IPCO 1994

The requester appealed the Ministry of Education and Training's decision to transfer parts of a freedom of information request to other institutions and its claim that it did not have custody or control of the remaining requested records.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to transfer parts of the request to the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk and Fanshawe College, finding they had a greater interest in the records.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Ministry did not have custody or control of the records for four parts of the request, but did have custody of records relating to one part, ordering the Ministry to issue a new decision letter for that part.

The appellant, the mother of a missing person, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to police occurrence reports and witness statements relating to the OPP investigation into her son's disappearance.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under the invasion of privacy provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that certain requested reports either did not exist or had been destroyed pursuant to retention schedules.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the Ministry conducted a reasonable search for the records and that the withheld information was compiled during a law enforcement investigation, making its disclosure an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to withhold certain records relating to the garnishment of his wages by the Family Support Plan.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to records containing the personal information of other individuals, finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of a memorandum from F.S.P. counsel to staff, finding that it did not contain legal advice and therefore did not qualify for solicitor-client privilege.

A requester sought access to a company's application for a Certificate of Approval to operate a soil recycling facility and the related Ministry file.

The Ministry decided to grant full access to the records.

The company appealed the decision, arguing the records contained exempt third party information under sections 17(1)(a) and (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the company failed to establish a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure, as required by the third part of the exemption test.

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

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs received a freedom of information request for records concerning the Town of Orangeville's proposal to annex surrounding lands and change its status to a city.

The Ministry denied access to five records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, proposed plans, and solicitor-client privilege.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer upheld the application of solicitor-client privilege to one record and the advice or recommendations exemption to portions of two others.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the remaining records, as the proposed plans exemption did not apply because no policy decision had yet been reached.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for records indicating that the Ontario Provincial Police Anti-Rackets Branch was unaware of investigations by other police agencies.

The Ministry responded that no such records existed.

The appellant appealed, challenging the reasonableness of the search.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the Ministry had conducted a reasonable search by knowledgeable staff in locations where the records might reasonably be located.

The appellant requested a list of respondents to a survey related to the expansion of Seneca College.

The College withheld the list, claiming exemptions for third party commercial information and personal privacy under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the list did not constitute commercial information, as it did not relate solely to the buying, selling, or exchange of merchandise or services.

Furthermore, the respondents participated in their professional capacities, meaning their identities did not qualify as personal information.

The College was ordered to disclose the record.

The requester appealed the Halton District Health Council's decision to withhold certain records relating to her removal from her position, claiming the records contained personal information and that further responsive records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information related to the Council members' business or employment capacity and did not constitute personal information, ordering its disclosure.

The Inquiry Officer also found that while the Council's search for some records was reasonable, its failure to search for the Chair's notes and in camera minutes was unreasonable, and ordered a further search.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for documents referred to in a previous letter to a Crown Attorney.

The Ministry responded that it did not have custody or control of the requested documents.

On appeal, the sole issue was whether the Ministry conducted a reasonable search.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed an affidavit from the Crown Attorney detailing the search of the relevant file and the background of the matter.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of Labour relating to accidents, incidents, and environmental matters at a specific building.

The Ministry released a large number of documents but withheld portions under the personal privacy exemption.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional records should exist.

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

The appellant requested access to her grievance file and course completion documentation from the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Ministry withheld 29 pages, initially claiming the law enforcement exemption, but later relying on the exemption for plans relating to the management of personnel or administration of an institution under section 18(1)(f) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records, which outlined the Ministry's approach to dealing with a specific grievance, did not constitute a 'plan' within the meaning of the Act.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records, subject to severing personal information of other individuals.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to withhold records relating to a proposal for support and attendant care services.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as advice or recommendations.

The Assistant Commissioner found that only five specific portions of the records contained a suggested course of action qualifying for the exemption.

The remaining factual materials, opinions, and analyses were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant, a Probation and Parole Officer, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of an investigation report and a witness statement regarding allegations of sexual harassment against him.

The Ministry relied on the invasion of privacy exemption under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while some information was highly sensitive and supplied in confidence, the appellant had a right to know the substance of the complaint and the findings.

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

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision regarding a freedom of information request for O.P.P. occurrence reports and officer notebook entries.

During the inquiry, the Ministry released the responsive records it had located, leaving the sole issue of whether a reasonable search was conducted for additional records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search was reasonable, as the requested 911 and telecommunications recordings from 1989 and 1990 had been destroyed pursuant to the Ministry's records retention policy.

The appellant requested access to records from the Ministry of the Attorney General relating to allegations that he had committed sexual offences against his children.

The Ministry denied access, relying on exemptions for invasion of privacy and solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were exempt under the solicitor-client privilege exemption, while others were not.

The Inquiry Officer also found that disclosure of certain records would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, but ordered the disclosure of other records with identifying information severed.

The appellant requested access to a list of all Ontario physicians and the total number of laboratory tests ordered by each during a twelve-month period.

The Ministry of Health denied access under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the records contained personal information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the number of tests ordered by identified physicians constituted personal information and that factors under section 21(2) weighed against disclosure.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Citizenship's decision to deny access to background materials relating to a monetary grant made to an 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 test for the third party information exemption, specific financial information supplied by the organization with an implicit expectation of confidentiality was exempt.

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

The appellant requested access to the Ministry of Labour's policies and procedures on prosecutions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Ministry denied access to a 1992 Prosecution Policy, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the document was prepared by Crown counsel, it did not contain a legal opinion and was not prepared for the purpose of providing legal advice.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

The requester, a patient at a mental health centre, appealed the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board's decision to deny access to 74 records relating to his disposition hearings.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of most records, finding that the Board's recommendations constituted decisions falling outside the advice or recommendations exemption, and that clinical records provided to the Board for non-clinical purposes were not excluded from the Act.

The law enforcement exemption was also rejected for inactive investigations.

However, the exemption for publicly available court records was upheld.

The appellant requested records relating to an unsuccessful job competition with the Ministry of Health.

The Ministry withheld interview notes, reference checks, and a scoring summary sheet, claiming exemptions for personal information and evaluative material.

The Inquiry Officer found that the interviewers' notes and names were provided in a professional capacity and did not qualify as their personal information, ordering their disclosure.

One reference check was ordered disclosed with consent, while the other was found to meet the four-part test for exemption under section 49(c) as evaluative material provided in confidence.