IPCO 1994

The appellant requested records relating to the termination of her employment and the creation of a new job position from the Town of Dryden.

The Town provided some records and denied access to others.

The appellant appealed, arguing that more records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Town had conducted a reasonable search for the requested records, supported by a sworn affidavit detailing the search efforts, and upheld the Town's decision.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $541.90 provided by the Halton Board of Education for processing a request for the Director's credit card statements and expense accounts.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Board's calculations for search time, preparation time, and photocopying, finding them reasonable and in accordance with the Act.

However, the $22.50 charge for off-site retrieval was disallowed as it did not qualify as an allowable cost under the regulations.

The Board was ordered to refund the $22.50.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board for vehicle registration numbers from parking tags issued at a specific location and time.

The appellant sought this information to contact the vehicle owners to corroborate a complaint against the parking enforcement officer.

The Police denied access under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that the vehicle registration numbers constituted personal information compiled during an investigation into a possible violation of law, and that no compelling public interest outweighed the privacy exemption.

The Ministry of Health denied a freedom of information request for records relating to a psychiatric patient, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(2) and that section 35 of the Mental Health Act prohibited their disclosure to the Commissioner.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Ministry to produce the records to the Commissioner, holding that the Commissioner has the power under section 52(4) to compel production to determine whether the section 65(2) exclusion applies, and that section 35(5) of the Mental Health Act permits disclosure pursuant to such an order.

The appellant requested access to prosecution files and Crown briefs related to charges laid against them.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to a three-page letter, claiming it would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's privacy, upholding the Ministry's decision to apply the discretionary exemption under section 49(b).

The requester appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to Minutes of Settlement and an attached release executed between the Ministry, two individuals, and a real estate company.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected persons' personal privacy under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to ten pages of records responsive to a freedom of information request.

The records consisted of biographical information, a doctor's note, and an individual's statement.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information about identifiable individuals other than the appellant.

In the absence of representations weighing in favour of disclosure, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested copies of tape recordings of interviews conducted during a Ministry of Health investigation.

The Ministry claimed no such records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing the investigator had secretly taped interviews.

The Ministry provided affidavits confirming that a thorough search was conducted and that the investigator had not taped any interviews because the interviewees refused.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search for the requested records was reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant requested a security guard's report and a list of dates their personal file was accessed from Sheridan College.

The College provided one report but claimed no other report existed and that it did not track file access dates.

The appellant appealed, arguing the search was inadequate.

The Inquiry Officer found that the College failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as detailed affidavits from the employees who conducted the search, to prove it had conducted a reasonable search.

The College was ordered to conduct a further search and provide detailed affidavits.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Transportation's decision to extend the time limit for responding to a freedom of information request by 39 days.

The Ministry claimed the extension was necessary under section 27(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act because the request necessitated a search through a large number of records, and meeting the original time limit would unreasonably interfere with its operations.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding the time extension reasonable in the circumstances.

The appellant requested access to a report relating to the investigation of her complaint of sexual harassment by a co-worker.

The Ministry granted partial access, claiming exemptions under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, supported by sections 21(2)(f) and (h).

The Inquiry Officer found that while the record contained personal information, the appellant was entitled to portions of the report that directly addressed her complaint, as complete confidentiality cannot be guaranteed in workplace harassment investigations.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose specific highlighted portions of the record.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access to records concerning an Ontario Provincial Police investigation.

The requester appealed the decision.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Crown brief and duplicate copies of witness statements were exempt from disclosure under the solicitor-client privilege exemption in section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the remaining records contained personal information that was exempt from disclosure under section 21, and that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to three occurrence reports relating to an incident at a correctional facility.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the personal information of the appellant and other affected persons.

However, the Ministry failed to establish that disclosure would result in an unjustified invasion of privacy under sections 21(2) or 21(3).

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

The requester, an author of a screenplay, sought access to the names of two individuals who reviewed her work for the Ontario Film Development Corporation.

The Corporation withheld the names under the personal privacy exemption in section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the names constituted personal information and that their disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, given the reviewers' expectation of confidentiality.

The Corporation's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Housing's decision to deny access to five construction bids for a non-profit housing development under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer first determined that the records were in the custody or control of the Ministry.

Applying the three-part test for the third-party commercial information exemption, the Inquiry Officer found that while the bids contained confidential commercial and financial information, disclosure of general bid information would not cause the specified harms.

However, specific unit pricing, bid breakdowns, and alternatives were found to be exempt as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the contractors' competitive positions.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records with the exempt portions severed.

The Ministry of Environment and Energy received a freedom of information request for an agreement regarding soil contamination clean up.

The Ministry decided to release the agreement, and the affected third party company appealed.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the agreement was negotiated, not 'supplied' by the company, and that its confidentiality expired upon Lieutenant Governor approval.

The company's claims of settlement privilege and potential harm in civil litigation did not satisfy the requirements for exemption under section 17(1) or section 14(1)(f) of the Act.

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

The appellant, a Member of the Legislative Assembly, appealed the Ministry of Environment and Energy's decision to charge a $90 fee and refuse a fee waiver for a freedom of information request regarding environmental studies of a new Ministry office site.

The appellant argued that his status as an MLA and the public interest in the environmental condition of the site justified a fee waiver.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding the fee calculation reasonable.

The Officer applied the four-part test from Order P-474 and concluded that disclosing the record would not yield a public benefit by disclosing a public health concern.

Furthermore, the Officer held that the Act does not grant MLAs a special exemption from paying fees.

A requester sought access to the amount and cost of electricity sold by Ontario Hydro to a named company.

Ontario Hydro denied access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing exemptions for third-party commercial and financial information.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information was supplied in confidence and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the affected party's competitive position and contractual negotiations.

The public interest override under section 23 was not met.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to portions of a letter written by an affected person in response to a Notice of Intended Discipline from the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

The Board denied access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information of the appellant, the affected person, and another individual.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure of the information would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's personal privacy under section 49(b), as the information was highly sensitive and its disclosure would cause excessive personal distress.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited (SkyDome) denying access to records containing health and safety statistics and building inspection reports.

SkyDome claimed exemptions under sections 13(1), 17(1), 18(1), and 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that SkyDome failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that any of the claimed exemptions applied to the records.

SkyDome was ordered to disclose the records to the appellant.