IPCO 1994

The appellant requested access to their probation and parole file from the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services.

The Ministry disclosed most of the file but withheld certain handwritten notes and a page regarding a parole variation under section 49(e) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming they were confidential correctional records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information constituted personal information and a correctional record, and that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal information supplied in confidence.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of his employment records and occurrence reports under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's application of the invasion of privacy exemption under section 49(b) for the withheld information, which contained personal and medical history of other individuals.

However, the Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to conduct a reasonable search for additional occurrence reports and ordered it to conduct a further search after consulting with the requester.

The appellant sought access to an internal investigation report and related documents regarding a complaint about a racist remark allegedly made by a staff member to an inmate at a correctional facility.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services granted partial access, claiming the invasion of privacy exemption under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the remaining records.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records contained highly sensitive personal information of inmates and other individuals, the disclosure of which would cause excessive personal distress or unfairly expose them to harm.

The Ministry's decision to deny access to certain records was upheld, while other records containing only the appellant's personal information or information of individuals acting in their professional capacities were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to Draft #1 of the Security Plan for the Herd Reduction Program at Rondeau Provincial Park.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 14(1)(a), (c), and (e) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that disclosure of the Plan could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement officers or other persons, as the Plan contained techniques to diffuse violent situations.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld under section 14(1)(e).

The requester appealed the Ministry's deemed refusal to provide access to an investigation report and supporting documents.

The Ministry failed to respond within the 30-day statutory period and did not request a time extension.

Although the Ministry subsequently issued partial decisions, it failed to provide a final decision on the remaining records.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Ministry to issue a decision on the outstanding records within 15 days without recourse to a time extension.

The appellant requested access to prosecution records concerning his son from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The Ministry indicated the records had been returned to the police and were no longer in its custody.

The appellant appealed, arguing that requiring him to clarify his request violated sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the Charter challenge, finding no clear and compelling argument that the Act's provisions were inconsistent with the Charter.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Ministry had conducted a reasonable search for the records, as it provided evidence that prosecution files are routinely returned to the investigating police force upon conclusion of proceedings.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested a copy of a proposal submitted to the Ministry of Education and Training by a named Federation respecting the right to licence hair stylists.

The Ministry denied access under the third party information exemption in section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the proposal contained commercial information, it was not supplied to the Ministry in confidence.

As the three-part test for the exemption was not met, the Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant, a corporation, appealed a fee estimate and the denial of a fee waiver for a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Natural Resources.

The Inquiry Officer found that a corporation is not an 'identifiable individual' entitled to a fee waiver for personal information under section 57(2) of the Act.

The fee estimate was adjusted to remove charges for preparing an index and unsupported shipping costs, reducing the allowable search time.

The Ministry's decision to deny a general fee waiver was upheld, as the appellant failed to prove financial hardship and waiving the fee would shift an unreasonable burden to the Ministry.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision denying access to initial evaluations of two wetlands on the basis that the records did not exist.

After one evaluation was subsequently found, the sole issue was whether the Ministry's search for the remaining evaluation was reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to provide sufficient evidence of a reasonable search, noting the lack of attempts to contact other involved individuals and the absence of information on record retention policies.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct a further search.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's claim that certain employment records did not exist, arguing that a Performance, Planning and Review and an Employee Separation/Work Performance Record should exist.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Ministry's representations and affidavits detailing the search of corporate personnel files, old staff files, training files, and the direct supervisor's files.

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

The requester appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to records regarding a Children's Aid Society's actions following the disappearance of a ward.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under the law enforcement exemption and the Young Offenders Act (YOA).

The Ministry refused to produce the complete records to the Information and Privacy Commissioner for review, arguing the YOA prohibited disclosure.

The Assistant Commissioner held that the Commissioner has the statutory authority under section 52(4) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to compel production of the records for the limited purpose of determining the preliminary jurisdictional issue of whether the YOA applies.

The Ministry was ordered to produce the complete records.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to records relating to a Children's Aid Society's actions following the disappearance of a ward.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under the law enforcement exemption and the Young Offenders Act (YOA).

The Ministry refused to provide the complete records to the Information and Privacy Commissioner for review, arguing the YOA prohibited disclosure and the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction.

The Assistant Commissioner held that the Commissioner has the statutory authority and obligation to compel production of the records to determine the preliminary jurisdictional issue of whether the YOA applies.

The Ministry was ordered to produce the full contents of the records for independent review.

A broadcast journalist appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services' decision to deny access to records concerning investigations and complaints relating to two named employees.

The Ministry claimed 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 to deny access to three of the records, finding their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of one investigation report with names and personal identifiers removed, as it was subject to a high degree of public scrutiny.

The appellant sought access to records relating to two job competitions in which he was an unsuccessful candidate, specifically the answers and scores of other candidates.

The Ministry withheld the records under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The appellant narrowed his request to exclude personal identifiers.

The Inquiry Officer found that some portions of the records contained personal information that could identify the candidates and were therefore outside the scope of the appeal.

However, other portions, including scores and certain responses where identifiers were removed, did not constitute personal information and were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant requested copies of her personnel file, including information related to her employment history and harassment complaints at two correctional facilities.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access to portions of several records, citing the invasion of privacy exemption under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the undisclosed information contained personal and medical information of other individuals, including inmates.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the information, concluding that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, but ordered the disclosure of one record to which the Ministry no longer objected.

The appellant, an insurance adjuster, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to the results of a blood analysis of an individual involved in a motor vehicle accident.

The Ministry claimed the information was exempt under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the individual had not consented to the disclosure and that the information was compiled as part of a police investigation, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 21(3)(b).

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed a decision by the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat denying access to an historical report regarding the Wikwemikong First Nation land claim.

The institution claimed the record was exempt under section 15(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as it contained information received in confidence from the federal government.

The Inquiry Officer found that the three-part test for section 15(b) was met, as the report was produced by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and provided to Ontario on a confidential basis for land claim negotiations.

The appeal was dismissed and the institution's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation relating to the Barnes Exhibition at the Art Gallery of Ontario.

The Ministry and the AGO claimed the records were exempt from disclosure under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third party information.

The Inquiry Officer found that while some records contained commercial or financial information supplied in confidence, the parties resisting disclosure failed to establish a reasonable expectation of harm under part three of the test.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the withheld parts of the records.

The appellant requested access to the resumes and covering letters of five successful candidates in three job competitions with the Ministry of Housing.

The Ministry denied access under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the employment and educational history of the candidates, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 21(3)(d).

As no exceptions applied, the Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant sought access to two reports from the Ministry of Natural Resources regarding the operation and rationalization of the Ontario Provincial Parks system.

The Ministry denied access, claiming exemptions for Cabinet records, advice or recommendations, and proposed plans.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Cabinet records and proposed plans exemptions did not apply.

While portions of the reports contained advice or recommendations, they fell within the mandatory exceptions for reports on institutional performance and feasibility studies.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records in their entirety.