IPCO 1995

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for job specifications, physical demands analyses, and salary ranges for several positions within the Ontario Insurance Commission.

The Ministry of Finance granted partial access but claimed no job specification existed for the Commissioner position.

The appellant appealed the reasonableness of the search.

The Inquiry Officer accepted the Ministry's affidavit evidence that a search of human resources files was conducted and no such record was created, concluding the search was reasonable and upholding the Ministry's decision.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Environment and Energy's fee estimate of $1,227.50 for processing a freedom of information request regarding lagoon type sewer systems in Northwestern Ontario.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's calculation, which included 39.25 hours of search time, photocopying, and courier fees, was reasonable and in accordance with the Act and Regulation.

The fee estimate was upheld.

A trade union representing sheet metal workers requested access to the names, addresses, and certification details of sheet metal workers and apprentices from the Ministry of Education and Training.

The Ministry denied access 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 requested records contained personal information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

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

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision that no records existed responsive to a request for information regarding complaints against an Assault Crisis Centre.

The sole issue was whether the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer found the search unreasonable because the Ministry failed to search the files of the review team members who conducted an operational review of the Centre, or any centralized offices.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct a further search.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Education and Training's decision to transfer a freedom of information request to the Peel Board of Education, arguing that the Ministry should have responsive records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search for records prior to the transfer was reasonable, as the requested records related to the jobsOntario Training program, which are maintained directly by individual brokers rather than the Ministry.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to a stayed criminal charge against an individual who allegedly broke into the appellant's home.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 19, 21(1), 49(a), and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were exempt under solicitor-client privilege and personal privacy exemptions, while others did not qualify for these exemptions.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records and parts of records to the appellant.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to three records related to the drilling of a well, claiming the third party information exemption under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant also appealed the reasonableness of the Ministry's search for inspection and monitoring records.

The Inquiry Officer found that Record 1 met the three-part test for exemption under section 17(1)(b) and was properly withheld.

However, Records 2 and 3 did not meet the test because the information was not supplied to the Ministry by the third party, and were ordered disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the Ministry's search for records as reasonable.

The requester appealed the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board's decision to deny access to tape recordings of their hearing.

The Board claimed it lacked the technological means to reproduce the recordings under section 30 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and also claimed exemptions under sections 20, 49(b), and 49(d).

The Inquiry Officer found that it was reasonably practicable to reproduce the recordings and that the claimed exemptions did not apply, ordering the Board to disclose the recordings in their entirety.

A requester sought access to records relating to financial assistance provided by the Ontario Development Corporation and Northern Ontario Development Corporation to a lumber company.

The Ministry of Economic Development and Trade denied access to numerous records, claiming the third party information exemption under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer applied the three-part test for section 17(1) and found that while all records contained commercial or financial information, only certain records were 'supplied' in confidence and met the harms test.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the majority of the records, with a few exceptions upheld as exempt.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Citizenship's decision to deny access to records relating to grant applications by Franco-Ontarian organizations.

The Inquiry Officer found that certain budget and fund-raising information was exempt from disclosure under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as it constituted financial and commercial information supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which could prejudice the organizations' competitive positions.

The public interest override in section 23 was found not to apply.

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

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to records relating to her employment.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for third party information, danger to health or safety, invasion of privacy, and evaluative or opinion material.

The Inquiry Officer found that none of the claimed exemptions applied to the records at issue.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records to the appellant in their entirety.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to a memorandum written by a co-worker regarding a workplace incident.

The Ministry claimed 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 memorandum contained the personal information of both the requester and the affected persons.

The Officer concluded that the affected persons' information was highly sensitive and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the memorandum with the affected persons' personal information severed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision regarding a freedom of information request for correspondence.

After the Notice of Inquiry, the Ministry disclosed the previously withheld records and an additional record.

The sole remaining issue was whether the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Ministry's affidavit detailing the search steps and concluded that the search was reasonable, upholding the Ministry's decision.

A requester sought copies of contracts between the Management Board of Cabinet and a telecommunications company.

The Board decided to disclose the contracts in full.

The telecommunications company appealed, claiming the third party information exemption under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the appeal, finding that the company failed to establish that the information in the negotiated contracts was 'supplied' to the institution, as required by the second part of the exemption test.

The appellant submitted a multi-part request to the Ministry of Health for access to his personal information located at a psychiatric hospital.

The Ministry located 51 responsive records but advised that no documents were found relating to several parts of the request.

The appellant appealed, arguing more records should exist based on a previous human rights complaint.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to contact the specific employee who provided information to the human rights investigator, and therefore did not conduct a reasonable search.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct a further search.

The appellant appealed Ontario Hydro's decision to deny access to three records relating to his human rights complaint, claiming exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the solicitor-client privilege exemption under section 19, read with section 49(a), for all three records.

However, the Inquiry Officer found that Ontario Hydro's search for responsive records was not reasonable and ordered a further search to be conducted.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision regarding a freedom of information request for records concerning a Temporary Absence Program application and medical evaluations, arguing that additional responsive records should exist.

The Ministry provided affidavits detailing its search of the single Records Management file and medical file.

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

A former inmate appealed a decision of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services regarding a freedom of information request for his medical records, specifically claiming that X-rays should exist.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner reviewed the Ministry's representations and concluded that the Ministry's search for responsive records was reasonable.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant sought access to a leasehold agreement between the Management Board Secretariat and a landlord for an office lease.

The Board disclosed the agreement but severed information regarding lease inducements, claiming exemptions under sections 17(1)(a) (third party information) and 18(1)(c) (economic interests) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of the severed information, finding that the landlord could not have a reasonable expectation of confidentiality due to a clause in the lease consenting to its release, and that the Board failed to establish a reasonable expectation of probable economic harm.

The appellant, a newspaper reporter, requested access to a Ministry of Community and Social Services investigation report regarding a home for the developmentally handicapped and the conduct of a former employee.

The Ministry denied access under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the report contained personal information, the public interest in subjecting the Ministry's investigatory activities to public scrutiny outweighed the privacy interests of the former employee and two affected persons.

However, the personal information of a third affected person remained exempt.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the report with the exempt information severed.