IPCO 1993

The requester appealed the Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited's (SkyDome) decision to deny access to minutes of its Board of Directors meetings under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

SkyDome claimed exemptions under sections 13(1) and 18(1) of the Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that section 13(1) applied to six references containing advice or recommendations, and section 18(1)(c) applied to eight references where disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice SkyDome's economic interests.

The remaining portions of the minutes did not qualify for exemption and were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Health for personal and general records relating to the Consumer-Survivor Development Initiative and various mental health organizations.

The Ministry granted partial access, severing some information as the personal information of others, and stated no further records existed.

The appellant appealed, questioning the severances and the adequacy of the search.

The Inquiry Officer found the severed information was outside the scope of the request as it related to other individuals.

The Officer also concluded the Ministry's search was reasonable, but ordered the disclosure of a progress report and meeting notes that the Ministry located during the appeal process.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a Ministry of Housing job competition in which he was an unsuccessful candidate.

The Ministry disclosed some records but withheld others, citing the mandatory exemption for personal information under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld records contained the personal information of other candidates, the disclosure of which would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable and that it was not reasonably practicable to allow the appellant to examine the original severed records.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose one record with the personal identifiers of other candidates severed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's deemed refusal to provide access to records relating to civil actions.

During the inquiry, the Ministry claimed the advice or recommendations exemption under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for several records.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records contained advice or recommendations and were exempt, while others contained merely factual material or did not qualify for the exemption.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records and sever personal information from certain records under section 21(1).

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to deny access to certain records relating to 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 upheld the application of the Cabinet records exemption under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to most of the withheld records, except for a covering memorandum.

The Assistant Commissioner also upheld the application of the solicitor-client privilege exemption under section 19 to a memorandum prepared by Crown Counsel.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a criminal investigation of his business activities under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations granted partial access but denied the remainder, citing law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the appellant's personal information and that the withheld records qualified for exemption under section 14(1)(d) as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal the identity of confidential sources.

The Ministry's search for records was also found to be reasonable.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose certain response letters with the names and addresses of the complainants severed.

The appellant submitted two requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to Ontario Hydro for all information relating to himself and his case from the files of various individuals.

Hydro disclosed some records but denied access to others, claiming exemptions under sections 13(1), 18(1)(e), 19, and 49(b).

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the appellant's personal information.

The Officer upheld Hydro's decision to withhold certain records under section 13(1) (advice or recommendations), section 18(1)(e) (negotiating positions), and section 19 (solicitor-client privilege).

The Officer also found that Hydro's search for responsive records was reasonable.

Hydro was ordered to disclose a number of records that did not qualify for the claimed exemptions.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to an alleged assault by a correctional officer.

During mediation and the inquiry, the requester withdrew claims to specific documents after receiving them through civil litigation.

The sole remaining issue was whether the Ministry's search for additional records was reasonable.

Based on sworn affidavits from Ministry employees detailing the search efforts, the Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records and that the search was reasonable.

The appellant requested records from Ontario Hydro relating to rehabilitation projects for the Bruce-A Nuclear Generating Station.

Hydro proposed to grant partial access and provided a fee estimate, but denied the appellant's request for a fee waiver.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate and the denial of the fee waiver.

The Assistant Commissioner determined that the standard of review for fee waiver decisions is correctness, not arbitrary or capricious abuse of discretion.

Applying the criteria under section 57(4)(c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Assistant Commissioner found that the dissemination of the records would benefit public health or safety, as they relate to the safety of nuclear generating facilities.

Ontario Hydro was ordered to waive the fee.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to deny access to interview documents related to his human rights complaint.

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

The Officer upheld the application of the discretionary exemption under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to protect the personal privacy of other individuals, but ordered the disclosure of the appellant's own personal information.

The Officer also found that the institution's search for records was reasonable.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to the proposed renovation of the Forum facility at Ontario Place.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 17 and 18 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry failed to prove the section 18 exemptions applied to Record 2.

However, the mandatory exemption under section 17 applied to portions of the remaining records, as they contained confidential commercial information supplied by a third party, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice its competitive position.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose Record 1, Record 2, and severed portions of the other records.

The Inquiry Officer issued a Final Order disposing of the outstanding issue from an interim order, which required the Ministry of Health to conduct a further search for responsive records and provide a detailed affidavit.

The Ministry provided an affidavit from the Assistant Director of the Drug Programs Branch, detailing the searches conducted and explaining the non-existence of certain factual information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records and concluded that the search was reasonable.

The Ministry of Housing received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a report prepared in response to a Management Review of the Rent Review Hearings Board.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the record under section 21.

The appellant appealed the denial of access to pages 19 and 20.

The Inquiry Officer found that some of the withheld information constituted the personal information of candidates in job competitions, while information provided by staff in their employment capacity did not.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the personal information of the candidates was exempt from disclosure under section 21(1) as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, and ordered the Ministry to disclose the remaining non-exempt portions of the record.

The requester appealed the Management Board of Cabinet's decision to deny access to records relating to the conversion of management and excluded civil service positions within the OPSEU bargaining unit.

The institution claimed exemptions under sections 12, 13, 18, and 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the institution's decision, finding that the records were properly exempt as they would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations, advice or recommendations of a public servant, positions applied to negotiations, and unjustified invasions of personal privacy.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to portions of records relating to a specific product.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 14, 19, and 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

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

The Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the withheld records contained personal information of other individuals, qualified as law enforcement reports, and were subject to solicitor-client privilege as they were prepared by Crown counsel for use in litigation.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a human rights complaint file from the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The OHRC denied access to portions of the records under sections 21(3)(b) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the OHRC's decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and the presumption of an unjustified invasion of privacy was not rebutted.

The appellant requested records relating to a product known as 'Skratch' from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

The Ministry advised that no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing the search was inadequate.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Ministry's affidavit detailing the extensive searches conducted and concluded that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate the records.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for records relating to a product known as 'Skratch'.

The Ministry released some records and the appellant appealed, arguing that more responsive records existed.

During mediation, the Ministry conducted further searches but located no additional records.

The sole issue on appeal was whether the Ministry's search was reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Ministry's representations detailing four separate searches and concluded that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to an Algonquin land claim.

The Secretariat refused to disclose a specific report, claiming various exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and denied a fee waiver for processing additional records.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the mandatory exemptions under sections 17 and 18 did not apply, nor did the discretionary exemptions under sections 19 and 22(a).

However, certain portions of the records containing advice and recommendations were exempt under section 13(1), and the residential addresses of two researchers were exempt as personal information under section 21(1).

The public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

Finally, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the Secretariat's decision not to waive the $1,480 fee, finding it fair and equitable given the Secretariat's prior accommodations.

The Secretariat was ordered to release the non-exempt portions of the records.

The requester appealed a fee estimate of $340 provided by the Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited (SkyDome) for processing a freedom of information request.

The estimate included charges for manual search time and shipping costs.

The Inquiry Officer found that SkyDome provided no evidence to substantiate its fee estimate or justify the search time and shipping costs.

As a result, the fee estimate was not upheld, and SkyDome was ordered to issue a proper decision letter without charging for search and shipping costs.