IPCO 1994

The appellant, representing a pharmacists' association, appealed the Ministry of Health's claim that no records existed in response to a request for documentation on savings achieved in pharmacy fees under Social Contract legislation.

The sole issue was whether the Ministry conducted a reasonable search.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed affidavits from Ministry staff detailing searches in the Drug Programs Branch and the Negotiations Secretariat.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the Ministry's search was reasonable and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to portions of records relating to an investigation into the death of a child at a licensed day care facility.

The Ministry relied on the invasion of privacy exemption under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained personal information, including employment history and information that could unfairly damage an individual's reputation, and that no factors favoured disclosure.

The appellant, counsel for the respondents in a human rights complaint, submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Human Rights Commission seeking records relating to the transfer of the complaint investigation to a special task force.

The Commission denied access to several records, citing exemptions for invasion of privacy, advice or recommendations, and law enforcement.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the invasion of privacy exemption for most records, finding they contained personal information of the complainant and an employee.

The advice or recommendations exemption was upheld for a case disposition sheet.

The law enforcement exemption was not established.

The Commission was ordered to disclose one sentence from an internal transfer memo.

The appellant, an inmate, appealed the Ministry's response to his request for his inmate file, arguing that additional responsive records should exist.

The Ministry conducted multiple searches and disclosed nearly 200 pages of records, including additional documents found during mediation.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry's search for responsive records was reasonable and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to minutes of the Advisory Committee on the Personal Property Securities Act.

The Ministry initially claimed the Cabinet records exemption and later attempted to raise the advice or recommendations exemption.

The Assistant Commissioner refused to consider the late discretionary exemption, found that the minutes did not qualify for the Cabinet records exemption as their disclosure would not reveal the substance of Executive Council deliberations, and concluded that the Ministry's search for additional records was reasonable.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the responsive portions of the minutes.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to draft policies and procedures regarding wildlife rehabilitation and game farming.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13(1), 18(1)(b), and 18(1)(g) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the records did not qualify as advice or recommendations under section 13(1), except for specific portions of one record.

The exemption for priority of publication under section 18(1)(b) was upheld for a research document on game farming.

The exemption for proposed policies under section 18(1)(g) was rejected because the Ministry had not yet reached a pending policy decision.

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

The appellant, an employee of Fanshawe College facing a sexual harassment complaint from a student, requested access to the student's academic records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The College denied access, citing the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the College's decision, finding that the records contained the student's educational history, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 21(3)(d).

The Officer also found no compelling public interest under section 23 that would override the privacy exemption.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to a Cabinet submission and draft discussion papers relating to the transfer of land and resources to Aboriginal communities.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of the Cabinet records exemption to the Cabinet submission.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that portions of the draft discussion papers were exempt as positions to be applied to negotiations and advice or recommendations, but ordered the disclosure of the remaining portions.

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

The appellant, a union president, submitted freedom of information requests to Ontario Hydro for records relating to a specific employee's early retirement agreement and termination.

Hydro refused to confirm or deny the existence of the records under section 21(5) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that Hydro could not rely on section 21(5) because disclosure of most of the records would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Officer ordered the disclosure of the records, severing only the employee's name and specific salary dollar amounts, finding that public scrutiny of the early retirement agreement outweighed the privacy interests for the remaining information.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to portions of a vaccine supply agreement with a laboratory under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry and the laboratory claimed the withheld portions contained third party commercial and financial information exempt under section 17(1).

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the information was supplied in confidence and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the laboratory's competitive position, satisfying the three-part test for exemption.

However, some portions were not 'supplied' and were ordered disclosed.

The requester's claim of a public interest override under section 23 was dismissed.

A journalist appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to records relating to investigations into the disappearance and death of a Crown ward.

The Ministry claimed the law enforcement exemption, and the Crown Attorney later raised the right to a fair trial exemption due to ongoing criminal proceedings against four individuals.

The Inquiry Officer allowed the late raising of the fair trial exemption but found that neither section 14(1)(b) nor 14(1)(f) applied, as there was insufficient evidence linking disclosure to interference with the police investigation or the accused's right to a fair trial.

However, the Inquiry Officer found that certain portions of the records contained personal information exempt under section 21(1), and that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply to this exempt information.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's refusal to disclose police records relating to their son, which the Ministry claimed were governed by the Young Offenders Act (YOA) and fell outside the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry refused to produce the records to the Information and Privacy Commissioner for review, arguing that the YOA's non-disclosure provisions were paramount.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Ministry to produce the records, holding that the Commissioner has the jurisdiction and statutory obligation to determine the preliminary issue of whether the records actually fall within the scope of the YOA, and that ordering production for this limited purpose does not conflict with the YOA.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to two records relating to special filings under the Corporations Information Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold Record 1 under the Cabinet records exemption, finding it was used by Executive Council to make a government decision.

However, the Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of Record 2, finding that it was a purely factual transmittal memorandum that did not qualify for either the advice or recommendations exemption or the solicitor-client privilege exemption.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Health for records relating to a hospital redevelopment project.

The Ministry located 20 responsive records.

The appellant appealed, arguing that more records should exist and that he should be permitted to review the Ministry's files to determine responsiveness himself.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the search was reasonable and conducted by experienced employees, and that the Act does not permit requesters to independently review an institution's records to assess responsiveness.

The Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation received a freedom of information request for records relating to the proposed expansion of the Metro Toronto Convention Centre.

The request was transferred to the Convention Centre, which decided to grant access to two letters from a third-party company.

The company appealed the decision, arguing the records were exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they contained commercial information supplied in confidence that would prejudice its competitive position.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the appeal, finding that the information reflected negotiated terms rather than information "supplied" by the company, and that there was no evidence it was supplied in confidence or that disclosure would cause the alleged harms.

The Convention Centre was ordered to disclose the records.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Citizenship's decision to deny access to records relating to monetary grants awarded to a named organization under the Anti-Racism Operational Funding Program.

The Ministry claimed exemptions for third party information and invasion of privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while most of the records did not meet the three-part test for the third party information exemption, specific financial information regarding the organization's funding sources was supplied in confidence and its disclosure could cause undue loss.

The public interest override did not apply to the exempt information.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the records.

The appellant, a former employee of Ontario Hydro, requested access to his employment records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Ontario Hydro denied the request, stating that all responsive records had already been provided to the appellant's counsel during a civil lawsuit.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that Ontario Hydro had conducted a reasonable search by knowledgeable staff in locations where the records might reasonably be located, and upheld the institution's decision.

The requester appealed the Liquor Control Board of Ontario's decision to deny access to records relating to wine and liquor purchases by a named consulate.

The Board claimed exemptions under sections 17(1) and 18(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were exempt under section 18(1)(a) as valuable government information, because the Board intended to sell similar data under its Sale of Data program.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, and upheld the Board's decision.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's response to a freedom of information request for personal information relating to his dealings with the Sudbury Small Claims Court.

The appellant argued that more records should exist, including unrecorded personal opinions of court staff.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Act only applies to recorded information and does not require the creation of records.

The Officer concluded that the Ministry had conducted a reasonable search and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Education and Training for records relating to programs operated by Fanshawe College.

The Ministry determined it did not have custody or control of the records and transferred the request to the College pursuant to section 25(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the transfer.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the College had custody or control of the records and the Ministry was obligated to transfer the request.