IPCO 1994

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Natural Resources for records relating to a specific quarry operated by a named company.

The Ministry denied access to certain records containing quarry production data, relying on the third party information exemption under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer applied the three-part test for section 17(1) and found that the records contained commercial information supplied explicitly in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in undue loss to the company's competitive position.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellants applied for costs under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing they incurred legal fees pursuing appeals that became moot after the Ministry failed to promptly disclose that the responsive records had been seized by police.

The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the application, finding that the Act does not expressly or implicitly grant the Commissioner's office the jurisdiction to award costs.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of a workplace discrimination and harassment investigation report under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The appellant clarified they were not seeking the personal information of other identifiable individuals.

The Inquiry Officer found that while some withheld portions contained personal information of other individuals and were exempt, other portions did not constitute personal information once identifiers were removed.

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

The appellant sought access to the interview scores of other candidates in a job competition in which she was unsuccessful.

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

During mediation, one candidate consented to the release of their scores.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the consenting candidate's scores but upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the remaining scores, finding that they constituted personal evaluations under section 21(3)(g) and their disclosure would result in a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

A newspaper reporter requested access to records relating to a financial and management audit of a publicly funded young offenders residence.

The Ministry granted partial access, but a third party appealed the decision to release certain personal information, arguing it would invade his personal privacy under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the information was highly sensitive, the public interest in subjecting the Ministry's monitoring and audit activities to public scrutiny outweighed the privacy interests.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records with identifying information severed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Environment and Energy for records relating to the investigation and prosecution of the appellant concerning a private sewage system.

The Ministry responded that records responsive to three parts of the request did not exist.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer reviewed sworn affidavits from the Ministry detailing the search efforts.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the Ministry's search for the requested records was reasonable in the circumstances and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant requested a copy of an annual examination report relating to a named credit union from the Ministry of Finance.

The Ministry denied access, claiming exemptions under sections 17 (third party information) and 21(1) (invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained financial and commercial information supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of the credit union.

The record was held to be exempt under section 17(1), and the Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Science Centre's decision to deny access to the bi-monthly attendance reports of five named employees.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the reports, which detailed hours worked and leave taken, constituted personal information.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the appellant provided no relevant factors favouring disclosure and that releasing the records would result in an unjustified invasion of the employees' personal privacy.

The Centre's decision was upheld.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Finance for individual tax returns of persons remitting tobacco taxes.

The Ministry denied access under section 17(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, not the denial of access, but the adequacy of the Ministry's decision letter, arguing it failed to provide a detailed description of the records, their number, and dates.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Commissioner has jurisdiction to consider the adequacy of a decision letter.

However, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the Ministry's letter met the requirements of section 29(1)(b) of the Act, as it clearly indicated the responsive records and explained the applicable exemption, allowing the appellant to make an informed decision on whether to appeal.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $120.00 provided by the Ministry of Community and Social Services for processing a freedom of information request.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the search and record preparation charges.

The Ministry was ordered to issue a final access decision without charging a fee.

The appellant requested access to a letter from a child and family services organization to the Ministry of Community and Social Services regarding the status of the appellant's lawsuit against the organization.

The Ministry denied access under sections 17(1)(d) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained only the appellant's personal information and that its disclosure would not unjustifiably invade another's privacy.

The Officer also found that the record did not qualify for exemption under sections 17(1)(a) or (d) as it was not labour relations information and its disclosure could not reasonably be expected to interfere with future negotiations.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to charges against his son, alleged threats against witnesses, and allegations against his other son.

The Ministry granted partial access to some records but claimed no records existed for the other parts of the request.

The appellant appealed, arguing more records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search was not reasonable, as it only searched the personal files of one Assistant Crown Attorney and failed to contact another prosecutor or search other locations.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct a further search and issue a decision letter for additional records located at the police department.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denying access to portions of records relating to an investigation into the appellant's sexual harassment complaint.

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

During the inquiry, the Ministry withdrew its reliance on the exemption because the information was submitted by the appellant and some was publicly available.

The Inquiry Officer found no mandatory exemptions applied and ordered the Ministry to disclose the records.

The appellant requested access to a report produced from an internal investigation into a workplace incident where she threatened harm to co-workers.

The Ministry of Environment and Energy denied access under various exemptions, including section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained highly sensitive personal information supplied in confidence by affected persons.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected persons' personal privacy and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access.

The appellant, representing the Canadian Union of Public Employees, appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to withhold portions of an ambulance service's budget report under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed the severed information, which included detailed budget figures and call volumes, was exempt as third party information under section 17.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information was financial and commercial, supplied in confidence, and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the ambulance service's competitive position and labour negotiations.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed the Liquor Control Board of Ontario's decision to deny access to records pertaining to a forensic accounting investigation into allegations of improper foreign currency trading by Board staff.

The Board claimed exemptions under sections 13, 17, 19, and 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were exempt under the claimed sections, including third-party commercial information of the accounting firm, solicitor-client privileged communications, and the personal information of the former Treasurer.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of several other records, finding that the exemptions did not apply and that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply to the exempt records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to internal complaint investigations under the Police Services Act.

The Ministry relied on the invasion of privacy and law enforcement exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the personal information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry's decision to deny access under section 49(b) was upheld.

The appellant, an accounting firm, appealed the Ministry of Health's decision regarding a request for records relating to the calculation of a 'utilization discount' applied to its client's revenue.

The appellant argued that the Ministry's search for records was incomplete.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search for audit reports was reasonable, but its search for records relating to physician referrals was not.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct a further search for the physician referral records.

The requester sought a copy of a land use permit authorizing a bear hunt at a specific camping site from the Ministry of Natural Resources.

The Ministry decided to release the permit, and the owner of the lodge (the third party) appealed the decision, arguing the permit contained trade secrets and commercial information supplied in confidence under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information was not a trade secret, though it was commercial information.

However, the appellant failed to establish that the information was supplied in confidence.

The appeal was dismissed and the Ministry was ordered to disclose the permit.

The appellant requested access to the entire contents of a file relating to their complaint under the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Program.

The Management Board Secretariat granted partial access, withholding the remainder under the personal privacy exemptions in sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the denial and claimed additional records existed.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the privacy exemptions to most of the withheld records, finding that they contained the personal information of other individuals, including witness statements and job competition records.

However, the Officer ordered the disclosure of certain records where personal identifiers could be severed, and found that the Secretariat's search for records was reasonable.