IPCO 1995

The appellant, a union representative, appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to portions of records relating to ambulance service staffing patterns.

The Inquiry Officer found that certain records relating to an incident investigation were not responsive to the request.

Applying the three-part test for third party information under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of one clause but upheld the exemption for the remaining commercial and financial information, finding its disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere significantly with the affected party's contractual relations.

The Ministry's search for records was deemed reasonable.

The appellant requested access to correspondence and product testing information related to highway testing blocks submitted to the Ministry of Transportation by a third party company.

The Ministry denied access to certain records under the third party information exemption (s. 17(1) of the Act).

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that some records contained scientific and technical information supplied in confidence, and their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the company's competitive position.

However, two records were ordered disclosed because they had already been released to the appellant in the United States and were publicly available.

The public interest override (s. 23) did not apply as the appellant's interest was private.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to records relating to investigations under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act and the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the withheld records were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, specifically under the law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy exemptions.

A small number of records were ordered to be disclosed as they did not meet the requirements for the claimed exemptions.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Transportation's response to a Freedom of Information request for records related to the suspension of his driving licence, arguing that an additional doctor's report should exist.

The Ministry provided affidavits detailing the searches conducted and confirming no additional records were found or destroyed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search for responsive records was reasonable and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision that no records existed in response to a freedom of information request for assessment records related to international border crossings.

The adjudicator found that records detailing the Ministry's assessment methodology did exist and ordered the Ministry to issue an access decision regarding them.

However, the adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision that no records existed regarding standard assumptions for net income and expenses or comparable properties.

Furthermore, the adjudicator determined that the specific capitalization rates used by the Ministry were protected from disclosure by the confidentiality provision in section 53(1) of the Assessment Act.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Labour for access to records pertaining to grievance proceedings against him.

The Ministry located three grievance forms and denied access to two of them 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 the records did not contain the appellant's personal information and that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the individuals who filed the forms.

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 scores of the other candidates.

The Inquiry Officer found that the scores constituted personal information and that their disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as they were subject to the presumption against disclosure for personnel evaluations in section 21(3)(g).

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for police records relating to a motor vehicle accident in which her husband was killed.

The Ministry denied access, citing law enforcement, right to a fair trial, and invasion of privacy exemptions.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while some portions of the records contained personal information of other individuals and were exempt from disclosure under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Ministry failed to establish that disclosure of the remaining information would interfere with a law enforcement matter or deprive a person of a fair trial under section 14(1).

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

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Labour's decision to deny access to eight records relating to an investigation into a fatal workplace accident.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) and section 14(1)(a) (law enforcement) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that all eight records were prepared by or for Crown counsel in contemplation of or for use in litigation, satisfying the requirements of Branch 2 of the section 19 exemption.

The Ministry's decision to withhold the records was upheld.

The requester, a former inmate at the Toronto Jail, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of his jail file.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 49(b) (invasion of privacy) and 49(e) (confidential correction record) of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the undisclosed information in the correctional records was supplied in confidence by other individuals, and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal that confidential information.

Furthermore, the disclosure of other inmates' personal information would constitute an unjustified invasion of their personal privacy, as the information was highly sensitive.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for correspondence and a financial audit regarding a Community Resource Centre.

The Ministry located some records but the appellant appealed, arguing that more records should exist, specifically a letter from June 1994.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Ministry's representations and an affidavit from the program co-ordinator detailing the search efforts.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Environment and Energy's decision that no records existed in response to two requests for information about charges or prosecutions against two businesses.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant provided no reasonable basis for believing records should exist, and that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records.

The Ministry's decisions were upheld.

The appellant submitted 21 freedom of information requests to the Ministry of Finance seeking information about a trust company relating to a condominium construction project and the Ministry's investigation of the appellant's complaints.

The Ministry denied access to certain records, claiming exemptions for third party information, advice and recommendations, invasion of privacy, and information published or available.

The Ministry also charged a fee and denied a fee waiver.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of exemptions to some records but ordered others disclosed.

The fee was reduced by disallowing preparation time, and the decision not to grant a fee waiver was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to records concerning out-of-country provincial health coverage for 'snowbirds'.

The Ministry relied on exemptions for solicitor-client privilege and relations with other governments.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of solicitor-client privilege to legal memoranda and notes of meetings involving legal counsel, but ordered the disclosure of issue sheets and charts that were not prepared for legal advice.

The Assistant Commissioner also upheld the exemption for information received in confidence from other provincial governments regarding their future plans for out-of-country health coverage.

Partial disclosure was ordered.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of Health pertaining to a housing project for adults with physical disabilities.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, economic interests, and third party information.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner reviewed the records and found that only a small portion qualified for exemption under section 17(1) as third party information, and certain pages qualified under section 13(1) as advice or recommendations.

The Ministry failed to establish that section 18(1)(e) applied to any of the records.

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

The appellant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for information relating to the assessment of retail sales tax.

The Ministry of Finance denied access to some records and claimed that no records existed for the portion of the request seeking statistical data on retail sales tax assessments for similar businesses.

The appellant appealed the decision regarding the existence of records.

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

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to whether he had been declared mentally incompetent or had a power of attorney entered on his behalf without his knowledge.

The Ministry searched the files at the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee and found no responsive records.

The appellant appealed, arguing records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant provided no reasonable basis for his claim that such records should exist and concluded that the Ministry had conducted a reasonable search.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for records relating to the government's non-tax revenue strategy and special corporate filing fees.

The Ministry denied access to four records, claiming exemptions for Cabinet records and advice or recommendations.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the Cabinet records exemption to three records, finding they contained policy options or would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the fourth record, finding it contained background factual information and implementation guidelines rather than advice or recommendations within the deliberative process.

The appellant requested records used to generate the estimated market value of their property from the Ministry of Finance.

The Ministry granted access to the identified records, but the appellant appealed, claiming more records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search for responsive records was reasonable and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for records relating to complaints about a specific retail store.

The Ministry conducted a search and informed the appellant that no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that such records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Ministry's affidavit evidence detailing its search efforts and concluded that the Ministry's search was reasonable.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.