IPCO 1994

A requester sought access to records relating to a company's applications to relocate its laboratory and specimen collection centres.

The Ministry of Health decided to disclose the records, and the company appealed, claiming exemptions under section 17 (third party information) and section 21 (personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that information revealing proposed locations and the company's status was supplied in confidence and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause competitive harm, thus qualifying for exemption under section 17(1).

Additionally, prior work experience of an employee in one record was found to be personal information exempt under section 21.

The Ministry was ordered to withhold the exempt portions and disclose the remainder.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a management review of the Rent Review Hearings Board.

The Ministry of Housing denied access to portions of the records under the Cabinet records and personal privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Cabinet records exemption did not apply to the terms of reference and related memos, as they did not contain policy options or recommendations submitted to Cabinet.

The Inquiry Officer also found that while most of the interview notes contained personal information subject to the personal privacy exemption, information relating to individuals' professional capacities, the appellant's own personal information, and information for which consent was obtained had to be disclosed.

The appellant requested access to records regarding the formulation and implementation of pay equity plans at the Ottawa Civic Hospital from the Pay Equity Commission.

The Commission denied access to various records under several exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the majority of the records, including information supplied by the parties to the Review Officer, were exempt under section 17(1)(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as labour relations information supplied in confidence to a person appointed to resolve a labour relations dispute.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of signed pay equity plans, administrative correspondence, and certain notes, finding that they did not qualify for exemption under sections 14(1)(a), 14(1)(b), or 14(2)(a).

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for answers to questions regarding the withdrawal of criminal charges against him.

The Ministry provided some records but the appellant appealed, seeking further details such as police badge numbers and reasons for the withdrawal.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry was not required to create new records to answer questions and had conducted a reasonable search for existing responsive records.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to personal information collected by the Ontario Provincial Police regarding their political activities and other matters.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access to the remaining 120 pages of records, claiming they consisted of an intelligence file.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information but qualified for exemption under section 14(1)(g) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal law enforcement intelligence information.

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

The appellant requested access to an inventory of all computer equipment and fax machines owned or operated by the Ministry of Natural Resources.

The Ministry denied access pursuant to the security exemption in section 14(1)(i) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the Ministry established a clear and direct linkage between the disclosure of the specific information and the alleged harm, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the security of a building or a system.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Social Assistance Review Board denying access to notes taken by a Board member during two hearings.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the notes contained personal information relating to eligibility for social assistance benefits, and their disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner also determined that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as the appellant had already attended the hearings and received the Board's decisions.

The Board's decision to deny access was upheld.

The Interim Waste Authority Limited received a freedom of information request for correspondence and feasibility studies regarding the transport of solid waste.

A railway company that authored some of the records objected to their release and appealed the Authority's decision to disclose them.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner considered whether the records were exempt under the third-party information exemption in section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the railway company's costing estimates and commitments were supplied in confidence and their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the company's competitive position, thus qualifying for exemption under section 17(1)(a).

However, the remaining portions of the feasibility studies, including route scenarios, did not meet the harms test and were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for correspondence and investigation documents relating to a missing court file.

The Ministry initially denied the request, stating court records were not subject to the Act.

After the appellant clarified she sought non-court records, the Ministry conducted searches and disclosed some records.

The appellant appealed, arguing more records should exist and questioning whether the Ministry should have transferred the request to the Archives of Ontario.

The Inquiry Officer found the Ministry's search was reasonable and accepted its explanation for not transferring the request under section 25(1) of the Act.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision regarding a Freedom of Information request for records pertaining to their court case, arguing that additional records should exist and that one disclosed record appeared altered.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's explanation for the appearance of the record was satisfactory and that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records.

The search was deemed reasonable.

The Ministry of Health received a freedom of information request for records relating to electrolysis and physician billing.

The Ministry denied access to portions of a record containing total payments made to physicians for epilation services, citing the personal information exemption.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the severed information, which related to small numbers of physicians in certain specialties, qualified as personal information because there was a reasonable expectation that individuals could be identified.

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

The requester appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to withhold portions of records relating to a workplace harassment complaint under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records contained personal information and qualified for exemption under sections 13(1) and 49(b) of the Act, as their disclosure would reveal advice or recommendations or constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the remaining records to the requester.

The appellant requested access to information supplied to the Ministry of Community and Social Services by two women's shelters regarding an investigation into a service complaint involving his former spouse and child.

The Ministry denied access to the records under the personal privacy exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained highly sensitive personal information of the former spouse and other individuals, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of their personal privacy.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Transportation for records relating to a proposed project known as Transportation Place or the Ontario International Landport.

The Ministry disclosed some records but withheld others under various exemptions, including Cabinet records, advice to government, third party information, economic interests, solicitor-client privilege, and personal privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner reviewed the application of these exemptions and ordered the disclosure of certain records and parts of records where the exemptions did not apply, while upholding the Ministry's decision to withhold others.

The appellants sought access to the name of an individual who complained to the Ministry of Community and Social Services that an unlicensed day nursery was being operated on the appellants' premises.

The Ministry denied access to the complainant's name and telephone number under the personal privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Day Nurseries Act, and its disclosure is presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant appealed the College's response to a freedom of information request.

In an interim order, the Inquiry Officer ordered the College to conduct a further search for responsive records and provide detailed affidavits.

The College submitted three affidavits detailing the searches conducted and explaining the file maintenance practices.

The Inquiry Officer found that the College had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records and concluded that the search was reasonable.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat's decision regarding a freedom of information request for research reports and maps relating to specific aboriginal bands and land claims.

The Secretariat granted partial access but claimed no additional records existed for the remaining parts of the request.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the detailed affidavits outlining the Secretariat's search efforts and concluded that the search was reasonable.

The Secretariat's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested a correction to a decision letter from the Police Complaints Commissioner.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied the request on the basis that the information was not the appellant's personal information.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the passage in question did not contain the appellant's personal information and therefore could not be corrected under section 47(2)(a) of the Act.

The requester appealed the Ontario Lottery Corporation's decision to deny access to a list of addresses for all Sports Select Lottery outlets in Ontario.

The requester sought the list to distribute a newsletter.

The OLC claimed exemptions under sections 18(1)(a) and (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the list qualified as commercial information belonging to the OLC with potential monetary value, satisfying the three-part test for exemption under section 18(1)(a).

The OLC's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to records regarding the Church of Scientology.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that Record 11 did not contain personal information or advice/recommendations, and ordered its disclosure.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of solicitor-client privilege under section 19 for most records, but ordered the disclosure of Record 7 as it was not directly related to seeking or giving legal advice.