IPCO 1996

The appellant requested access to information related to a notice of contravention of a City of London by-law.

The City granted partial access but withheld the name, address, and telephone number of the complainant under the law enforcement exemptions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that the withheld information qualified for exemption under section 8(1)(d) as it would disclose the identity of a confidential source in a law enforcement matter, and that the City properly exercised its discretion under section 38(a) to refuse disclosure of the appellant's personal information.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Windsor Police Services Board refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records relating to the appellant's former wife, step-son, and two daughters under section 14(5) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that disclosing the mere existence or non-existence of the requested records would reveal personal information about identifiable individuals' involvement in law enforcement matters.

Balancing the factors, the Assistant Commissioner concluded that such disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and upheld the Police's decision.

A newspaper reporter requested information regarding retirement incentives paid to four senior officials of the Board of Education for the City of Windsor.

The Board denied access, claiming the records were exempt under section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they revealed the substance of deliberations of a closed meeting.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's decision, finding that the meetings were properly held in camera under the Education Act and that disclosure would reveal the substance of the committee's deliberations.

The appellant appealed the Fire Board's decision regarding two multi-part freedom of information requests.

The Fire Board denied access to two letters under the closed meeting exemption, claimed no records existed for certain parts, and sought clarification for others.

The Inquiry Officer found that the closed meeting exemption did not apply to the letters and ordered their disclosure.

The Officer also found that the Fire Board's search for records was reasonable and that it had met its obligations in seeking clarification from the appellant, who had failed to respond.

The appellant requested access to records held by the City of Toronto's Fire Department relating to a residential address.

The City denied access to a Provincial Offences Act Information and Summons, claiming the invasion of privacy exemption under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were court records forming part of the public record, which favoured disclosure.

The Officer concluded that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and ordered the City to disclose the records.

A requester sought access to a Ministry of Education and Training inspection report regarding a school in France offering Ontario-certified courses.

The Ministry decided to disclose the report in full.

The school appealed, arguing the report was exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third-party information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the report contained observations and impressions about the school's administration, not trade secrets or scientific, technical, commercial, financial, or labour relations information.

As the first part of the three-part test for the section 17(1) exemption was not met, the appeal was dismissed and the Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant requested access to background notes prepared by a Ministry of Labour Employment Standards Officer during an investigation of a former employee's claim for termination and severance pay.

The Ministry denied access under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b).

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as the appellant's interest in disclosure was private rather than public.

The appellant requested access to unit prices and category options provided by the successful bidder for a contract to supply bottle bags to the LCBO.

The LCBO denied access to portions of the record under the third party information exemption in section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding that the information was commercial, supplied in confidence, and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of the third party.

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

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of a police investigation file and Crown brief relating to domestic assault charges against him.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the undisclosed personal information of other individuals was exempt under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also found that CPIC transmission access codes were exempt under section 14(1)(l) as their disclosure could facilitate unauthorized access to the CPIC system.

Finally, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the Ministry had conducted a reasonable search for additional records.

The appellant, a former psychiatric patient, requested access to records from the Health Professions Board regarding complaints against two physicians.

In a reconsideration of Order P-1088, the Inquiry Officer found a jurisdictional error in the previous order's interpretation of section 65(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer determined that copies of clinical records transferred to the Board retain their character as clinical records under the Mental Health Act and are therefore excluded from the scope of the Act.

For the remaining administrative records subject to the Act, the Officer upheld most severances under the invasion of privacy exemption, but ordered the disclosure of one letter from a physician.

The appellant, a journalist writing a book, appealed the Ontario Insurance Commission's decision to deny access to records relating to negotiations between two insurance companies.

The Inquiry Officer found that portions of the records were exempt under section 15(b) as information received in confidence from another government agency (OSFI), and under section 13(1) as advice or recommendations.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as the public interest was not compelling enough to outweigh the exemptions.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of some background information not covered by the exemptions.

The Commission's search for records was deemed reasonable.

The appellant, an association representing certain employees of Ontario Hydro, appealed Hydro's decision to deny access to financial impact studies and analyses related to potential privatization scenarios.

Hydro claimed exemptions under sections 18(1)(c) and (e) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were exempt under section 18(1)(c) because their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice Hydro's economic interests and competitive position in potential future asset sales.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as the public interest in disclosure did not clearly outweigh the purpose of the exemption.

The appellant, a private investigator retained by an insurance company, requested access to the investigation briefs prepared for a Coroner's Inquest into a fatal boating accident.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access to portions of the record, citing the personal information and law enforcement exemptions.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the withheld records contained highly sensitive personal information and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose a few pages that did not contain personal information, but its decision to withhold the remainder of the record was upheld.

The appellant sought access to records concerning himself from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The Ministry granted partial access, claiming exemptions under sections 17(1), 21(1), 49(b), and 22(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for certain letters and broadcast tapes.

The Inquiry Officer found that the letter did not contain personal information of other individuals, and that the Ministry failed to demonstrate the broadcast tapes were currently publicly available.

The Inquiry Officer also noted that disclosure under the Act does not constitute copyright infringement.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for files in which he was named personally and as a bailiff.

The Ministry granted partial access, withholding records under exemptions for advice and recommendations, law enforcement, invasion of privacy, and solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the appellant's personal information and that the Ministry properly applied the exemptions to most of the withheld records, including those that would reveal confidential sources, constituted law enforcement reports, or were subject to solicitor-client privilege.

However, the Ministry was ordered to disclose portions of certain records that did not qualify for the claimed exemptions and where disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to Ontario Regulation 293/92, which increased the Court Tariff of Fees.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 12(1) (cabinet records), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), and 19 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of the exemptions for the majority of the records, finding they were draft regulations, submissions to Cabinet, or confidential legal advice.

However, four records were ordered disclosed as they were merely covering memoranda not subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The Assistant Commissioner also found the Ministry's search for additional records to be reasonable.

The appellant requested access to their human rights investigation file from the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The OHRC disclosed some records but withheld others under the advice or recommendations, law enforcement, and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the OHRC's decision to deny access to most of the withheld records, finding they contained personal information of other individuals compiled during a law enforcement investigation, or qualified as advice or recommendations.

The Inquiry Officer also found the OHRC's search for records was reasonable, but ordered the disclosure of a few pages that did not contain exempt information.

The appellant, who was convicted of criminal acts against a named individual, submitted a freedom of information request to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for a copy of the victim's statement and claim for compensation.

The Board denied access under sections 21 and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's decision, finding that the record contained sensitive medical and financial information subject to presumptions against disclosure, and that the privacy interests of the affected persons outweighed the appellant's right of access to know the case he had to meet in potential subrogation proceedings.

The appellant requested records relating to a September 1995 Provincial/Territorial Ministers' Meeting on social policy reform.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services denied access to the records, claiming exemptions under sections 15(a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (relations with other governments).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records, which included common briefing notes prepared by other provinces and specialized briefing materials prepared by Ontario officials, were received in confidence and their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice intergovernmental relations.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was largely upheld, with minor severances ordered for disclosure.

The Ministry of Natural Resources received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for letters sent by the appellant to the Ministry.

The Ministry decided to disclose the letters, and the appellant appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the letters contained the personal information of both the requester and the appellant, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the appellant's personal privacy.

Because the Ministry exercised its discretion to disclose the records under section 49(b) despite the privacy invasion, the Inquiry Officer issued an interim order requiring the Ministry to provide written representations regarding its exercise of discretion.