IPCO 1993

A requester sought access to the amount of electricity purchased by Ontario Hydro from a non-utility generator at a landfill site.

Ontario Hydro denied access under sections 17(1)(a) and (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing disclosure would reveal confidential commercial information and prejudice the generator's competitive position.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that the information was supplied in confidence and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the affected party's competitive position or result in undue loss.

The appellant requested information relating to promotions and job re-classifications in the Design Services Branch of the Management Board Secretariat.

The Secretariat issued a fee estimate of $2,115.00 for 70.5 hours of search time and refused to waive the fee on the basis of financial hardship.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate and the refusal to waive the fee.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Secretariat's decisions, finding the fee estimate reasonable given the complexity of the search and concluding the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence of financial hardship to warrant a fee waiver.

The appellant submitted two requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of Transportation for records relating to GO Transit service to Peterborough.

The Ministry granted partial access but withheld several records under various exemptions, including sections 12(1) (Cabinet records), 13(1) (advice to government), 17(1) (third party information), 18(1) (economic interests), and 19 (solicitor-client privilege).

The Assistant Commissioner reviewed the application of each exemption to the 28 records remaining at issue.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold certain records or parts thereof under sections 12(1), 13(1), 17(1), and 19, but ordered the disclosure of other records where the exemptions did not apply, including rejecting the application of section 18(1)(d).

A requester sought access to background financial information about a senior citizens home from the Ministry of the Attorney General (Office of the Public Trustee).

The home objected to the disclosure of the records, claiming they contained financial information supplied in confidence that could have labour relations implications.

The Ministry decided to release the records, and the home appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records did not meet the three-part test for exemption under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as the information was not supplied in confidence and was provided pursuant to a statutory obligation.

The Ministry's decision to disclose the records was upheld.

The appellant sought access to records containing the names and details of sexual harassment complaints made against him while he held a maintenance contract with the Management Board Secretariat.

The Secretariat denied access under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of the complainants' personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information but concluded that withholding the identities of the complainants and the substance of the complaints from the respondent in a sexual harassment investigation was not justified.

The Secretariat was ordered to disclose the records to the appellant, with addresses and telephone numbers severed.

A rural citizens' group requested records relating to a landfill site Certificate of Approval from the Ministry of Environment and Energy.

The Ministry issued a fee estimate of $437.20.

The requester sought a fee waiver on the grounds of financial hardship under s. 57(4)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry refused the waiver, and the requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the requester's bank balance at the time of the request was sufficient to cover the costs, and therefore payment would not cause financial hardship.

The appellant requested access to records concerning his complaint against the Ottawa Police Force.

The Ministry of the Attorney General provided partial access, severing personal information of other individuals.

The appellant appealed the severances.

The Inquiry Officer found that the severed information qualified as personal information and that 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 Ministry's decision to withhold the information under section 49(b) was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to partially deny access to records concerning a sexual harassment investigation.

The requester sought handwritten witness statements.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The Officer also determined that the withheld portions contained personal information and that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to the names and addresses of attendees and invitees of a Ministry of Health forum.

The Ministry disclosed the names but withheld some addresses under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld addresses were residential or mailing addresses of physicians, which qualified as personal information.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a complaint made to the Ontario Securities Commission concerning a condominium project.

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

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the advice or recommendations exemption (s. 13(1)) for internal memoranda and the third-party commercial information exemption (s. 17(1)(b)) for records supplied by the affected party.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of a letter from the OSC to the affected party, finding that it did not contain commercial information supplied in confidence, nor did it qualify for the law enforcement or personal privacy exemptions.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to an autopsy report under the personal privacy exemption of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry argued that the privacy rights of murder victims should not lapse after 30 years due to the sensitive nature of the information.

The Inquiry Officer found that section 2(2) of the Act clearly excludes information about individuals who have been dead for more than 30 years from the definition of personal information, with no exceptions.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

The requester appealed Ontario Hydro's decision to deny access to the prices paid by successful bidders for surplus trucks and equipment in two tender transactions.

Hydro claimed exemptions under sections 17(1)(a), 17(1)(c), and 18(1)(c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the bid prices were not supplied in confidence, either explicitly or implicitly, and therefore the section 17 exemptions did not apply.

Furthermore, Hydro failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence that disclosure would prejudice its economic interests or competitive position under section 18(1)(c).

Hydro was ordered to disclose the bid prices.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of a coroner's report regarding a deceased individual.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the record contained personal information of the deceased.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, concluding that the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and related to the deceased's medical condition, meaning its disclosure was presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under sections 21(3)(a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant, an ambulance attendant, requested access to a written complaint made against him and his partner.

The Ministry of Health granted partial access, severing personal information under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the severances.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the severed information was personal information relating to individuals other than the appellant and upheld the exemption, but ordered the disclosure of the date and one paragraph that did not contain personal information.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Environment and Energy's decision to extend the 30-day statutory time limit for responding to three freedom of information requests by an additional 23 days.

The Inquiry Officer found that the requests involved a large number of records requiring careful review by specific individuals, and that meeting the original time limit would unreasonably interfere with the Ministry's operations.

The Ministry's decision to extend the time limit was upheld as reasonable under section 27(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester, acting as solicitor for Arthur Township, appealed the Ministry of Municipal Affairs' decision to deny access to the names and addresses of individuals who signed a petition requesting an inquiry into the Township's administration.

The Ministry claimed the information was exempt under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the record contained personal information, its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, noting the public nature of petitions.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant requested access to two letters sent to the Ministry of Health containing complaints about the appellant's business.

The Ministry released the letters but withheld the name, signature, and address of the purported author under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the withheld information constituted personal information of both the appellant and the purported author.

Applying section 49(b), the Assistant Commissioner concluded that disclosing the author's identity would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, particularly given the potential for unfair damage to reputation and the fact that the substance of the letters had already been disclosed.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The Ministry of Environment and Energy received a freedom of information request for records submitted by a pulp mill company pursuant to an environmental Control Order.

The Ministry decided to disclose the records, and the company appealed, arguing the records were exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as their disclosure could prejudice its competitive position or result in undue loss.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the appeal, finding that while the records contained technical information supplied in confidence, the company failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence that disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in the alleged harms.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Environment and Energy's decision to deny access to records regarding a mining proposal.

The Ministry withdrew its objection to disclosing two records, leaving only a 'Summary of the Terms of Agreement' between the mining company and two First Nations bands at issue.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained commercial information supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the negotiations of the mining company and the First Nations bands.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the two undisputed records and its decision to withhold the agreement was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to deny access to a Record of Intake and handwritten notes related to an unfiled human rights complaint against his client's company.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records did not qualify as 'reports' under the law enforcement exemption in section 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of the Record of Intake and portions of the handwritten notes, as the affected person consented to the release of their personal information, but upheld the exemption for the personal information of other identifiable individuals under section 49(b).