IPCO 1995

The appellant appealed Ontario Hydro's decision to deny access to portions of a Human Rights Investigation Report under the personal privacy exemption of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant clarified they were not seeking personal identifiers.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appendix and certain highlighted portions of the report contained personal information that could not be severed without revealing identities.

However, the remaining portions of the report did not constitute personal information once identifiers were removed.

Ontario Hydro was ordered to disclose the severable portions of the report.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Environment and Energy for records relating to a job competition and a demand for a medical examination.

The Ministry disclosed some records, but the appellant appealed, claiming additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search for responsive records, which included multiple offices and human resources departments, was reasonable in the circumstances and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellants appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to their complaints about O.P.P. officers' misconduct.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 49(a), 14(1)(g), 14(2)(a), and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that a report regarding a search of the appellants' residence qualified for the law enforcement exemption under section 14(2)(a).

The remaining records, consisting of witness statements and occurrence reports, were found to be exempt under section 49(b) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to deny access to property assessment records for properties near Pearson International Airport.

The Ministry relied on the confidentiality provision in section 53(1) of the Assessment Act, as well as exemptions for tax-related and third-party information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that section 53(1) protected the assessor's working notes and non-public information, but did not apply to information required to be entered on the public assessment roll.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the publicly available assessment roll information.

The appellant sought access to records relating to allegations of abuse made against her while employed at a Ministry residential camp.

The Ministry denied access to certain internal electronic mail messages and a memorandum, claiming exemptions for invasion of privacy and solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that disclosure of the records would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy and that one record was subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Environment and Energy seeking to determine whether a named individual was a civil servant or public servant within the meaning of the Public Service Act.

The Ministry advised that it had no responsive records.

The appellant appealed, arguing the Ministry failed to conduct a reasonable search.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the Ministry had conducted a reasonable search of its computer systems and manual personnel files dating back to 1978, which confirmed the individual was never a Ministry employee.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, who was shot by a police officer, requested the address and phone number of a witness to the shooting to assist in a civil action.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access, citing the invasion of privacy exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the requested information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b) of the Act.

The appellant requested copies of minutes from general meetings for Plant Services at the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital for the past five years.

The Ministry of Health responded that no such records exist.

The appellant appealed, claiming the records did exist.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the affidavits detailing the Ministry's search efforts and concluded that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate the responsive records.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, a former foster parent, appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to a serious occurrence report regarding an allegation of child abuse made against the appellant.

The Ministry relied on the invasion of privacy exemption under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained the personal information of both the appellant and the complainant.

Balancing the factors, including the highly sensitive nature of the information and the fact it was supplied in confidence, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the complainant's personal privacy.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to information relating to refunds of rehabilitation deposits for a specific quarry.

The Ministry of Natural Resources denied access to two statements of return filed by the current lessee, 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 while the records contained commercial information supplied in confidence, neither the Ministry nor the lessee provided evidence to substantiate a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of the Attorney General relating to a job competition in which he was an unsuccessful candidate.

The Ministry denied access to the resumes, covering letters, interview answers, and scores of the other candidates under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (invasion of privacy).

The appellant appealed and argued that the public interest override in section 23 applied.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information and that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under various presumptions in section 21(3).

The Inquiry Officer also found that the appellant failed to establish a compelling public interest in disclosure under section 23.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to deny access to a Special Examination Report concerning a trust company.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including the law enforcement exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the report was prepared during a special examination under section 183 of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, rather than a routine inspection under section 184.

Therefore, the report qualified for the law enforcement exemption under section 14(2)(a) and the Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The requesters appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to portions of a draft document entitled 'A Proposal to Designate Wildlife Rehabilitators as Agents of the Crown' under the advice or recommendations exemption in section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the substantive advice and recommendations under each option were properly exempt, but the headings identifying the options did not contain advice or recommendations and must be disclosed.

The appellant appealed the decision of Sheridan College of Applied Arts and Technology to deny access to records relating to a human rights complaint and grievance.

The College claimed exemptions under sections 19 (solicitor-client privilege) and 21 (invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that disclosure of personal information of other individuals in certain records would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 49(b).

The Inquiry Officer also found that most of the records qualified for exemption under section 19 and section 49(a) as they were subject to solicitor-client privilege or prepared for litigation, but ordered the disclosure of one record and portions of legal accounts that did not relate to the seeking or giving of legal advice.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to the 1992 increase in probate fees.

The Ministry relied on the Cabinet records and advice and recommendations exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the Cabinet records exemption to the Treasury Board submission and its attachment.

The Inquiry Officer also found that portions of a briefing note qualified for the advice and recommendations exemption, but ordered the disclosure of the remaining records, finding no compelling public interest to override the exemptions.

The requesters, who were defendants in a civil action brought by the family of a deceased individual, sought access to records filed by the family with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

The Board denied access to three records under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption for two of the records (the applications for compensation), finding they contained highly sensitive personal, medical, and financial information.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the third record (an Interim Order), finding that it was relevant to the assessment of damages in the civil action and its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The appellant, an employee of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, appealed the Ministry's claim that no records existed in response to his request for files held under his name by specific managers.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search was not entirely reasonable, as it failed to demonstrate that searches were conducted by the Superintendent of the detention centre or that notes from a specific meeting held by the Human Resources Manager were sought.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct additional searches for these records.

The requester appealed a decision by the Ministry of Natural Resources denying access to records showing the exact amount of monies expended on hunting and hunting-related activities during the 1992-1993 fiscal year.

The Ministry claimed the records did not exist because its financial and accounting system did not separately identify expenditures relating exclusively to hunting.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry provided a reasonable explanation as to why the records did not exist and was satisfied that the Ministry's search for responsive records was reasonable.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's response to a freedom of information request for correspondence related to his prosecution.

The Ministry relied on decision letters from three previous requests submitted by the appellant two months prior.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's reliance on its previous searches and decision letters was reasonable, as the requests sought essentially the same information and no new records were likely created in the interval.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Health for records relating to applications by a company to relocate its laboratory and specimen collection centres.

The Ministry withheld parts of the records as non-responsive, and claimed exemptions under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) and section 17(1) (third party information) for other records.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that section 10(1) permits withholding non-responsive parts of records, the section 19 exemption applied to legal advice memoranda, and the section 17(1) exemption applied to proposed location information that could prejudice the third party's competitive position.