IPCO 1993

A requester sought access to information submitted by short-listed advertising agencies during a competition for the jobsOntario program.

The Management Board of Cabinet decided to release portions of the responses.

One of the agencies appealed, arguing the information was exempt under sections 17(1)(a) (third party information) and 21 (personal information) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information did not meet the three-part test for section 17(1)(a) as it was not a trade secret and there was no reasonable expectation of harm.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the information did not qualify as personal information under section 21.

The institution's decision to release the records was upheld.

A requester sought access to information submitted by short-listed advertising agencies during a competition for the jobsOntario program.

The Management Board of Cabinet decided to release portions of the submissions.

One of the agencies appealed, arguing the information was exempt under sections 17(1)(a), 17(1)(c), and 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the appellant failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence of a reasonable expectation of harm under section 17(1), and that the information did not qualify as personal information under section 21.

The decision to release the records was upheld.

The requester sought access to information submitted by short-listed advertising agencies for the 'jobsOntario' program.

The Management Board of Cabinet decided to release responses to certain questions.

One of the agencies appealed, claiming the information was exempt under sections 17(1) (third party information) and 21 (personal information) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information did not meet the three-part test for exemption under section 17(1), as it did not constitute trade secrets and the appellant failed to establish a reasonable expectation of harm.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the information did not qualify as personal information under section 21.

The decision to release the records was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to deny access to 49 pages of records relating to their human rights complaint.

The Inquiry Officer found that all records contained personal information.

Several records were found to be exempt under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege), section 13(1) (advice or recommendations), and section 14(2)(a) (law enforcement report) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the OHRC's application of the discretionary exemptions under sections 49(a) and 49(b) to protect the personal privacy of other individuals.

The OHRC was ordered to disclose portions of two records, while its decision to withhold the remaining records was upheld.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of the Attorney General relating to a complaint filed with the Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner.

The Ministry denied access to two memoranda under the law enforcement and advice/recommendations exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the records did not qualify as law enforcement records because they related to administrative processes rather than investigatory functions.

However, the Commissioner upheld the application of the advice/recommendations exemption to specific sentences within the records, ordering the Ministry to sever those sentences and disclose the remaining factual information to the appellant.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Financial Institutions' decision that no records existed responsive to a request for documents concerning the Superintendent of Insurance.

The Ministry provided an affidavit detailing its search efforts, which located one responsive memorandum that it agreed to release.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry's search was reasonable, noting that other records from the relevant time period would have been destroyed in accordance with records retention schedules.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the located memorandum.

The Ministry of Health received a transferred freedom of information request for records relating to six companies.

The president of one of the companies submitted a second request asking for the identity of the original requester.

The Ministry decided to release the original request letter and transfer letter with the original requester's name and address severed.

The original requester appealed.

The Assistant Commissioner found that only the name of the appellant was responsive to the second request, and the remaining parts of the records, including the address, were not responsive and should not be released.

The appellant requested access to the toxicology reports of two individuals killed in a boating accident, which were relevant to a civil lawsuit.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General denied access under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records constituted personal information and that their disclosure would be a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(a).

The appellant failed to establish that the information was required to prepare for the civil proceeding under section 21(2)(d).

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records relating to the Ministry's investigation into possible violations of the Discriminatory Business Practices Act by the Ontario Science Centre.

The Ministry denied access under sections 14(2)(a) and 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that two of the three records qualified for exemption under section 14(2)(a) as reports prepared in the course of a law enforcement investigation.

The third record, prepared after the investigation concluded, did not qualify under section 14(2)(a) or section 13(1).

The public interest override in section 23 was found inapplicable to section 14 exemptions.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the third record with witness names severed.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to two internal memoranda regarding an investigation of alleged irregularities at a cemetery.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records met the three-part test for the law enforcement exemption, as they were reports prepared in the course of an investigation by an agency enforcing the Cemeteries Act.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed a decision by the Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited (SkyDome) to charge an estimated fee of $360 for manual search time to process a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that SkyDome failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate its fee estimate, as it provided no explanation regarding the search location, volume of records, or other relevant factors.

Consequently, SkyDome was precluded from charging any fee for processing the request, and the issue of a fee waiver was rendered moot.

The Ministry of Housing received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to unit prices of successful bidders for a janitorial supplies contract.

The Ministry denied access to the unit prices under sections 17(1)(a) and (c) of the Act.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the unit price information was commercial information supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the competitive position of the affected persons.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to consultant reports from Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited (SkyDome) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

SkyDome provided a fee estimate and required a deposit before processing the request, but did not issue a final decision on access.

The Commissioner found that SkyDome failed to properly discharge its obligations under sections 26 and 29(1)(b) of the Act, as it did not provide a final decision letter within 30 days.

SkyDome was ordered to issue a final decision letter to the appellant.

The appellant requested access to records relating to compliance investigations undertaken by the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario.

The Ministry of Health denied access, claiming the records were privileged under section 52(9) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer held that the privilege under section 52(9) applies only to records produced in the course of an inquiry, not a compliance investigation.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The Ministry of Health received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to the Church of Scientology.

The Ministry denied access to portions of several records under various exemptions.

The requester appealed.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the records did not fall under the exclusions for psychiatric clinical records in sections 65(2)(a) and (b), they were exempt from disclosure under the mandatory personal privacy exemption in section 21(1).

The Assistant Commissioner also upheld the Ministry's application of the discretionary exemptions for advice or recommendations (section 13(1)) and solicitor-client privilege (section 19).

The appellant requested access to allegations or representations made by individuals opposing his leasing of government-owned land.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the record containing the personal information of an affected person who had complained to the Ministry.

The Inquiry Officer found that the severed information constituted personal information and that its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of the affected person's privacy, as the information was supplied in confidence.

The Ministry's decision to deny access under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was upheld.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to the minutes of the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board.

The Ministry decided to release the minutes with some severances, and the Board appealed, arguing the minutes were exempt under section 17(1) as confidential commercial information.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while some portions contained commercial or financial information supplied in confidence, the Board and the Ministry failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence that disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause the harms enumerated in section 17(1).

The Ministry was ordered to release the minutes subject to the original severances.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a 1989 labour dispute between the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and various Ontario Government Ministries.

The Ministry of Health denied access to several records, claiming exemptions under sections 13(1), 18(1)(c), 18(1)(e), and 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that none of the exemptions applied.

The records did not contain advice or recommendations, the Ministry failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence of prejudice to economic interests or that the records contained positions for negotiations, and the record claimed under solicitor-client privilege did not directly relate to seeking, formulating, or giving legal advice.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant requested copies of correspondence between his M.P.P. and the Ontario Human Rights Commission regarding a complaint against Laurentian University.

The Commission disclosed one letter and stated no further responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing additional records must exist based on the contents of the disclosed letter.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Commission's affidavit detailing its search efforts and concluded that the search for responsive records was reasonable.

The requester appealed a decision by the Ministry of Housing denying access to notes made by a Board member during a pre-hearing conference at the Rent Review Hearings Board.

The Ministry claimed the notes were not in the custody or control of the Board.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the notes were created for the Board member's personal use, were kept separate from Board files, and were not regulated by the Board.

Therefore, the notes were not in the custody or under the control of the Board and were not accessible under the Act.

The appeal was dismissed.