IPCO 1994

The appellant requested access to an investigation report and witness statements regarding allegations that a senior Ministry employee misused public funds.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records under the personal privacy exemption in section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained personal information, but that the public scrutiny factor in section 21(2)(a) favoured disclosure.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the Ministry to disclose the records, subject to the severance of identifying information of the affected persons to protect their privacy.

The appellant requested access to briefing reports and financial plans relating to the intended sale, privatization, and refinancing of the Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited (SkyDome).

SkyDome denied access, claiming exemptions under sections 13(1), 17(1), and 18(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that SkyDome failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that any of the claimed exemptions applied to the records.

Furthermore, the Inquiry Officer concluded that SkyDome did not conduct a reasonable search for responsive records.

SkyDome was ordered to disclose the identified records and conduct a further search.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs received a freedom of information request for records relating to an investigation into the Township of Arthur.

The Ministry denied access to certain records, claiming they contained personal information.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the records, which consisted of observations and notes submitted by municipal councillors, were provided in their professional capacities and did not constitute their personal information.

However, some specific references to identifiable individuals in the community were found to be personal information and were ordered severed before disclosure.

The requester appealed the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat's decision to deny access to a 15-page settlement proposal regarding Algonquin land claims.

The institution relied on the discretionary exemption under section 15(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing disclosure could prejudice intergovernmental relations between Ontario and Canada.

The Inquiry Officer applied the three-part test for section 15(a) and found that the negotiations were intergovernmental, highly sensitive, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice those relations.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester sought a copy of a real estate examination they had written, which was administered by the Ontario Real Estate Association (OREA).

The Ministry denied the request, claiming it did not have custody or control of the record.

The requester appealed.

During the appeal, it was discovered that OREA had destroyed the examination pursuant to its retention schedule, rendering the request moot.

However, the Inquiry Officer determined that the Ministry did exercise control over such records for the purpose of conducting marking reviews under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act.

The appeal was discontinued as the record no longer existed.

The Ministry of the Attorney General, on behalf of the Office of the Public Trustee, denied access to portions of minutes from the Advisory Committee of the Public Trustee on Investments, citing the advice or recommendations exemption under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained factual information and discussions, but did not constitute advice or recommendations on a suggested course of action.

The exemption under section 13(1) did not apply, and the Public Trustee was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant sought access to minutes of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission's meetings and related documentation.

The ONTC denied access to portions of the President's Reports under various exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the discretionary exemption under section 18(1)(c) applied to information regarding Carload Freight and Freight Marketing, as disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the ONTC's economic interests.

However, the Inquiry Officer found that the remaining exemptions claimed under sections 12, 13(1), 15(b), 17(1), and other parts of section 18 did not apply to the rest of the records.

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

The appellants submitted a freedom of information request for records relating to employment complaints made against one of them.

The Ministry granted partial access, denying the rest under sections 49(a) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information of the appellants and other individuals.

The Officer ordered the disclosure of portions relating primarily to the appellants, but upheld the exemption under section 49(b) for the remaining information, finding its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy as it was compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to intercepted police conversations (wiretaps).

The Ministry refused to confirm or deny the existence of the records under section 14(3) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and later claimed the Act did not apply to wiretap records due to the federal Criminal Code.

The Inquiry Officer found that the doctrine of federal legislative paramountcy renders the Act operationally incompatible with the wiretap provisions of the Criminal Code.

The appeal was dismissed as the request fell outside the scope of the Act.

The appellant requested records relating to their enrolment in the Ontario Farm Adjustment Assistance Program.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food disclosed some records but withheld others, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while some legal accounts and an opening statement prepared for litigation were exempt from disclosure, other records, including certain legal accounts that did not reveal legal advice or strategy, were not exempt and must be disclosed.

The Ministry's search for an additional record was deemed reasonable.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Education and Training's decision to deny access to an internal audit report regarding conflict of interest allegations against individuals in the Literacy Branch.

The Ministry relied on several exemptions, including the invasion of privacy exemption under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information of identifiable individuals, primarily Ministry employees subject to the investigation.

As no factors favouring disclosure or a compelling public interest override were established, the record was found to be entirely exempt under section 21(1).

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, an employee of the Literacy Branch, appealed the Ministry of Education and Training's decision to deny access to an internal audit report regarding conflict of interest allegations.

The Ministry relied on several exemptions, including the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the report contained the personal information of the appellant and other identifiable individuals.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure of the information would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as it related to employment history and was highly sensitive.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to a 13-page memorandum containing allegations of conflict of interest against employees of the Literacy Branch of the Ministry of Education and Training.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13(1), 19, and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the memorandum contained personal information of individuals other than the appellant, relating to their performance and conduct.

The adjudicator concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1), as the information was highly sensitive and supplied in confidence.

The public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

L'appelant, un employé de la Direction de l'alphabétisation, a demandé l'accès à un mémorandum contenant des allégations de conflit d'intérêts.

Le Ministère du Procureur général a refusé l'accès en invoquant plusieurs exceptions.

La responsable de l'enquête a conclu que le document contenait des renseignements personnels d'autres employés et que sa divulgation constituerait une atteinte injustifiée à leur vie privée en vertu de l'article 49(b) de la Loi sur l'accès à l'information et la protection de la vie privée.

La décision du Ministère a été maintenue.

The appellant requested access to three reports concerning a public inquiry, a judicial inquiry, and an audit related to the Literacy Branch of the Ministry of Education and Training.

The Ministry extended the 30-day time limit to respond, citing the need to consult with the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The appellant appealed the time extension.

The Inquiry Officer found that consultations with outside individuals were necessary and could not reasonably be completed within the standard time limit.

The Ministry's decision to extend the time limit was upheld as reasonable.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to records relating to a racing incident under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under section 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and section 19 (solicitor-client privilege).

The Inquiry Officer found that several records were exempt under section 19 as they were prepared by Crown counsel for legal advice.

However, the Inquiry Officer rejected the application of section 13(1) to the remaining records, finding they contained factual information or were draft letters not revealing a suggested course of action.

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

The appellant made multiple freedom of information requests to the Ministry of Transportation for records relating to the Bradford Bypass Environmental Assessment Study.

The Ministry initially claimed the information would be published later, but subsequently provided a report and conducted further searches, locating 143 responsive records.

The sole issue on appeal was whether the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search, supported by affidavits from eight employees, was reasonable and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Labour's decision denying access to copies of invoices on the basis that the requested records did not exist.

The sole issue was whether the Ministry's search for the records was reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer found that the search was reasonable, noting that the appellant had explicitly instructed the Ministry not to contact the specific agency where the records might logically be located.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Finance for records relating to specified pension plans.

The Ministry granted partial access but indicated that certain requested records could not be located.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the missing records ought to exist based on statutory filing requirements.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner reviewed the Ministry's search efforts, which included multiple searches by the responsible Pension Officer and inquiries with the relevant actuary.

The Commissioner found that the Ministry had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate a reasonable effort to identify and locate the responsive records, and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of the Attorney General's Family Support Plan office relating to a payment dispute with her ex-husband.

The Ministry denied access to 17 pages, citing solicitor-client privilege and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the withheld information was either highly sensitive personal information of the ex-husband or protected by solicitor-client privilege.

However, portions of a log indicating dates of correspondence were ordered disclosed as they were neither highly sensitive nor confidential.