IPCO 1993

The appellant submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to their prosecution case file regarding a robbery charge.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to certain records, including a committal form, pre-trial notes, handwritten trial notes, and the Crown's file cover, citing the section 19 exemption.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that all the withheld records were prepared by or for Crown counsel in contemplation of or for use in litigation, satisfying the second branch of the section 19 exemption.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat's decision that no records existed responsive to a request for a legal opinion regarding a native land claim.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Secretariat's search was unreasonable because there was no evidence that a physical search of the institution's records holdings actually took place, and inquiries were not made with all relevant legal counsel.

The Secretariat was ordered to conduct a further search for responsive records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to specific pricing information and evaluation charts related to a successful bid for supplying photocopiers.

The Ministry and the affected person claimed the records were exempt under sections 17(1)(a) and (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer applied the three-part test for section 17(1) and found that the records contained technical and commercial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the affected person's competitive position.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Housing for draft reports related to a management review.

The Ministry responded that no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that responsive records should exist in specific offices.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search was not reasonable, as the affidavit provided by the Ministry was insufficient and did not explain why only one area was searched.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct a further search, including the areas identified by the appellant.

The appellant requested access to their personal information from the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board, including a copy of the audio tape of their hearing.

The Board provided a transcript of the tape instead.

The appellant appealed, arguing they were entitled to the tape itself, and that the Board failed to conduct a reasonable search for records related to a compliance investigation.

The Inquiry Officer found that providing the transcript satisfied the Board's obligations under section 48(3) of the Act, given the ambiguity of the request.

However, the Officer found the Board's search for the compliance investigation records was not reasonable and ordered a further search.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to witness statements compiled during a Police Complaints Investigation Bureau investigation.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information of the requester and other identifiable individuals.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to apply the discretionary exemption under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, concluding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy as the records were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The requester, acting as the executor of an estate, appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision that no additional responsive records existed regarding provincial land tax and succession duty files.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Ministry's search efforts, which included checking historical microfiche, computer records, and card indexes, and noted that the relevant closed file had been destroyed pursuant to a records retention schedule.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the Ministry's search was reasonable in the circumstances and upheld the decision.

The appellant appealed the institution's decision regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to two mining claims, arguing that additional responsive records should exist.

The institution provided affidavits from five staff members detailing their search efforts.

The Inquiry Officer found that the institution's search was conducted by knowledgeable staff in locations where records might reasonably be found, and upheld the institution's decision, concluding the search was reasonable.

The appellant requested access to Coroner's reports regarding the deaths of eight girls at the Grandview Training School for Girls between 1965 and 1976.

The Ministry denied access under the personal privacy exemption.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained personal information, as the individuals had been dead for less than 30 years.

The disclosure of the medical information in the reports was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner also concluded that the public interest override did not apply, as the Ministry had already released a briefing note providing a general understanding of the investigation.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant made freedom of information requests to the Ministry of Health for the names and addresses of attendees at Medical Information/Computer Forums.

The Ministry disclosed names but severed addresses, claiming they were personal residential addresses of health care providers.

The appellant appealed the severances and the fees charged for severing the records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the addresses constituted personal information under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and that their disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1).

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the fees charged as reasonable and calculated in accordance with section 57(1) of the Act.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to two letters under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The records consisted of a resignation letter and a letter summarizing events leading to a termination of employment, both written by third parties.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information supplied in confidence.

The Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected persons' privacy and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access under section 21 of the Act.

The requester appealed a decision by the Management Board Secretariat to withhold portions of records containing the home addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, prior work experience, and Social Insurance Numbers of employees and members of ministries.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information qualified as personal information under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

In the absence of evidence that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, the mandatory exemption under section 21(1) applied.

The Secretariat's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted multiple requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for information relating to members and employees of the Metro Toronto Housing Authority.

The Ministry of Housing granted partial access but withheld personal information such as home addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, Social Insurance Numbers, and resumes pursuant to section 21 of the Act.

The appellant appealed, also claiming the Ministry failed to provide a complete list of employees and a list of position titles in French.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry was not obliged to create new records or translate existing ones under the French Language Services Act.

The withheld information was found to be personal information, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry's decisions were upheld.

The appellant requested access to records relating to the testing of steel used in the construction of the SkyDome's retractable roof.

SkyDome denied access under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing third-party trade secrets and technical information.

The Assistant Commissioner found that most of the records contained trade secrets supplied in confidence and were exempt from disclosure.

However, one group of records was already publicly available at the City of Toronto's Buildings and Inspections Department and therefore could not be considered confidential.

The public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

SkyDome was ordered to disclose the publicly available records but its decision to withhold the remaining records was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to refuse a fee waiver for a $600 fee associated with a request for job descriptions of staff in Ontario correctional facilities.

The requester argued financial hardship and that dissemination of the record would benefit public health and safety.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the requester failed to provide sufficient evidence of his assets and expenses to prove financial hardship, and failed to demonstrate a connection between disclosure and a benefit to public health or safety.

The appellant requested a list of landowners of Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) in Grey and Bruce counties from the Ministry of Natural Resources.

The Ministry denied access to the names and addresses of natural persons on the list, citing the mandatory personal privacy exemption under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the names and addresses constituted personal information and that the appellant failed to establish that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision regarding a freedom of information request, claiming the Ministry failed to conduct a reasonable search for responsive records.

The Ministry had provided two pages but the requester believed more existed based on previous requests and notations on the records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search was reasonable, noting that the relevant administrative correspondence file had been disposed of in accordance with retention schedules.

The appellant requested access to a technical review of proposed capital expenditures for the Bruce 'A' Nuclear Generating Station.

Ontario Hydro denied access to a draft economic assessment under sections 18(1)(f) and (g) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record did not contain a specific plan relating to the management of personnel or administration, nor did its disclosure pose a reasonable expectation of premature disclosure of a pending policy decision or undue financial harm.

The exemptions did not apply, and Hydro was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant requested records relating to a water tower from the Management Board Secretariat.

The Ministry denied access, and the appellant appealed the adequacy of the decision letter.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the decision letter and the index of records provided to the appellant lacked sufficient detail to comply with section 29(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, because the appellant had abandoned the substantive appeal regarding access to the records, the Assistant Commissioner declined to order the Ministry to issue a revised decision letter.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision denying access to records regarding security given for tobacco tax payments and claiming no records existed for other parts of the request.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry failed to properly advise the requester that existing records contained the requested raw data and failed to provide an adequate notice of refusal under section 29(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to the letters of credit, finding they were exempt under section 17(2) as information gathered for the purpose of collecting a tax.