IPCO 1994

The requester, acting on behalf of a limited partnership and its investors, appealed the Ontario Securities Commission's (OSC) decision to deny access to numerous records relating to an OSC investigation into the limited partnership's offering.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the application of various exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer found that many records were properly exempt under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege and Crown counsel privilege), section 14(2)(a) (law enforcement reports), section 21 (unjustified invasion of personal privacy), and section 13(1) (advice or recommendations).

However, the Officer ordered the disclosure of several records that did not meet the criteria for these exemptions.

The Officer deferred a decision on a few records pending notification of affected third parties under section 17.

The appellant sought access to psychological reports and assessments in his probation file.

The Ministry withheld portions under sections 14(2)(d) and 20 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that section 14(2)(d) did not apply because the appellant's probation order had expired, meaning he was no longer under correctional supervision.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that section 20 did not apply as there was no reasonable expectation of a serious threat to health or safety.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant requested that the Ministry of Community and Social Services correct a memorandum regarding the start date of her developmental secondment.

The Ministry refused, offering instead to attach a statement of disagreement.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the information was the appellant's personal information, was factually incorrect, and was not merely an opinion.

The Ministry was ordered to attach a memorandum to the record reflecting the corrected start date.

A father requested access to records relating to himself and his son from the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Ministry granted access to the father's personal information but withheld the son's and other individuals' personal information under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The father appealed, arguing he was entitled to the information on behalf of his son under section 66(c).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the father was seeking the information for his own objectives, not on behalf of his son, and that disclosure would not serve the child's best interests.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the information, finding that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records received from a named individual concerning the requester's client.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that confirming the existence of such records would convey information that would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(5) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The presumed invasion of privacy under section 21(3)(c) applied because the records, if they existed, would relate to eligibility for social service or welfare benefits.

The appellant sought access to records relating to a workplace harassment investigation conducted by the Management Board Secretariat.

The Secretariat withheld portions of the records under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information qualified as highly sensitive personal information supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure could unfairly expose affected persons to harm.

The Secretariat's decision to deny access was upheld.

The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to investigations of a named real estate broker.

The Ministry denied access to 31 responsive records, claiming various exemptions including law enforcement and personal privacy.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that inspection reports and related documents were exempt under section 14(2)(a) as reports prepared in the course of law enforcement.

The remaining records, consisting of correspondence and complaints, were found to contain personal information and were exempt from disclosure under section 21 as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The Ministry of Health received a freedom of information request for a list of individuals used by the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee to review drug products.

The Ministry denied access to the names and affiliations of the consultants, citing the personal information exemption.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the names and affiliations constituted personal information because their disclosure would reveal that the individuals reviewed particular drug products.

The Inquiry Officer further held that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, as the information was highly sensitive and its release could lead to harassment by drug manufacturers.

A requester sought access to the name and address of the bank with which a company does business.

The Ministry decided to disclose the record, and the company appealed, claiming the mandatory exemption for third-party information under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the appeal, finding that while the information was financial in nature, the company failed to provide evidence that it was supplied to the Ministry in confidence.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant sought access to records relating to three actions filed with the Ontario Court of Justice involving the Ministry of Health and a mental health centre.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to numerous records, claiming exemptions under sections 19, 21, and 65(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that section 65(2)(b) did not apply as the records lacked clinical purpose.

However, the Officer upheld the application of section 19 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege) for most records, while ordering the disclosure of records that lost privilege upon the completion of litigation.

The Officer also upheld the application of sections 21 and 49(b) to protect the personal privacy of individuals other than the appellant.

The appellants requested access to records relating to themselves and a named physiotherapy centre from the Ministry of Health.

The Ministry denied access to over 160 records based on various exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including advice to government, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision for most records, finding that personal information compiled during an investigation into billing practices was exempt from disclosure.

However, the Ministry was ordered to disclose certain internal memoranda and transfer a portion of the request to the Archives of Ontario.

A union representative, on behalf of a dismissed Corrections Officer, appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services' decision to withhold four occurrence reports under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 49(b) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained personal information and that their disclosure would unfairly expose the authors to harm or harassment under section 21(2)(e).

The appeal was dismissed and the Ministry's decision to withhold the records was upheld.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of Health relating to secure/forensic psychiatric care.

The Ministry denied access to 16 records, claiming exemptions for Cabinet records, advice or recommendations, and information available to the public.

The appellant appealed the denial and the adequacy of the Ministry's search for records.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry official had the delegated authority to deny access.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of the exemptions to some records and portions of records, but ordered the disclosure of others that did not qualify for the claimed exemptions.

Finally, the Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that its search for responsive records was reasonable, and ordered the Ministry to conduct a further search.

The appellant sought access to records relating to incidents at an OPP detachment involving the appellant, including an Impact Assessment Report and police notebook entries.

The Ministry granted partial access, withholding some information under the personal privacy exemption.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the withheld information was highly sensitive and supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected persons' personal privacy.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied a freedom of information request for interview questions and ideal answers from two job competitions, claiming the records were exempt under section 18(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as commercial or technical information.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the records did not relate to the buying, selling, or exchange of merchandise or services, nor did they belong to an organized field of applied sciences or mechanical arts.

Consequently, the records did not qualify as commercial or technical information.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The requester appealed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision to deny access to records relating to a Board solicitor's involvement in the requester's re-employment hearings.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the requester's personal information but were exempt from disclosure under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as they were prepared by or for Crown counsel for use in litigation or contemplation of litigation.

The Board's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a Police Complaints Commissioner investigation into three police officers.

The Ministry disclosed most records but withheld a four-page case summary under sections 13(1) and 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

During mediation, three pages were disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the remaining page contained personal information and qualified for exemption under section 14(2)(a) as a report prepared in the course of a law enforcement investigation.

The Ministry's exercise of discretion under section 49(a) to refuse disclosure was upheld.

The appellant sought access to a management review report regarding the Legal Services Branch of the Pension Commission of Ontario.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to portions of the report, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, plans relating to personnel management, and personal information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the advice and recommendations exemption did not apply because the report fell within the exception for reports on the performance or efficiency of an institution.

The plans exemption also did not apply as the report did not constitute a detailed scheme or design.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold portions of the record containing the personal information of other individuals, finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and that the public interest override did not apply.

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

The appellant requested access to his institutional and health care records from a correctional facility.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services disclosed some records but withheld others under various exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that certain records contained personal information of other individuals and were exempt under section 49(b) as an unjustified invasion of privacy.

Other records were found to be exempt under sections 14(1)(e) and 14(1)(k) as their disclosure could endanger physical safety or jeopardize the security of the correctional facility.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose a few specific pages that did not meet the exemption criteria.

The appellant requested access to records relating to the investigation of sexual and workplace harassment complaints she brought under the Ministry of Housing's Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy Directive.

The Ministry denied access under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the records contained personal information, the exemptions under sections 21(2)(f) and (h) only applied to a small portion of the records containing highly sensitive information unrelated to the specific complaints.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the balance of the records to the appellant.