IPCO 1993

The appellant requested records related to the Advocacy Act from the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office (PPAO).

The Ministry of Health refused to process the request, claiming the records were not in its custody or control because the PPAO operates independently.

The Inquiry Officer found that the PPAO is fundamentally an internal program of the Ministry and is not a separate statutory entity.

Consequently, the records are in the custody and control of the Ministry, and the Ministry was ordered to process the request in compliance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade's decision to deny access to records relating to the Ontario Investment Fund.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 12(1) and 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of the Cabinet records exemption to most of the records, finding they would reveal the substance of deliberations of the Executive Council.

The advice or recommendations exemption was also upheld for portions of an issue note and a memorandum.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the factual portions of the issue note.

The requester, a solicitor for a city that was the respondent in a human rights complaint, appealed the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to deny access to an investigation file under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the denial of access, finding that the records related to an ongoing investigation and their disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter under section 14(1)(b) of the Act.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for prosecution and investigation case files related to a death.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, citing exemptions for solicitor-client privilege and advice to government.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the section 19 exemption to the Crown brief and related correspondence, and the section 13(1) exemption to other records containing advice or recommendations.

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

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for notes taken by an Ontario Municipal Board member during a hearing.

The Ministry denied access, stating the notes were personal and not in the custody or control of the Board, and had subsequently been destroyed.

Applying the factors from Order 120, the Inquiry Officer found that the notes were created for the member's personal use, kept at his home, and not regulated or required by the Board.

The Inquiry Officer concluded the notes were not in the custody or under the control of the Board and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Environment and Energy's decision to deny access to certain records regarding the extension of the environmental levy to non-refillable beverage alcohol containers.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The Assistant Commissioner also determined that several records were exempt from disclosure under the Cabinet records exemption in section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, but ordered the disclosure of a covering memorandum and a deputy minister's memorandum that did not reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

The appellant requested records relating to a claim advanced on behalf of investors in collapsed mortgage brokerage companies.

The Ministry of Finance provided a fee estimate of $1,833.60 for search and preparation time without issuing a final access decision.

The appellant appealed the fee, arguing the records contained his personal information and should be exempt from fees under section 57(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found the records did not contain the appellant's personal information.

The Officer upheld the search fee of $1,833.60 but disallowed preparation fees, and ordered the Ministry to issue a final access decision.

The requester, owner of a chemical company, sought access to records revealing why the Ministry of Environment and Energy dropped charges against his company for shipping waste derived fuel to an unlicensed site.

The Ministry denied access under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records were confidential written communications between a Ministry employee and Crown Counsel directly related to the provision of legal advice concerning the prosecution.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to a proposal submitted by a successful bidder for a child care conversion project.

The Ministry claimed the mandatory exemption for third party commercial information under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the specific business valuation methodology contained in pages 1-25 of the proposal constituted a trade secret supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the affected party's competitive position.

However, the curriculum vitae and professional references in pages 26-29 did not qualify for the exemption and were ordered to be disclosed.

The Ministry of Health received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records concerning the requester.

The Ministry decided to release a transcript of an interview with the appellant, an affected party, with some severances.

The appellant appealed the decision to release the record.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained the personal information of both the appellant and the requester.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the disclosure of the record would not constitute an unjustified invasion of the appellant's personal privacy under section 49(b) of the Act, and upheld the Ministry's decision to disclose the record.

The appellant submitted freedom of information requests to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to the funding of a joint police task force investigating a murder.

Both Ministries 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 the Ministries failed to establish that disclosing the mere existence of the records would communicate information exempt under sections 14(1) or (2).

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Ministries to issue access decisions regarding the responsive records.

The Ministry of Health received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for standing offers from air ambulance service providers.

The Ministry denied access to the tariff schedules under the third-party commercial information exemption.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained commercial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the competitive position of the affected party.

The Ministry's decision to deny access under section 17(1)(a) was upheld.

The appellant requested lists of Limited Market Dealers and Securities Dealers from the Ontario Securities Commission.

The OSC denied access under section 22(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing the records were publicly available through a private company, Micromedia Limited.

The Commissioner held that availability through a private vendor does not constitute a regularized system of access available to the public generally.

The exemption under section 22(a) did not apply, and the OSC was ordered to disclose the records.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's decision regarding a freedom of information request for employment records at the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital, arguing that additional records should exist.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry failed to demonstrate that its search for responsive records was reasonable, as it did not provide sufficient details about the search steps or the knowledge of the staff who conducted them.

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

Six caregivers employed by the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital requested access to their personal information held by the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office (PPAO).

The Ministry of Health denied access, claiming the records were not in its custody or control.

On appeal, the Commissioner found that the PPAO is an internal program of the Ministry, meaning the records are under the Ministry's custody and control.

However, the Commissioner upheld the denial of access under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, finding that the records contained highly sensitive personal information of psychiatric patients supplied in confidence, and disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of their personal privacy.

The requester appealed the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to deny access to portions of his human rights complaint file under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained only the requester's personal information.

The Commissioner upheld the application of the solicitor-client privilege exemption to a legal memorandum, the law enforcement report exemption to case disposition reports, and the advice or recommendations exemption to certain staff memos.

The OHRC was ordered to disclose the remaining records, including intake and investigation notes, which did not qualify as reports or advice.

The requester appealed a fee estimate of $637.50 for search time related to a freedom of information request for a list of job competitions.

The Management Board Secretariat created a new record from 650 files to respond to the request.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Secretariat provided insufficient evidence to substantiate the fee estimate, as it did not explain how the search time was calculated or whether it included time spent creating the record.

The Secretariat was precluded from charging any fee for processing the request.

The appellant requested records relating to the quality of drinking water at the Penetanguishine Mental Health Centre.

The Ministry of the Environment granted partial access and charged a fee.

The appellant appealed, arguing the search was inadequate, non-responsive records were provided, and the fee was excessive.

The Inquiry Officer found the search was unreasonable because the Laboratory Services Branch was not searched, but the records provided were responsive.

The fee was partially upheld, but the Ministry was ordered to refund the charge for preparation time related to photocopying.

The appellant submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to audit reports relating to the activities of certain Ministry employees.

The Ministry refused to disclose portions of the records, claiming they contained third party information exempt under section 17(1).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information, with the exception of a contract price, did not qualify as commercial or financial information.

Furthermore, the contract price was negotiated rather than supplied in confidence.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant requested the Teme-Augama Anishnabai 1992-1993 budget and 1991-1992 Statement of Revenue and Expenditures from the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat.

The Ministry of the Attorney General, acting as agent, disclosed the budget but severed three dollar figures from the Statement of Revenue and Expenditures under the personal privacy exemption in section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Secretariat provided insufficient evidence to establish that the severed salary and consultant figures could be attributed to identifiable individuals.

As the information did not qualify as 'personal information' under section 2(1), the Ministry was ordered to disclose the severed figures.