IPCO 1995

The appellant sought access to Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority records relating to a named individual, including a lease and records of complaints.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing denied access, citing the invasion of privacy exemption.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information of the affected person and the appellant.

The Officer concluded that the information was supplied in confidence and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant, a former chief of police involved in a civil action against his former employer, requested access to records relating to the convictions of two police officers.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information and that the presumptions against disclosure for law enforcement investigations and employment history applied.

However, the portions of the transcripts containing the appellant's own statements were ordered disclosed, as their disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The public interest override did not apply because the appellant's interest was personal.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to a questionnaire and a fax cover sheet under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed exemptions for third party commercial information and personal information.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the questionnaire did not qualify for the third party information exemption because the identical information had already been disclosed to the media, negating any reasonable expectation of harm.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the name on the fax cover sheet was provided in a professional capacity and did not qualify as personal information.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of the Attorney General for access to executions or judgments against him in the Judicial District of Sudbury.

The Ministry denied the request on the basis that the records sought were court records not in its custody or under its control.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that writs of seizure and sale filed with the sheriff remain under the court's supervision and the Ministry's possession of them is merely a bare possession that does not amount to custody or control under the Act.

The appellant requested access to Ministry of Health files pertaining to his complaints against two physicians before the Health Disciplines Board.

The Ministry withheld several records, claiming they were excluded from the Act under section 65(2)(b) as psychiatric patient records, or exempt under sections 21(1) and 49(b) as unjustified invasions of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records held by the Ministry for the purpose of investigating the physicians did not have a clinical purpose, and thus section 65(2)(b) did not apply.

Regarding the privacy exemptions, the Inquiry Officer upheld the severing of the physicians' personal information but ordered the disclosure of several records where the need for an adequate degree of disclosure to the complainant outweighed privacy concerns.

The requester appealed the College's decision to deny access to a letter requesting a psychiatric assessment of the requester.

The College claimed the record was exempt under the solicitor-client privilege and the discretion to refuse a requester's own information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the letter was prepared at the request of the College's legal counsel for a litigation brief regarding ongoing and contemplated litigation with the requester.

The record was therefore exempt under sections 19 and 49(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and the College's decision was upheld.

The requester, an employee of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to certain records related to her grievance and her supervisor's grievance.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, specifically section 49(b) for unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of records containing only the requester's personal information but upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold records containing the personal information of other affected persons, finding that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

A municipality appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to records relating to a forest licensing project.

The records included proposals from third parties, inter-ministerial evaluations, briefing notes, a conditional agreement, and petitions.

The Inquiry Officer found that portions of the records were exempt from disclosure under sections 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 17(1) (third party information), 18(1)(g) (proposed plans or projects), and 21(1) (personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply and that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

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

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to a pre-sentence report.

The requester argued that additional records, specifically interview tools and transfer reports, should exist.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable, as an affidavit from the Area Manager confirmed that no such interview tools were used and no transfer report was prepared.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant, representing the family of a pedestrian killed in a motor vehicle accident, requested access to the driver's licence records of the elderly driver involved, specifically vision test results and driving examination records.

The Ministry of Transportation denied access to portions of the records, citing the protection of personal privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the withheld information fell under the presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy for medical history and personal evaluations under sections 21(3)(a) and (g) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Applying the Divisional Court's ruling in John Doe, the Commissioner held that these presumptions could not be rebutted by the factors in section 21(2), and the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The appellant wrote a letter to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing alleging a potential conflict of interest regarding a specific individual.

That individual requested a copy of the letter under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry decided to grant partial access, and the appellant appealed to prevent disclosure, arguing it would be an unjustified invasion of his privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the allegations in the letter constituted the requester's personal information, not the appellant's.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the appellant's name and the allegations, but found that the appellant's home address was exempt from disclosure under section 49(b) as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to the Enhanced Verification Program and its implementation in Hastings County.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, claiming the advice or recommendations exemption under section 13(1).

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that some records contained advice or recommendations and were properly exempt, while others contained only proposed actions, requests for information, or opinions, and ordered their disclosure.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Archives of Ontario denying access to portions of records relating to the Earlscourt Children's Home under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The records contained evaluations and opinions about the professional competence of former staff members.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information constituted personal information and that its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1) of the Act.

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

The Archives' decision to deny access was upheld, except for one page for which the Archives withdrew its exemption claim.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Finance for information regarding the employment history of a named Ministry employee, including appointment dates and transfer details.

The Ministry denied access to the record under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the requested information constituted the employee's personal information and fell within the presumption against disclosure for employment history under section 21(3)(d) of the Act.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to records relating to his health insurance coverage.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for law enforcement and security.

The Inquiry Officer found that the computer operator identification codes were exempt under section 14(1)(i) as their disclosure could endanger the security of the Registered Persons Database.

The remaining records were found exempt under section 14(1)(b) as they related to an ongoing fraud investigation by the Ministry's Investigation Unit.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, an unsuccessful candidate in a job competition, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to the interview answers of the other candidates under the invasion of privacy exemption of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry argued that the candidates could be identified from their answers even if names were removed.

The Inquiry Officer found that, with the exception of the 'Experience' section, the interview answers did not contain information about an identifiable individual and therefore did not qualify as personal information under section 2(1) of the Act.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records with the names and experience comments severed.

The appellant, an unsuccessful candidate in a job competition, requested the total scores of the other five candidates with their names severed.

The Ministry denied access under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming it would be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the scores alone, without names or other identifiers, could not be linked to identifiable individuals and therefore did not constitute personal information under section 2(1) of the Act.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the scores.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for legal accounts submitted by a lawyer appointed by the Children's Lawyer to represent his son.

The Ministry denied access to the particulars of the services rendered, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the undisclosed information related directly to the formulating and provision of legal advice and was therefore exempt under section 49(a) and section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override did not apply and that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Education and Training for a contract and funding information related to a union's participation in the jobsOntario program.

The Ministry disclosed parts of the contract but withheld budget estimates and a workplan under the third-party information exemption in section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing more records existed and the exemption was improperly applied.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had fulfilled its duty to clarify the request under section 24(2).

However, the Inquiry Officer concluded that neither the Ministry nor the union established a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure under section 17(1).

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the entire contract.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for a specific affidavit allegedly presented at an Assessment Review Board hearing.

The Ministry claimed the record did not exist.

The appellant appealed, arguing the search was inadequate.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to conduct a reasonable search because it did not contact the specific individuals named in the request who were allegedly involved with the affidavit.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct a further search and contact those individuals.