IPCO 1995

A newspaper reporter appealed the Barrie Public Library Board's decision to deny access to Minutes of Settlement between the Board and a former employee.

The Board claimed exemptions for third party information, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third party and solicitor-client privilege exemptions did not apply.

While the record contained personal information, the Inquiry Officer concluded that public scrutiny and public confidence considerations favoured disclosure of the settlement terms.

However, the former employee's identifying information and a letter of reference were found to be exempt as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Board was ordered to disclose the severed record.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Peel Regional Police Services Board refusing to correct a portion of an occurrence report containing a complainant's description of the appellant's actions.

The appellant argued the description was false and contradicted a later statement made by the complainant.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the appeal, finding that the police accurately recorded the information as it was provided to them at the time, and it is unreasonable to require police to delete all false statements made to them.

The requester appealed the Town of Pickering's failure to respond to a freedom of information request regarding a landfill site.

The Town subsequently issued a notice extending the time to respond by 64 days, claiming the request necessitated a search through a large number of records.

The Inquiry Officer found the extension unreasonable, noting the Town provided no evidence of how its operations would be unreasonably interfered with and had issued the notice after the initial 30-day period expired.

The Town was ordered to respond by a specified date and prohibited from charging fees other than for photocopying.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision that it did not have custody or control of elevator access records requested under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The records were created by a private security company and maintained by the building's property manager.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry exercised a measure of control over the records, as it could obtain them upon request and restricted the appellant's direct access to them.

The Ministry was ordered to request the records from the property manager and issue an access decision.

The appellant corporation requested access to Prosecution Approval and Prosecution Information forms completed by the Ministry of Labour in connection with an industrial accident.

The Ministry denied access under several exemptions, including solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records were exempt under Branch 2 of section 19 of the Act because they were prepared for Crown counsel in contemplation of litigation and for use in giving legal advice.

The appellant corporation sought access to Prosecution Approval and Prosecution Information forms completed by the Ministry of Labour in connection with an explosion.

The Ministry denied access, citing several exemptions including solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were prepared for Crown counsel in contemplation of litigation and for use in giving legal advice.

The records were therefore exempt from disclosure under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission denying access to portions of their human rights complaint file under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Commission's decision, finding that the withheld records were exempt from disclosure as they contained law enforcement reports, advice or recommendations of a public servant, and personal information of other individuals whose disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Commission was ordered to disclose one record that had been previously released in another appeal.

The appellant appealed Ontario Hydro's decision to deny access to records relating to alliances or facilities-sharing arrangements between a named corporation and Ontario Hydro Technologies.

The Inquiry Officer found that the severed portion of a non-disclosure agreement was responsive to the request and that the requester was entitled to seek information about the corporation from Hydro.

Records 4, 5, and 6 were found to be exempt under section 18(1)(c) as their disclosure could prejudice economic interests.

Portions of Record 2 were found exempt under section 17(1)(c) as third party commercial information, while the remaining non-disclosure clauses were ordered disclosed.

The appellant corporation submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Labour for records relating to an ongoing investigation into a workplace burn accident.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the law enforcement exemption under section 14(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's investigation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act met the definition of a law enforcement matter and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with the ongoing investigation.

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

The appellant, a police officer, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of a public complaint filed against him.

The Ministry withheld the information 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 were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the complainant and other individuals.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs for records pertaining to her job performance.

The Ministry disclosed 11 documents, but the appellant appealed, arguing that more records should exist, particularly informal notes kept by her former supervisors.

The Ministry provided affidavit evidence that the informal notes had been destroyed prior to the request after being deemed of no value for human resources purposes.

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

The appellant sought access to her own witness statement, the respondent's rebuttal, and the final investigation report concerning a workplace harassment complaint.

The Ministry disclosed the appellant's statement, the rebuttal, and portions of the report relating directly to her complaint, but withheld the remainder under the invasion of privacy exemptions in sections 21 and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of portions relating to three affected persons who consented, but upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to the remaining portions, finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission for all costs incurred in relation to a lockout.

The Commission disclosed aggregate figures for two parts of the request but withheld the total contract expenses paid to an outside security firm, claiming the third party information exemption under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Commission improperly narrowed the scope of the request to only aggregate figures and ordered it to issue a new decision regarding detailed cost records.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the total contract amount was not exempt under section 17(1) because it was negotiated rather than supplied, and there was insufficient evidence of harm, ordering its disclosure.

The appellant sought access to records concerning the costs and investigation of two named individuals.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access, claiming exemptions under sections 13(1), 14(1)(a), 14(1)(f), and 14(2)(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records did not qualify for exemption under sections 13(1), 14(1)(a), or 14(1)(f), as they contained purely factual information and the Ministry failed to establish a reasonable expectation of harm to a fair trial or law enforcement matter.

However, portions of the records containing detailed information about the supervision of an individual in custody were found to be exempt under section 14(2)(d).

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

The requester appealed a fee estimate of $352.50 issued by the Archives of Ontario for search time related to a freedom of information request for a missing court file.

The Archives had issued an interim access decision due to the volume of records and their location in off-site storage.

The Inquiry Officer found that the method used to calculate the estimate, which involved consulting a knowledgeable employee and conducting a preliminary search, was reasonable.

The fee estimate was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Management Board Secretariat for records relating to concerns regarding the ventilation system at a leased building.

The Board initially claimed no records existed, but after mediation and subsequent searches, located and disclosed three records.

The appellant appealed, arguing more records should exist, including a specific letter sent to the former Property Manager.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the letter was received, it may have been misplaced during a transfer of files.

The Officer concluded that the Board's search efforts, supported by affidavits, were reasonable and upheld the Board's decision.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records concerning the investigation and prosecution of two named individuals.

The records included Critical Issue Sheets and cost information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Critical Issue Sheets were exempt under solicitor-client privilege.

However, the Ministry failed to establish that disclosure of the cost information could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or deprive a person of the right to a fair trial.

The exact salaries of three lawyers were found to be exempt as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

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

The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records concerning alliances or facilities-sharing arrangements between a named corporation and Ministry laboratories.

The Ministry denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for advice and recommendations, third party information, and economic interests.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Act applies to third party information in the custody of an institution, and that draft agreements are subject to the Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the third party information exemption to certain records but ordered the disclosure of draft agreements, a fee schedule, and other records where the Ministry failed to discharge its burden of proof regarding the claimed exemptions.

The appellant appealed Ontario Hydro's decision to deny access to a 1994 arbitration decision resolving a dispute between Hydro and a uranium supplier.

Hydro claimed the record was exempt under the third party information and personal information exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer applied the three-part test for third party information under section 17(1) and found that the record contained technical, commercial, and financial information supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the competitive position of the affected party.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to a document relating to the funding of a joint police investigation into an alleged child pornography ring.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for law enforcement and the right to a fair trial.

The Inquiry Officer found that portions of the record relating to pending police actions, law enforcement intelligence, and anticipated pleas were exempt from disclosure.

However, information regarding the use of encrypted communications and personnel allocation was ordered disclosed, as it would not reveal confidential investigative techniques.