IPCO 1993

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to the signatures on a 1987 letter.

The Ministry initially claimed an exemption under section 65(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, but withdrew it following a previous order.

The Assistant Commissioner considered the mandatory personal information exemption under section 21(1).

Based on an affidavit provided by one signatory, the Assistant Commissioner found implied consent for the release of that individual's name under section 21(1)(a).

However, the remaining names were found to be exempt under section 21(1) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry was ordered to release the one name and withhold the rest.

The requester appealed the fee estimates provided by the Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited (SkyDome) for processing two freedom of information requests.

SkyDome estimated fees for search and preparation time but did not make a substantive decision on access.

The Assistant Commissioner found that SkyDome provided insufficient evidence to substantiate its fee estimates, failing to justify the search costs or explain the preparation charges.

Consequently, SkyDome was ordered to issue a decision on access without charging any fee for searching and preparing the records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Education and Training for documentation regarding communications between school board officials and the Ministry.

The Ministry stated no records existed regarding the communications.

The appellant appealed, arguing the search was inadequate.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Ministry's affidavit detailing its search efforts and concluded that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate the requested records.

The search was found to be reasonable.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to complaints made by other persons against a named OPP officer.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained the personal information of the named officer and other identifiable individuals.

In the absence of representations from the requester, the Assistant Commissioner concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access.

The appellant sought access to funding proposals and evaluations submitted to the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

The Ministry denied access to an unnumbered proposal and its evaluation, claiming exemptions under sections 15(a) and 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry failed to establish that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice intergovernmental relations under section 15(a).

Furthermore, the Ministry and the affected person failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence that disclosure would result in similar information no longer being supplied, thus failing the third part of the section 17(1) test.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant requested access to records relating to promotion processes from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, claiming exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained the personal information of the appellant and other affected persons.

The exemption for advice or recommendations under section 13(1) was not upheld, but the exemption for unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 49(b) was upheld for specific portions of the records supplied in confidence.

The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to audit investigation reports relating to the activities of named employees.

The Ministry denied access to two reports, claiming the personal privacy exemption under section 21(1).

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained personal information but that the presumption against disclosure of employment history did not apply to expense claims and use of government assets.

Balancing the public interest in scrutinizing government expenditures against the potential damage to the employees' reputations, the Assistant Commissioner ordered the records disclosed with the names and positions of the affected employees severed.

The appellant requested access to the reasons why a former Ontario Provincial Police officer resigned.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access to a four-line section of the record, claiming it contained personal information exempt under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the severed portion contained personal information regarding the affected person's marital status and employment history, and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to Niagara College for the dollar values of bids submitted for a security services tender.

The College denied access to the bid amounts under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing they were commercial information supplied in confidence.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the College's decision, finding that the three-part test for exemption under section 17(1)(a) was met, as disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the competitive position of the affected bidders.

The appellant requested records from the Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited (SkyDome) regarding accidents, fatalities, and safety violations.

SkyDome provided fee estimates for search and preparation time but did not substantiate the calculations.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the fee estimates did not comply with section 57(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and ordered SkyDome to process the requests without charging search and preparation fees.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Environment for records relating to chemical levels in municipal wells.

After narrowing the request to records held at the Ministry's Drinking Water Section in Toronto, the appellant appealed on the basis that additional records should exist.

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

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to an OPP investigation into allegations that the requester had been wrongfully convicted of murder.

The Assistant Commissioner found that most of the withheld records contained personal information of other individuals and were exempt under the mandatory personal privacy exemption in section 21(1) or the discretionary exemption in section 49(b).

However, the Ministry failed to establish that disclosure of one page would jeopardize the security of a detention centre under section 14(1)(k), and failed to establish that police notes were prepared for litigation under section 19.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt pages.

The Ministry of Natural Resources denied a freedom of information request for the names and titles of individuals consulted during a policy review, claiming the information was exempt as personal information under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The Inquiry Officer found that the individuals expressed their views in a professional or business capacity, not a personal one.

Therefore, the severed names and titles did not qualify as personal information under section 2(1) of the Act.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record to the appellant.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' response to a freedom of information request, alleging a deemed refusal by seven program areas and an unreasonable search for records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the deemed refusal situation no longer existed because the Ministry subsequently issued decisions for the remaining program areas.

The Inquiry Officer also concluded that the Ministry's search for responsive records was reasonable in the circumstances.

The Ministry was ordered to provide the appellant with copies of the four late decision letters.

The appellant requested access to the correct answers for interview and written questions from three job competitions in which she was a candidate.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services denied access under sections 18(1)(f) and (g) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the correct answers had already been put into operation and were not part of proposed plans or policies.

Therefore, the exemptions did not apply, and the Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The requester appealed a decision by the Ministry of Education regarding a fee estimate of $3,040.00 and the denial of a fee waiver for a broad request seeking records related to the integration and segregation of disabled children in the school system.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's fee estimate, finding the calculation of 70 hours of search time and preparation costs to be reasonable given the massive volume of responsive records.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the denial of the fee waiver, concluding that the requester failed to provide evidence of financial hardship and that the dissemination of the records would not benefit public health or safety.

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

The Ministry claimed exemptions under section 12 (Cabinet records) for a draft report and section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) for a legal memorandum.

The Commissioner found that parts of the draft report did not qualify for the section 12 exemption as they would not reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations, and ordered their disclosure.

The Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to the remainder of the draft report and the legal memorandum in its entirety.

The appellant requested access to records pertaining to a former employee of the Ministry of Health.

The Ministry refused to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records under sections 14(3) and 21(5) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence that disclosing the mere existence of the records would compromise a law enforcement activity or constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

Furthermore, the Ministry had already confirmed to the appellant that an investigation had taken place.

The Ministry was ordered to issue a substantive decision under the access provisions of the Act.

The appellant appealed the decision of Seneca College to deny access to a booklet of final examination questions under section 18(1)(h) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The College argued the questions were part of a 'test bank' for future use.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the exemption does not apply to questions used in examinations that have already been completed, ordering the College to release the record.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Correctional Services' decision to deny access to portions of his personal and medical files from four correctional centres.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the withheld temporary absence application records were exempt under section 49(e) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they would reveal information supplied in confidence.

Additionally, a confiscated record was properly withheld under section 14(1)(h) as it was seized by a peace officer during a search authorized by the Ministry of Correctional Services Act.