IPCO 1995

The appellant, a reporter, sought access to government files related to a collection agency whose license was revoked.

In a previous order, the Inquiry Officer determined that certain personal information in Record IB85 was exempt from disclosure, but allowed counsel for affected corporate third parties to make submissions on the application of the mandatory third party information exemption under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Counsel failed to provide submissions demonstrating that the commercial information was supplied in confidence or that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause harm.

Consequently, the Inquiry Officer ordered the Ministry to disclose the non-personal information in Record IB85 to the appellant.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Insurance Commission for records relating to its policies on agent recruitment, HIV/AIDS, and the homosexual community, as well as communications regarding the appellant.

The Commission disclosed some records but stated that others did not exist and fell outside its jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Commission's search for responsive records and the steps taken to assist the appellant were reasonable, and upheld the Commission's decision.

Two former employees of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario submitted a freedom of information request for the resumes and job applications of successful head office candidates.

The Board denied access under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The requesters appealed and narrowed their request to the educational background and work experience portions, excluding personal identifiers.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records still contained personal information because the individuals could be identified when combined with staff announcements.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's decision, finding that the presumption against disclosure of employment or educational history applied and could not be rebutted by factors favouring disclosure.

The appellant sought access to a parole report concerning a named individual, believing it contained references to himself.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services withheld portions of the report under the correctional records and invasion of privacy exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the withheld information either constituted the appellant's own personal information or related to affected parties in their professional capacities, and therefore did not qualify for the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the report, excluding portions outside the scope of the appeal.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to the funding of Project 80, a police investigation into municipal corruption.

The Ministry claimed that parts of one record were non-responsive and that another part was exempt under the law enforcement exemption in section 14(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's decision to withhold parts of the first record as non-responsive was unreasonable and ordered its disclosure.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the part of the second record under section 14(1)(b), finding that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement investigation.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to the funding of Project 80, a police investigation into municipal corruption.

The Ministry claimed that certain parts of the records were non-responsive and that others were exempt under the law enforcement exemption in section 14(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some of the withheld information was responsive and ordered its disclosure, while upholding the Ministry's decision that other parts were non-responsive.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the application of the law enforcement exemption to information pertaining to travel arrangements for investigators.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to records generated during an investigation into her continuing eligibility for social assistance.

The Ministry relied on the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision for the majority of the records, finding they were compiled as part of a law enforcement matter or contained the personal information of other individuals.

However, the Ministry was ordered to disclose two fax cover sheets that contained only the requester's personal information.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines' decision to deny access to a letter prepared by Crown counsel for a witness in a Labour Relations Tribunal matter.

The Ministry claimed the record was exempt under the solicitor-client privilege exemption in section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained the requester's personal information but qualified for exemption under Branch 2 of section 19, as it was prepared by Crown counsel in contemplation of litigation.

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

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to records relating to an eligibility review investigation under the Family Benefits Act.

The Ministry relied on the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the law enforcement exemption to several records, finding their disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement matter.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of other records where the Ministry failed to establish a reasonable expectation of harm.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the application of the invasion of privacy exemption to records containing the personal information of other identifiable individuals.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Environment and Energy's decision that no responsive records existed for a request seeking handwritten notes taken by Ministry staff at meetings regarding the Dufferin County Waste Management Master Plan.

The Ministry provided evidence that while notes were taken, they were routinely destroyed once permanent records were published or during routine file purging.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate the records and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant filed freedom of information requests with the Ministry of Community and Social Services (COMSOC) for records relating to the Grandview Survivors Support Group.

After COMSOC denied access, the appellant appealed.

Following an initial order directing disclosure of most records, the Ministry of the Attorney General requested reconsideration, arguing it should have been treated as an affected party.

The Assistant Commissioner denied the reconsideration request, finding that the provincial government must speak with one voice through the lead ministry processing the request.

However, to avoid further delay and potential judicial review, COMSOC was granted a final extension to provide supplementary representations after consulting with the Attorney General.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to a Transport Canada Safety Survey regarding its air fleet.

The Ministry relied on exemptions for economic interests and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the economic interests exemption did not apply, as the Ministry failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of harm.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the personal privacy exemption to portions of the records containing performance evaluations of identifiable individuals.

The public interest override was found not to apply.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to records relating to an investigation into her continuing eligibility for social assistance.

The Ministry relied on the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold certain records under sections 14(1) and 49(b), finding they related to an ongoing law enforcement matter or contained intertwined personal information of other individuals.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of several facsimile cover sheets and letters, finding that their disclosure would not reveal investigative techniques or interfere with the investigation.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a workplace harassment investigation in which he was the respondent.

The Ministry denied access to 35 records, claiming exemptions for invasion of privacy, third party information, and law enforcement.

The Inquiry Officer found that the law enforcement and third party information exemptions did not apply.

However, the Inquiry Officer held that disclosure of certain portions of the records would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the affected persons.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the portions of the records that directly addressed the subject matter of the complaint, allowing the appellant to respond to the allegations, while withholding the remaining sensitive personal information.

The appellant submitted freedom of information requests to the Ministry of Natural Resources for records relating to public consultations and correspondence with the federal government regarding the Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licence Regulations.

The Ministry denied access to the records, citing exemptions including section 15(a) (relations with other governments).

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that disclosure of the records could reasonably be expected to prejudice ongoing intergovernmental negotiations between Ontario and Canada regarding Aboriginal fishing rights.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Community and Social Services for her complete original Family Benefits file.

The Ministry provided responsive records but withheld an investigation file under the law enforcement exemption.

During mediation, the appellant abandoned her request for the investigation file but argued that additional records, including pay cheque stubs, should exist.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Ministry's search efforts, including an affidavit detailing the search of the file room and the assigned worker's files, and concluded that the Ministry's search was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services to deny access to records pertaining to a workplace harassment investigation.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the complainant's personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that while some records were properly withheld, records detailing a meeting held with both parties present should be disclosed, as the appellant was already aware of the allegations and outcome.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services' deemed refusal to respond to a Freedom of Information request for records pertaining to a Coroner's Council preliminary investigation.

The Ministry failed to respond within the prescribed 30 days, did not request a time extension, and failed to provide a decision letter despite numerous follow-ups from the Appeals Officer.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Ministry to issue a decision letter within 15 days without recourse to a time extension.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Finance for assessment information regarding two properties.

The Ministry denied access to the records, citing the confidentiality provision in section 53(1) of the Assessment Act and section 67 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while some information relating to the calculation of assessments was protected by section 53(1), other information required to be on the assessment roll or obtained from the Registry or Land Titles Office was not protected and must be disclosed.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the unprotected portions of the records.

The appellant sought access to records regarding revisions to the Provincial Nuclear Emergency Plan.

The Ministry denied access to certain records, claiming the Cabinet records exemption under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that several records would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations and were properly exempt.

The Assistant Commissioner also determined that the public interest override in section 23 does not apply to the Cabinet records exemption, and that the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to order disclosure under section 11.

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