.

The Ministry of the Environment initially refused disclosure but later decided to disclose the information.

Steetley appealed, arguing the information was exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that Steetley failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence of a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure, and ordered the Ministry to disclose the requested information.

The appellant requested access to police investigation records relating to the death of a named individual, for which the appellant was convicted of murder.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General granted partial access, withholding certain pages and severing others under the personal privacy exemptions of the Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the severed information constituted the personal information of affected persons, and its disclosure would result in a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy because the records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

The presumption was not rebutted by the appellant's claim that the records were relevant to a fair determination of rights.

The appellant requested copies of letters and an investigative report regarding complaints made about him as an employee of the Ministry of Correctional Services.

The Ministry denied access under sections 13, 21, and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant argued he had already been given access because the records were read to him during a disciplinary meeting.

The Assistant Commissioner found that reading the records did not constitute access under the Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold most of the records to protect the personal privacy of the authors and to protect advice or recommendations, but ordered the disclosure of one excerpt containing factual comments by the appellant's supervisor.

The appellant sought access to records relating to a job competition in which he was an unsuccessful candidate, specifically requesting the personal information of the successful candidate.

The institution denied access to several records, citing the personal privacy exemption.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the successful candidate's resume, evaluations, and salary information were presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under sections 21(3)(d), (f), and (g) of the Act.

The appellant failed to rebut these presumptions under sections 21(2) or 21(4), and the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

Partial access was ordered for records that merely implemented the hiring decision without revealing exempt personal information.

The requester, a staff member of an Ontario Provincial Police detachment, sought access to an internal investigation report and related notes regarding a morale problem at the detachment.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General denied access to most of the record, citing exemptions for personal information.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while some introductory and recommendation sections did not contain personal information and must be released, the majority of the record contained highly sensitive personal information of other individuals.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the institution's decision to deny access to those portions under the mandatory exemption in section 21 and the discretionary exemption in section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant submitted multiple requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to Algonquin College for records relating to an incident and the College Ombudsman's reports.

The institution disclosed some records but withheld others, and claimed that records held by the College Ombudsman were not in its custody or control.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the College Ombudsman operates independently and its records are not in the custody or under the control of the institution under section 10(1) of the Act.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the institution conducted a reasonable search for records and responded to the requests in a reasonable and proper manner.

The appellant appealed a decision by Ontario Hydro denying access to agendas and minutes of the Senior Ontario Hydro/AECL Technical Information Committee (SOATIC).

Ontario Hydro claimed exemptions under sections 13, 15, 17, 18, and 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that certain items were exempt under sections 15(a), 15(b), 18(1)(a), and 21.

However, the Commissioner ordered the disclosure of other items, finding they did not qualify for exemption under sections 13, 17, or 18(1)(g).

The Commissioner also found a compelling public interest in the disclosure of nuclear safety-related information that would override the section 17 exemption, and rejected arguments that the application of the Act to AECL information raised a constitutional issue.

The appellant sought access to a report written by a subordinate employee submitted in support of a Workers' Compensation Board claim, alleging it contained derogatory remarks used against him in a promotion competition.

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

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the record contained highly sensitive personal information supplied in confidence, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's personal privacy under section 49(b).

The requester sought access to records seized by the OPP from the office of a former employee of the Office of the Premier.

The institution claimed the records were political party records and not subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were in the physical possession of the institution and integrated into its operations, thus falling under its custody.

The Assistant Commissioner further determined that the records contained personal information.

Applying the mandatory exemption under section 21, the Assistant Commissioner held that disclosure of one record would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy regarding financial history, while the remaining records could be disclosed without such an invasion.

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

The requester sought access to an Ontario Provincial Police investigation report compiled after he complained about a private investigation firm's conduct.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General denied access to portions of the record.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the record contained personal information of individuals other than the requester, and 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 requester appealed a fee estimate of $222.64 for search time related to a freedom of information request for records concerning a proposed national sales tax.

The requester also appealed the institution's decision not to waive the fees.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the fee calculation, finding the 232 hours of search time reasonable given the original broad scope of the request.

The Assistant Commissioner also upheld the decision not to waive the fees, as the requester failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a fee waiver under section 57(3) of the Act.