IPCO 1994

The appellant sought access to the gross earnings and severance packages of former distributors of the Ontario Lottery Corporation (OLC).

The OLC denied access, claiming exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the information constituted personal information, the personal identifiers could be severed, rendering the remaining financial data non-personal.

The Officer also rejected the OLC's claims that disclosure would harm third-party interests or prejudice the OLC's economic interests and competitive position.

The OLC was ordered to disclose the severed records.

The appellant requested access to records relating to the selection of a named individual as a judge from the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied the request, claiming the Committee was not an institution under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Committee is a part of the Ministry and that the requested records, even if held by individual Committee members, are under the control of the Ministry.

The Ministry was ordered to obtain the records and issue an access decision.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of Environment and Energy relating to a recycling company.

The Ministry granted partial access, withholding portions of three records under the third party information exemption in section 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the severances and claimed that the Ministry failed to conduct a reasonable search for additional records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the severed information met the three-part test for exemption under section 17(1) and that the Ministry had conducted a reasonable search.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to portions of records relating to a refusal to consent to prosecute a gas company.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13(1) and 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the records qualified for exemption under section 19 as they were prepared by Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice.

However, two pages did not qualify under either section 19 or 13(1) and were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations relating to a proposal to refuse her registration as a real estate broker.

The Ministry denied access to various records, claiming exemptions for advice to government, solicitor-client privilege, law enforcement, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the records and upheld the Ministry's decision for certain records under the law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy exemptions.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of other records where the exemptions did not apply or where the Ministry failed to provide representations.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's fee estimate of $1,746 and its refusal to waive the fee for a freedom of information request.

The request sought copies of non-court imposed settlements pertaining to breach of confidence or invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the search time estimate as reasonable based on the Ministry's detailed evidence.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the refusal to waive the fee, finding no evidence of financial hardship and concluding that dissemination of the records would not benefit public health or safety.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Finance to deny access to records relating to the Pension Benefits Act.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under section 17(1) (third party information) and section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third party information exemption did not apply to the remaining portions of Record 13 and ordered them disclosed.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to Records 1 through 12 and other portions of Record 13, finding they were prepared by Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice and were exempt under section 19.

The public interest override in section 23 was found not to apply to section 19 exemptions.

The appellant, a non-profit organization representing a community group, appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny a fee waiver for a freedom of information request regarding the High Falls Dam Project.

The appellant claimed financial hardship and that dissemination of the records would benefit public health and safety.

The Inquiry Officer found insufficient evidence that dissemination would benefit public health and safety.

Although accepting that payment would cause financial hardship, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the Ministry's decision to deny the fee waiver was fair and equitable, given the large volume of records, previous concessions made by the Ministry, and the appellant's failure to narrow the request.

In a final order following an interim decision, the Inquiry Officer considered whether the mandatory exemption under section 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applied to certain records containing financial and commercial information.

Notices of inquiry sent to the affected third-party companies were returned as undeliverable.

In the absence of submissions from the companies, the Inquiry Officer found that the third part of the section 17 test—reasonable expectation of harm—was not satisfied.

The Ontario Securities Commission was ordered to disclose the records to the appellant.

The appellant requested access to Ministry of Labour correspondence regarding the interpretation of section 42 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Ministry provided some records and issued a fee estimate for searching 200 additional letters, without making a decision on whether access would be granted to those letters.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to fulfill its obligations under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by issuing a fee estimate without a corresponding access decision.

The Ministry was ordered to issue a final access decision.

The Inquiry Officer also disallowed the Ministry's estimated search and preparation fees due to a lack of supporting evidence, but allowed standard photocopying charges.

The appellant requested access to all information relating to the involvement of a company for which he was acting, which led the Workers' Compensation Board to seek a search and seizure order for the company's employment records.

The Board initially responded that no records existed, but later disclosed several files after the appellant provided additional information.

The appellant appealed, arguing the Board failed to provide all records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board had conducted a reasonable search and disclosed all records relating specifically to the appellant's client, upholding the Board's decision.

The Ministry of Natural Resources received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a workplace harassment investigation report concerning the requester.

The Ministry denied access, citing exemptions for advice or recommendations and personal privacy.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the report did not contain advice or recommendations under section 13(1).

However, the report contained personal information of the complainant and witnesses.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of information essential to the fair resolution of the complaint, but upheld the exemption under section 49(b) for the remaining personal information of other individuals to protect their privacy.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to Ontario Hydro for materials relating to a job interview, including the interview questions.

Hydro withheld the questions under the section 18(1)(g) exemption for proposed plans, arguing disclosure would give the appellant an undue financial benefit in future competitions.

The Assistant Commissioner held that a list of interview questions is not a 'plan' (a detailed method, scheme, or design) and, having already been used, is not 'proposed'.

The exemption did not apply, and Hydro was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant sought access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to records relating to a sexual harassment complaint made against her, including witness interview notes and correspondence from the complainant's solicitor.

The Ministry denied access to these specific records under section 49(b), citing the protection of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the witness statements were highly sensitive and supplied in confidence, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the other individuals involved.

The appellant sought access to information relating to the assessment of properties near Pearson International Airport.

The Ministry of Finance denied access under section 53(1) of the Assessment Act and section 67 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that section 53(1) of the Assessment Act only protects information relating to individual properties, not general assessment policies or impact studies.

The Ministry was ordered to issue a new decision letter responding specifically to the requests for general policies and impact studies.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to deny access to 36 records relating to a named company's compliance with capitalization, bonding, and insurance requirements under the Ontario Securities Act and the Commodity Futures Act.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13 and 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained financial and commercial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the company's competitive position.

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

The appellant submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of the Attorney General for court records dating from 1953 and 1954.

The Ministry conducted searches and determined that no responsive records existed in its custody or control, having transferred older records to the Archives of Ontario.

The appellant appealed, arguing the search was inadequate.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the Ministry had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate it made a reasonable effort to identify and locate the requested records.

The Ontario Science Centre received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to attendance and revenue figures, including concession revenues.

The Centre decided to grant access to the concession revenue figures despite objections from the affected third party company.

The company appealed the decision, arguing the information was exempt under section 17(1)(a) of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the information was financial and supplied by the company, there was no reasonable expectation of confidentiality.

The appeal was dismissed and the Centre was ordered to disclose the records.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to an incident involving contraband drugs and ammunition at a detention facility.

The Inquiry Officer found that several records contained personal information and were exempt under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer also upheld the application of the advice and recommendations exemption under section 13(1) for certain documents.

However, the Officer rejected the Ministry's claim that disclosure would jeopardize facility security or facilitate escape under sections 14(1)(j) and (k).

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

The appellant requested records relating to the police investigation of a fatal motor vehicle accident involving their child.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access to portions of the records, citing personal privacy exemptions.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.