IPCO 1994

The appellant requested access to records from the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board, specifically seeking copies of tape recordings or shorthand notes of his hearing.

The Board claimed it did not have custody or control over the court reporter's shorthand notes.

The Inquiry Officer found that the court reporter acts as a trustee and the Board retains control over the records, as its consent is required to order a transcript.

The Board was ordered to obtain the shorthand notes and issue an access decision to the appellant.

A patient at a psychiatric hospital requested access to tape recordings of his annual review hearings before the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board.

The Board denied access, claiming it lacked the technological means to copy the tapes, that the tapes were exempt as clinical records, and that disclosure would invade the privacy of others.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the tapes, finding that reproducing cassette tapes is reasonably practicable and that the tapes were created for a non-clinical purpose.

A small portion of one tape containing private conversations of other individuals was severed and exempted under section 49(b).

The requester, a patient at a psychiatric facility, appealed the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board's decision to deny access to 74 records, including tape recordings of his annual review hearings.

The Inquiry Officer found that the tape recordings were not 'clinical records' excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer upheld the application of solicitor-client privilege to several memoranda and the advice or recommendations exemption to one letter.

The Officer ordered the disclosure of the tape recordings, severing only a portion containing another individual's personal information, and directed the Board to provide copies of the tapes as it was reasonably practicable to do so.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services relating to his appointment and subsequent denial of re-appointment to a Police Services Board.

After the Ministry granted access to located records, the appellant claimed more records should exist, specifically facsimiles containing feedback about him.

The Ministry conducted further searches and located no additional records in the disputed areas.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search for responsive records was reasonable and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant, an employee of the Metropolitan Licensing Commission, requested access to records pertaining to a work-related incident.

The Commission denied access to several records, claiming exemptions under sections 12, 38(a), and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the records were not prepared in contemplation of litigation and therefore did not qualify for exemption under section 12.

Furthermore, while the records contained personal information, their disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b).

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