IPCO 1995

The appellant requested access to a Legal Opinion Request Form relating to an investigation of a fatal workplace accident.

The Ministry of Labour denied access under sections 14(1)(a) and 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record was prepared for Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice regarding a potential prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The record was therefore exempt from disclosure under the solicitor-client privilege exemption in section 19.

The appellant requested access to information related to a corporation's mining activities from the Ministry of Natural Resources.

The Ministry granted partial access but withheld a work permit application under sections 17(1) and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the denial but abandoned the section 21(1) claim during mediation.

The Inquiry Officer found that the work permit application contained commercial information supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the third party's competitive position.

The Ministry's decision to deny access under section 17(1)(a) was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Health for the medical records and OHIP billing history of her deceased husband.

The Ministry denied access to the only responsive record, the OHIP Claims Reference File, citing the invasion of privacy exemption.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the appellant could not exercise her husband's rights under section 66(a) of the Act because the request did not relate to the administration of his estate.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1) and found that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

Two sisters requested access to their Crown ward files from 1968-1969 under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services granted partial access to court orders but withheld other records, advising that the Children's Aid Society (CAS) maintained the remaining files.

The requesters appealed, arguing more records should exist and that the Ministry had control over CAS records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable and that the Ministry did not have control over the records held by the CAS, as its authority was limited to financial accountability and periodic administrative reviews.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed a decision by the Archives of Ontario denying access to her deceased mother's 1948 medical records from the Ontario Hospital in Cobourg.

The Archives claimed the records were exempt under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (invasion of privacy).

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the personal information of the mother and her family, but not the requester.

As the requester did not provide representations to show that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1)(f), the Inquiry Officer upheld the Archives' decision to deny access.

The requesters appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to handwritten notes taken during an investigation into a bailiff's conduct.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the personal information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Bailiffs Act, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 21(3)(b).

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines' decision to deny access to four records related to a company's marble quarrying activities.

The records included funding applications and correspondence.

The Inquiry Officer found that the funding applications were exempt from disclosure under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they contained confidential commercial and financial information that could prejudice the company's competitive position.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the correspondence was exempt under section 21(1) as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for the Crown file pertaining to a trial in which he was the defendant.

The Ministry denied access to the records, claiming exemptions including solicitor-client privilege and that the information was publicly available.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the Crown brief was exempt under solicitor-client privilege and the remaining records were publicly available, but ordered the Ministry to advise the appellant of the location where the statutory excerpts could be viewed.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to certain records relating to the implementation of the Province's photo radar operations.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 15, 17(1), and 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the section 15(b) exemption did not apply to the evaluation report provided by a U.K. police force.

The section 17(1) exemption applied to financial data and comparison tables supplied by affected parties with an explicit expectation of confidentiality, as disclosure could harm their competitive position.

The section 19 exemption applied to a written summary of oral legal opinions provided by Ministry counsel.

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

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for a 'Wine Sector Strategy Report'.

The Ministry identified three records but later submitted that only one was responsive.

The Ministry denied access to the responsive record, claiming various exemptions including section 18(1)(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (economic and other interests).

The Inquiry Officer found that only one record was responsive to the request and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access, concluding that disclosure of the record could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the financial interests of the Government of Ontario.

A journalist requested access to financial security information provided to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs by three meat-packing operations under the Livestock Financial Protection Program.

The Ministry denied access, citing the third party information and invasion of privacy exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records were exempt under section 17(1)(b) because they contained confidential financial information, and disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in similar information no longer being supplied to the Ministry, which would jeopardize a program that is in the public interest.

The appellant requested access to information relating to mining operations conducted on or around their property since 1988, including topographical pictures.

The Ministry of Natural Resources granted partial access.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional responsive records should exist and that some provided maps had been altered.

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

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to a one-page memorandum signed by seven individuals, which the appellant believed contained allegations about her.

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 record contained highly sensitive personal information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected persons' personal privacy.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed Ontario Hydro's decision to deny access to an economic impact assessment study regarding a proposal to site an experimental nuclear fusion reactor in Ontario.

Ontario Hydro claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including section 18(1)(c) for economic interests.

The Inquiry Officer first determined that Ontario Hydro had custody of the record for the purposes of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer then found that disclosure of the record could reasonably be expected to prejudice Ontario Hydro's economic interests, as the information involved sensitive price negotiations and assumptions.

Finally, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as there was no compelling public interest in disclosure that clearly outweighs the purpose of the exemption.

Ontario Hydro's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to information in a Family Support Plan case file.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to several records, citing exemptions for invasion of privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained highly sensitive personal information of other individuals, including financial and employment history, the disclosure of which 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 appellant requested access to his Family Support Plan case file from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The Ministry denied access to certain records, claiming exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including section 49(b) (unjustified invasion of personal privacy).

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained highly sensitive personal and financial information of other individuals supplied in confidence, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of their privacy.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs' decision to deny access to records relating to the employment subcontract of a named veterinarian.

The Ministry claimed the invasion of privacy exemption under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry also attempted to raise a new discretionary exemption (section 14(1)(f)) 104 days after the time limit, which the Inquiry Officer refused to consider.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained highly sensitive personal information relating to allegations of improper professional conduct against an affected party.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would result in an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 49(b) and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant appealed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision to deny access to a draft policy paper regarding the debit/credit interest program.

The Board claimed the record was exempt under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as it contained advice and recommendations.

The appellant argued the record was a report on the performance or efficiency of a program, falling under the exception in section 13(2)(f).

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld portions constituted advice and recommendations, and that the draft policy paper lacked the requisite formality to be considered a report under section 13(2)(f).

The Board's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to deny access to a two-page record relating to the investigation of their human rights complaint.

The OHRC claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including law enforcement and invasion of privacy.

During the inquiry, the OHRC agreed to disclose the record with the personal identifiers of other individuals severed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the severed information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption of an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b).

The OHRC's decision to deny access to the severed portions under section 49(b) was upheld, and the OHRC was ordered to disclose the remaining portions of the record.

The appellant submitted freedom of information requests 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 numerous records, claiming exemptions for cabinet records, advice to government, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

On reconsideration, the Inquiry Officer reviewed the application of these exemptions to the remaining records at issue.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the exemptions to certain records and portions of records, but ordered the disclosure of others that did not meet the criteria for exemption, subject to the severance of any identifying information of the Grandview survivors.