IPCO 1995

The appellant sought access to records held by the Ministry of the Attorney General pertaining to two named individuals.

The Ministry denied access to 37 records, claiming exemptions for advice and recommendations, law enforcement, right to a fair trial, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that portions of the records contained personal information and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy, upholding the exemption in part.

However, the Inquiry Officer rejected the Ministry's claims for advice and recommendations and solicitor-client privilege, ordering the disclosure of the remaining records.

The appellant requested the name of the government official who referred the payment of his fine to a debt collection agency.

The Ministry of the Attorney General indicated that no such record exists because the referral was generated automatically by a computer program (ICON) without human input.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search for responsive records was reasonable and upheld the decision that no responsive records exist.

The requesters appealed a decision of the Ontario Human Rights Commission regarding an access to information request for human rights complaint files.

The sole issue on appeal was whether the institution conducted a reasonable search for statistical information and actuaries' reports that the requesters believed existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the institution's steps, which included reviewing the files and contacting the former coordinator and the investigating officer, were reasonable in the circumstances.

The institution's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision denying access to records relating to a court action.

The Inquiry Officer found that records contained in a court file are not in the custody or control of the Ministry and are therefore not subject to the Act.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Ministry conducted a reasonable search for responsive records outside the court file.

The Ministry was ordered to provide a new decision regarding one part of the request where it had not previously communicated its search results to the appellant.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision denying access to an 'Information' regarding an assault charge.

The Ministry claimed the document was a court record not in its custody or control.

The Inquiry Officer found that the courts are not institutions under the Act and that the Ministry's administrative possession of court files does not amount to custody or control.

The Inquiry Officer also found the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested a Crown Brief and records relating to complaints against a Provincial Court Judge and an Assistant Crown Attorney.

The Ministry denied access to the Crown Brief under solicitor-client privilege and stated no records existed for the complaints.

During mediation, it was revealed the appellant already possessed the Crown Brief.

The Inquiry Officer found the appeal regarding the Crown Brief moot.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the Ministry's decision regarding the complaints, finding its search for records was reasonable.

The requester sought records from the Ministry of Community and Social Services regarding investigations into the unreported disappearance and subsequent death of a Crown ward from a group home.

The Ministry initially denied access under the law enforcement exemption and later claimed the records were protected by the Young Offenders Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Young Offenders Act did not apply because the individual was deceased.

The Inquiry Officer permitted the late raising of the right to a fair trial exemption but not another law enforcement exemption.

Ultimately, the Inquiry Officer ordered partial disclosure, finding that some information was exempt to protect the privacy of individuals and the fair trial rights of those criminally charged in connection with the death, while other information about the Ministry's investigation and the disappearance was ordered disclosed in the public interest.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to records concerning investigations into the disappearance and death of a Crown ward.

The Ministry initially claimed exemptions under the Young Offenders Act (YOA) and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

The Inquiry Officer found that the YOA non-disclosure provisions did not apply because the young person was deceased.

The Officer permitted the late raising of the right to a fair trial exemption (s. 14(1)(f)) but denied the late raising of another discretionary exemption.

Ultimately, the Officer ordered partial disclosure, finding that some information was exempt under the invasion of privacy (s. 21(1)) and fair trial (s. 14(1)(f)) provisions, while other information relating to the Ministry's investigation and the Crown ward's disappearance must be disclosed.

The appellant, representing an employer, requested access to records concerning the Ministry of Labour's investigation of an Employment Standards Act complaint made by a former employee.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b).

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access to a draft audit report on Queen's Park security services, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations and economic and other interests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requesters appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that while parts of the report contained advice or recommendations, it fell under the mandatory exception for reports on the efficiency of an institution.

The Officer also found the report did not qualify as a plan or proposed plan under the economic interests exemptions.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record in its entirety.

The appellant requested access to records relating to an OPP investigation in which he was the complainant, specifically seeking the Crown brief and witness statements.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access, citing several exemptions including solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the Crown brief and a related letter from Crown counsel were prepared in contemplation of litigation and thus exempt under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) and section 49(a) (discretion to refuse requester's own information) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to the government's Non-Tax Revenue Strategy and its connection to increases in estates fees.

The Ministry denied access to a Treasury Board submission and a spreadsheet analysis, claiming the Cabinet records exemption.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained policy options and recommendations submitted to a committee of Cabinet, and thus qualified for exemption under section 12(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry was also ordered to issue a decision regarding additional responsive records it had located during the appeal process.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision that it did not have a copy of an Organizational Review Report for the Niagara Region Sexual Assault Centre.

The Ministry claimed it did not require a copy because the Centre did not accept the finalized report.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to provide sufficient evidence of a reasonable search, noting the lack of details regarding the nature, extent, and qualifications of the person who conducted the search.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct a further search in specific program areas and issue a new decision.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Transportation regarding a freedom of information request for a draft letter dated January 27, 1995.

The Ministry provided partial access to the finalized February 3 memorandum but stated the draft no longer existed.

The sole issue was whether the Ministry conducted a reasonable search for the draft record.

Based on affidavits from the Director and the Consultant confirming the draft was destroyed after the final version was completed, the Inquiry Officer found the search was reasonable and upheld the Ministry's decision.

A member of the media requested access to information concerning the establishment of a Local Area Network in the Ministry of the Attorney General's Computer and Telecommunications Branch, specifically regarding a named individual's employment and termination.

The Ministry refused to confirm or deny the existence of the records under section 21(5) of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that section 21(5) did not apply and confirmed the existence of records.

The Officer ordered the disclosure of certain administrative records, finding their release would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, while upholding the exemption for other personal and performance-related records.

The Officer also found that the third-party commercial information exemption did not apply, and that the public interest override applied only to portions of a critical issue sheet.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to an overpayment in the Overpayment Recovery and Follow-Up System (ORFUS).

The Ministry stated no such records existed as the appellant was currently receiving assistance, and provided an affidavit detailing its search of the appellant's master file.

The Inquiry Officer found the Ministry's search was reasonable and upheld the decision.

A member of the media appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to a memorandum regarding a consultant's departure.

The Ministry claimed the record was exempt under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the first paragraph contained the affected person's employment history and was exempt under section 21(3)(d).

The remaining paragraphs were purely administrative and ordered disclosed.

The appellant's claim that the public interest override in section 23 applied was dismissed, as disclosure of the exempt paragraph would not contribute meaningfully to the public's understanding of government activities.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for documents relating to a request for proposal for photo radar summons.

The Ministry denied access to portions of a memorandum, claiming exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information was prepared by Crown counsel for the purpose of giving legal advice to senior staff.

The decision to deny access to the information on pages 14 and 15 was upheld under section 19 of the Act, while the Ministry was ordered to disclose a withdrawn portion on page 13.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to correspondence regarding the Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licence Regulations.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under several sections, including solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer found that all the requested records constituted confidential communications between a solicitor and client directly related to seeking or giving legal advice, and were therefore exempt under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer also held that the public interest override in section 23 does not apply to records exempt under section 19.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records regarding its involvement in efforts to stop the performance of Show Boat.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under section 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and section 21(1) (invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records contained advice or recommendations and were exempt, while others merely contained factual information or decided courses of action and were not exempt.

The Officer also found that some information constituted personal information relating to racial or ethnic origin, the disclosure of which would be a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy, while other information related to individuals in their professional or public capacities and was not exempt.

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