IPCO 1993

The requester sought access to records relating to the investigation of her sexual harassment complaint against a co-worker.

The Ministry of Health granted partial access, denying access to some records under sections 13(1), 19, and 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Both the requester and the co-worker (affected person) appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were exempt under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) and section 21 (personal privacy), but ordered the disclosure of other records where the exemptions did not apply or where the Ministry failed to establish the requirements for section 13(1) (advice or recommendations).

The appellant requested access to records relating to an investigation of a complaint that he had sexually harassed a co-worker.

The Ministry of Health disclosed some records but withheld others under various exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld records contained personal information and that some were exempt under solicitor-client privilege.

The Officer also upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold other records on the basis that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the affected persons who provided information during the investigation.

The Ministry's search for records was deemed reasonable.

The Ministry of Health received a freedom of information request for records relating to a sexual harassment investigation.

The complainant objected to the disclosure of the records and appealed the Ministry's decision to grant partial access.

The Inquiry Officer found that the mandatory exemption for third-party information did not apply because the individuals involved were employees, not third parties.

The records contained the personal information of both the requester and the complainant.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to disclose the records, finding that the complainant failed to demonstrate that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of her personal privacy.

The requester appealed the Ontario Securities Commission's decision to deny access to 218 pages of records relating to complaints and investigations into his trading activities.

The Assistant Commissioner reviewed the application of the law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of three records that did not qualify as law enforcement reports or meet the harm test, but upheld the OSC's decision to withhold the remaining records under sections 14(2)(a), 49(a), and 49(b) of the Act.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to three records relating to an audit of a local organization and complaints against it.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's notice of refusal was deficient but proceeded to determine the access issues.

The Inquiry Officer held that portions of the draft status report (Record 1) were exempt under the law enforcement exemption, but the remainder was not exempt as advice or recommendations.

The internal memorandum (Record 2) was ordered disclosed in full.

The letter from named individuals (Record 3) was found to contain personal information and was exempt from disclosure as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to a memorandum concerning the prosecution of offenses involving ALERT J3A units.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the record was prepared by Crown counsel for use in litigation, satisfying the requirements of Branch 2 of section 19.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The Ministry of Natural Resources received a freedom of information request for correspondence with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.

The Ministry decided to disclose three letters and their responses.

The Federation appealed, arguing the records were exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as scientific or technical information supplied in confidence.

The Inquiry Officer found the records contained neither scientific nor technical information, and the Federation failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence of reasonable expectation of harm.

The appeal was dismissed and the Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Health for records relating to a named company.

The Ministry issued a fee estimate of $370.20, which included 11.5 hours of manual search time.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate, arguing the search time was unjustified.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the fee estimate, finding that the estimated search time of 13.5 hours (with 2 hours free) was reasonable given the nature of the request and the files that needed to be searched.

The requester sought access to information regarding an investigation into a pension plan.

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

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while the records qualified for the law enforcement exemption under sections 14(1)(a) and (b), the Ministry could not rely on section 14(3) to refuse to confirm or deny their existence because the fact of the investigation had already been disclosed to the requester.

However, the Ministry's decision to withhold the records under section 49(a) was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records relating to an investigation of a pension plan, pursuant to section 14(3) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the records, if they existed, would qualify for the law enforcement exemptions under sections 14(1)(a) and (b), the Ministry could not rely on section 14(3) because confirming their existence would not communicate exempt information, especially since the investigation was already public knowledge.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision not to disclose the records under section 49(a), as they contained personal information and qualified for exemption.

The appellant sought access to records relating to a sexual harassment investigation against him conducted by the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The Ministry granted partial access but withheld witness statements and portions of internal memoranda under the personal privacy and advice/recommendations exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the witness statements, finding that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the witnesses and the complainant.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold portions of the memoranda containing advice or recommendations.

The appellant's argument that a compelling public interest in disclosure outweighed the exemptions was rejected, as the interest was found to be purely private.

The appellant, a visually impaired individual, requested his Vocational Rehabilitation file from the Ministry of Community and Social Services in 24-point bold print.

The Ministry provided a regular print copy and offered personalized interpretation, but refused to provide the entire file in enlarged print due to cost.

The appellant appealed, arguing that section 48(4) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Human Rights Code required the Ministry to provide the records in his requested format.

The Assistant Commissioner found that section 48(4) applies an objective standard for a 'comprehensible format' and that the Ministry's accommodations did not infringe the appellant's rights under the Human Rights Code.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The Ministry of the Attorney General received a freedom of information request for background financial information about a senior citizens home.

The Ministry decided to release the records.

A representative of the home then requested the name and address of the original requester, who wished to remain anonymous.

The Ministry refused to disclose the requester's identity under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The representative appealed.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the requester's name and address constituted personal information and that its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a 1964 motor vehicle accident in which he was an uninsured driver.

The Ministry of Finance denied access to certain records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that some records were exempt under section 19 as they were prepared by Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice, and others were exempt under section 21 as they contained personal information of other individuals, the disclosure of which would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant sought access to records generated during the mediation stage of previous Freedom of Information appeals involving the Ministry of Health.

The Ministry denied access under section 52(9) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that section 52(9) did not apply directly to mediation records.

However, relying on the Commissioner's power to control its own process, the Inquiry Officer upheld the denial of access to correspondence between the Ministry and the Commissioner's office to prevent collateral access to information subject to other proceedings.

Internal Ministry documentation generated during the processing of the appeals was ordered disclosed.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Housing's decision regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to the Program Supervisor position for the Rent Review Hearings Board.

The requester believed additional responsive records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's affidavit failed to adequately describe the nature, extent, and location of its search for the majority of the requested records.

The Inquiry Officer concluded the search was not reasonable and ordered the Ministry to conduct a further search in specific locations and files.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Housing's decision regarding a freedom of information request for a list of recipients of certain reports involving the Rent Review Hearings Board.

The Ministry claimed no such list existed and provided names from memory, without conducting a formal search.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to meet its obligation under section 24 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to conduct a reasonable search for responsive records.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct a further search and issue a new decision letter.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to the funding of Project 80, a municipal corruption squad.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 14(1)(a), (b), (d), and (f) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing disclosure could interfere with law enforcement, reveal confidential sources, or deprive individuals of a fair trial.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to establish a reasonable expectation of probable harm for most of the records, as they primarily concerned funding rather than substantive investigative details.

Only a small portion of one record detailing proposed travel plans was exempted under section 14(1)(b).

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the balance of the responsive records.

The appellant, acting as an agent for four psychiatric patients, appealed the Ministry of Health's refusal to accept authorizations allowing the appellant to request the patients' personal information.

The Ministry refused the authorizations due to the sensitive nature of the records and clauses preventing direct contact with the patients.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry acted reasonably in refusing the authorizations, given the vulnerability of the patients and the need to verify identity, but ordered the Ministry to contact the patients directly to ascertain their wishes.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to portions of agreements relating to the creation of Teranet, a public-private partnership.

The Commissioner found that the name of a corporate shareholder did not qualify as personal information under section 21.

The Commissioner upheld the Ministry's application of the discretionary exemption under section 18(1)(d) for most of the withheld information, finding that disclosure could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the financial interests of the Government of Ontario.

The Commissioner rejected the application of section 17 to a specific clause regarding development costs, finding insufficient evidence of expected harm.

Finally, the Commissioner found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as the public interest had been satisfied by the significant disclosure already made.