IPCO 1995

The appellants appealed the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board's decision denying access to tape recordings of their hearings.

The Board claimed the tapes were not in its custody or control, as they were created by an independent court reporter as backup audio tapes.

The Inquiry Officer found that the court reporter acts as a trustee or repository of the tape recordings created during an engagement with the Board.

The right of control over the records remains with the Board.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Board to obtain the tape recordings and issue an access decision to the appellants.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to deny access to property records and appraisal cards relating to the assessment of three residential properties.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 67(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as the confidentiality provision in section 53(1) of the Assessment Act prevailed.

The Inquiry Officer found that while information acquired by the assessor during property visits was subject to the confidentiality provision, information required to be on the assessment roll or obtained from the Registry or Land Titles Office was not.

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

The requester appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to deny access to property records, appraisal cards, and valuation forms relating to neighbouring properties.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 67(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as the confidentiality provision in section 53(1) of the Assessment Act prevailed.

The Inquiry Officer found that information required to be on the assessment roll or obtained from the Registry or Land Titles Office was not covered by the confidentiality provision and must be disclosed.

However, information acquired during the assessor's visits to the properties detailing the calculation of assessed values was confidential and exempt from disclosure.

The appeal was partially granted.

The appellant, an employee of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, requested a complete copy of his personnel file.

The Ministry granted partial access but withheld portions containing the personal information of other individuals, arguing they were not responsive.

The Inquiry Officer found the records were responsive because they were located in the appellant's personnel file.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the information under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the other individuals.

The requester appealed a decision by the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat denying access to letters related to a First Nation's land claim.

The Secretariat claimed the records were exempt under section 15(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which protects intergovernmental relations.

The Commissioner restated the test for section 15(a) and found that the relations between Ontario and Canada regarding the land claim were intergovernmental.

The Commissioner concluded that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice these relations, given the sensitive nature of the negotiations.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to a record related to the Ministry's response to his complaint about the prosecution of his son.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13 and 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record, a letter from an Assistant Crown Attorney to the Regional Director of Crown Attorneys, was prepared for use in giving legal advice.

Therefore, the record qualified for exemption under Branch 2 of section 19 and was exempt under section 49(a).

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Ministry of Finance for records relating to the valuation of similar real properties for assessment purposes.

The Ministry denied access to some records on the basis that they were publicly available under section 22(a) of the Act, and stated that no records existed for another part of the request because the specific comparable properties had not been identified.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the policy and procedural manuals were publicly available and that the Ministry had not yet created a list of comparables for the pending assessment appeal, meaning no responsive records existed.

The requester appealed the LCBO's decision to deny access to records relating to the pricing structure of a specific product sold through LCBO Vintages outlets.

The LCBO claimed exemptions under sections 17(1) and 18(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the unit price and mark-up information was supplied in confidence and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the competitive position of the supplier, thus qualifying for exemption under section 17(1)(a).

The Inquiry Officer also found that the LCBO's search for records relating to its Vintages pricing policy was reasonable.

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

The Ministry received a freedom of information request for a harassment investigation report.

The Ministry decided to grant partial access, withholding the personal information of individuals who did not consent to disclosure.

One of the affected individuals appealed the decision to grant partial access, arguing the report contained inaccurate information that could cause him pecuniary harm, and requested a copy of the report to ensure his information was not disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the severed version of the report proposed for disclosure did not contain any of the appellant's personal information, and therefore its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of his personal privacy.

The appellant sought access to witness statements and interview notes from a workplace harassment investigation in which he was the respondent.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission denied access under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that disclosure of the records would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the complainant and witnesses, as the records contained sensitive personal information and their disclosure could unfairly expose the individuals to harm.

The appellant submitted six requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of Community and Social Services for records relating to funding provided to the Grandview Survivors Support Group.

The Ministry denied access to the located records, claiming multiple exemptions including advice or recommendations, law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, and economic interests.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's representations were largely general and failed to establish the application of most exemptions to the entirety of the records.

The Officer ordered the disclosure of the majority of the records, subject to severances for personal information, specific advice or recommendations, law enforcement matters, solicitor-client privilege, and Cabinet records.

The Officer also found the Ministry's search for records responsive to two requests unreasonable and ordered it to make inquiries with other institutions, particularly the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The requester sought access to documents from Ontario Hydro regarding possible revisions to the Provincial Nuclear Emergency Plan.

Ontario Hydro denied access to 16 records based on the Cabinet records exemption under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

During the appeal, Ontario Hydro attempted to raise a new discretionary exemption (s. 13(1)) late in the process, which the Assistant Commissioner refused to consider.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Cabinet records exemption for some records and portions of others, finding their disclosure would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

However, the Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of other records and portions that did not qualify for the exemption, finding no implicit Cabinet consent to release the withheld records.

The appellant requested floor plans of the Ontario Insurance Commission's storage area for mediation, arbitration, and appeals files.

The OIC denied access under the security exemption in section 14(1)(i) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that releasing the floor plans could reasonably be expected to endanger the security of a building or system established to protect sensitive personal information.

The Ontario Insurance Commission received a freedom of information request for specific pages of the annual returns submitted by life insurance companies.

The appellant, one of the affected companies, objected to the disclosure of its information under the third party information exemption in section 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the record contained financial information, it was not supplied in confidence and disclosure could not reasonably be expected to cause the alleged harms.

The appeal was dismissed and the records were ordered to be disclosed.

A requester sought access to specific pages of the annual returns submitted by life insurance companies to the Ontario Insurance Commission.

One of the life insurance companies appealed the decision to disclose its information, claiming the third-party information exemption under section 17(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the records contained financial information, they were not supplied in confidence, either explicitly or implicitly.

Furthermore, the appellant failed to establish a reasonable expectation of prejudice to its competitive position or interference with negotiations.

The appeal was dismissed and the records were ordered disclosed.

The appellant submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ontario Insurance Commission for records relating to their mediations, arbitrations, and appeals.

The OIC granted full access to the located records, but the appellant appealed, arguing that more records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the OIC's search for responsive records was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances, and upheld the OIC's decision.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Environment and Energy for records relating to the Alexandria Landfill site.

The Ministry disclosed responsive records, but the appellant appealed, arguing that more records should exist.

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

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant sought access to records relating to a Health Disciplines Board review of a complaint against a doctor who performed surgery on her adult daughter.

The Ministry of Health denied access to a portion of a handwritten note, citing the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the record contained highly sensitive personal information relating to the daughter's medical treatment, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant sought access to police records relating to an investigation that led to their arrest.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services granted partial access but withheld duty reports, witness statements, and notebook extracts under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the duty reports met the three-part test for the law enforcement exemption and that disclosing the witness statements and notebook extracts would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other individuals.

The Ministry requested a reconsideration of Order P-612, which had ordered the disclosure of three occurrence reports related to an incident at a correctional facility.

The Inquiry Officer found jurisdiction to reconsider due to a fundamental defect in the original interpretation of section 21(3)(b) of the Act.

Adopting a broader interpretation of 'compiled' from a subsequent order, the Inquiry Officer determined that the records were compiled as part of a police investigation into a possible violation of law.

Consequently, the disclosure of the records would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1).

The original order was rescinded and the records were held to be exempt from disclosure.