IPCO 1996

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board for records relating to his hearing, including personal notes of Board members, investigation records, and audio tapes.

The Board denied access to some records and claimed the audio tapes were not in its custody or control.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found the Board had no obligation to create letters from its members about their knowledge of records.

The search for personal notes was deemed reasonable, but the Board was ordered to conduct a further search for investigation records.

The issue of custody or control of the audio tapes was deferred pending the outcome of a related judicial review application.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to portions of his Family Support Plan file.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for law enforcement, advice or recommendations, relations with another government, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the personal information of both the requester and other identifiable individuals.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the law enforcement exemption applied to certain records as their disclosure could reveal investigative techniques or confidential sources, and that the invasion of privacy exemption applied to the remaining records due to the highly sensitive nature of the information collected for support order enforcement.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records concerning allegations of wrongdoing by public officials.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records contained personal information compiled during a police investigation, making them exempt from disclosure under the invasion of privacy provisions.

However, the Ministry's claim of solicitor-client privilege was rejected because the records were not prepared with the dominant purpose of contemplating litigation.

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

The requester sought access to a company's loan application and related documents from the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism.

The Ministry denied access to several records under the third party information and invasion of privacy exemptions.

Both the requester and the company appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third party information exemption did not apply because there was insufficient evidence of expected harm from disclosure.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the invasion of privacy exemption to personal information contained in the records, ordering partial disclosure.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Education and Training denying access to records relating to a union local's involvement in jobsOntario programs.

The Ministry initially claimed exemptions under sections 13(1), 17(1), and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The section 21(1) claim was withdrawn as the appellant excluded personal information, and the section 17(1) claim was withdrawn after affected parties consented to disclosure.

The sole remaining issue was whether a seven-page record qualified for exemption under section 13(1) as advice to government.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the record contained advice and recommendations for specific courses of action to be accepted or rejected by the Minister, and upheld the Ministry's decision to exempt the record.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to probation officer notes compiled during his 18-month probation period.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including invasion of privacy, danger to safety, and confidential correctional records.

The Inquiry Officer declined to consider a late-raised discretionary exemption.

The Officer found that Records 2, 4, and 5 contained highly sensitive information whose disclosure could expose the primary affected person to harm, upholding their exemption under section 49(b).

However, Records 1 and 3 were ordered disclosed as they did not pose a safety risk, were not highly sensitive, and did not reveal information supplied in confidence.

The appellant, representing a newspaper, appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to a record containing information about compensation paid by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to the families of two murder victims.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the record contained personal information, including medical and income details, the disclosure of which would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under sections 21(3)(a) and (f) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant failed to establish a compelling public interest under section 23 to override the privacy exemption.

A newspaper reporter requested access to peer evaluation reports for Ontario Hydro's nuclear power plants.

Hydro denied access, claiming exemptions for advice to government and economic interests.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that while the reports contained advice, they fell under a mandatory exception for reports on institutional performance.

Although the reports qualified for the economic interests exemption, the Commissioner applied the public interest override, concluding that the compelling public interest in nuclear safety clearly outweighed Hydro's economic interests.

Hydro was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant sought access to OHIP records relating to his children under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry of Health denied access under the personal privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant was not a custodial parent under section 66(c) of the Act, nor an access parent under section 20(5) of the Children's Law Reform Act, as his access rights had been suspended by court order.

The records contained the children's medical history, and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(a).

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed Ontario Hydro's response to a freedom of information request for records concerning an Order In Council.

Hydro claimed no responsive records existed in its custody or control.

The Inquiry Officer found that Hydro's search for records was reasonable.

However, the Inquiry Officer found that Hydro failed to comply with section 25(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by not making necessary inquiries to determine if another institution had custody or control of the records, and ordered Hydro to make such inquiries.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records containing the names, dates of death, and dollar amounts of estates that escheated to the Crown between 1984 and 1994.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the names of the estates, finding it would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to the dollar values and dates of death under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and found the Ministry's search for records from 1984 to 1988 was reasonable.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to charge a fee for access to records related to his assessment roll number, arguing the request was for his personal information.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the records contained information about property rather than personal information, but waived the $3.80 fee.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold a memorandum under the solicitor-client privilege exemption and found the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of the Attorney General denying access to records relating to a private prosecution launched by the appellant.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under solicitor-client privilege and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were prepared by or for Crown counsel for use in litigation and were therefore exempt from disclosure under section 49(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, read in conjunction with section 19.

The Ministry of Finance received a freedom of information request for documents filed by the Lawyers Professional Indemnity Company (LPIC).

The Ministry granted partial access, claiming exemptions for third party information and invasion of privacy.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the names of LPIC shareholders acting in their professional capacity were not personal information and ordered their disclosure.

However, the biographical information of LPIC officers and directors was found to be exempt under section 21(1).

Furthermore, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to exempt actuarial reports, reinsurance contracts, and related correspondence under section 17(1), finding that their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice LPIC's competitive position.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Environment and Energy for submissions relating to two Environmental Registry items concerning municipal waste incinerators.

The Ministry denied access under section 22(a) of the Act, claiming the records were already publicly available, and denied the appellant's request for a fee waiver.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's system of access did not make the records publicly available as contemplated by section 22(a), as it sought to charge fees without the independent review provided by the Act.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to deny the fee waiver, finding that waiving the estimated $350 fee would shift an unreasonable burden to the institution, especially given the appellant's refusal to view the records to narrow the request.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation's decision to deny access to certain records relating to the appellant and two affiliated organizations.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for Cabinet records, advice or recommendations, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Cabinet records and advice or recommendations exemptions did not apply, as the records were not prepared to brief a Minister for Executive Council deliberations and did not contain advice or recommendations.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the application of solicitor-client privilege to one record and found that disclosure of portions of other records would constitute an unjustified invasion of a third party's personal privacy.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the remaining records.

The appellant sought access to a letter of complaint concerning a named Indian association sent to the Gaming Control Commission.

The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations denied access under various exemptions, including the law enforcement exemption.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the record related to a law enforcement matter and that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal the identity of a confidential source, even with the complainant's name and address removed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to withhold portions of an inspection report on a police service under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed exemptions for security, facilitating an unlawful act, and invasion of privacy.

The Ministry did not provide representations, so the discretionary exemptions under sections 14(1)(i) and (l) were not upheld.

However, the Inquiry Officer found that the remaining withheld information constituted highly sensitive personal information of identifiable police service members.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure of this information would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1) of the Act, and upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold those portions.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation for the financial statements of the Ontario Underwater Council.

The Ministry denied access to the financial statements under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing third party information exemptions.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Inquiry Officer found that the financial statements constituted financial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the competitive position of the Ontario Underwater Council.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of Transportation for all information held under his name.

The Ministry granted partial access to records, and the appellant appealed, arguing that the Ministry did not identify all responsive records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant's broad request was not sufficiently specific, but that the Ministry's searches of the specific locations and types of records mentioned in the request were reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.