IPCO 1996

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation for documentation concerning a named organization.

The Ministry denied access to one record, consisting of interoffice electronic mail memoranda, on the basis of solicitor-client privilege under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record was prepared by and for Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice, and therefore qualified for exemption under Branch 2 of section 19.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to a Ministry of Labour report regarding safety concerns at a petrochemical refinery.

The Ministry denied access to parts of the report under the third-party information exemption in section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the undisclosed technical information was exempt, as its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the corporation's competitive position.

However, two passages explaining past incidents and the investigator's conclusions were ordered disclosed, as they did not qualify for the exemption and their disclosure was supported by the public interest override in section 23.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to correspondence received from a member of the public regarding a Township's grant applications.

The Ministry claimed the section 21(1) personal privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were previously the subject of Order P-1134, which upheld the denial of access.

The appellant argued that Order P-1134 was wrongly decided, but the Inquiry Officer disagreed, finding no compelling public interest in disclosure under section 23.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested a complete mailing list of all licensed pesticide applicators from the Ministry of Environment and Energy.

The Ministry denied access to the names and addresses under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained personal information, disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, and the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The appellant association submitted a freedom of information request to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) for records relating to the adoption of new beer prices.

The LCBO denied access to a one-page memorandum from the Director of Economic Policy and Planning to senior management, claiming the advice or recommendations exemption under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the memorandum was primarily factual and did not contain a suggested course of action that would ultimately be accepted or rejected.

The exemption did not apply, and the LCBO was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to withhold four records relating to his complaint against an insurance adjuster, claiming the invasion of privacy exemption under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the personal information of both the appellant and the insurance adjuster, making section 49(b) the relevant exemption.

The Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the adjuster's privacy, as the records related to a complaint challenging his professional performance.

However, because the Ministry did not provide representations on its exercise of discretion under section 49(b), the Officer ordered the Ministry to provide written representations on the factors it considered.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing denying access to submissions made by a company to the Building Materials Evaluation Commission.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act as third party information.

The Assistant Commissioner found that most of the records contained confidential technical information whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the company's competitive position, and upheld their exemption.

However, one draft report was ordered disclosed as it did not meet the harms test.

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

The appellant requested access to witness statements from an internal Ministry investigation into her complaints of workplace discrimination.

The Ministry denied access under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that while some information could be disclosed without identifying the witnesses, the remaining information was highly sensitive and supplied in confidence.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the highlighted portions of the records and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to the rest.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for records relating to investigations concerning his apartment building.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, including a rent roll, correspondence from a legal clinic, and rent surveys, citing the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained personal information that was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Rent Control Act.

Consequently, the presumption against disclosure in section 21(3)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applied, and disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant sought access to records relating to the settlement of sexual harassment complaints filed against him and others with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Commission denied access, citing various exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Commission's decision, finding that the records contained personal information of the complainants and others, the disclosure of which would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 49(b).

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

The appellant, a former employee of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO), appealed the LCBO's decision that no records responsive to her request for personnel records existed.

During mediation, some records were located and disclosed.

The sole issue was whether the LCBO's search for records was reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer found that the LCBO failed to provide sufficient evidence detailing the nature and extent of its search.

The LCBO was ordered to conduct a further search and issue a new access decision.

The appellant requested copies of an Application for Oilfield Brine Disposal and supporting documentation submitted to the Ministry of Natural Resources by a third party.

The Ministry denied access to several records under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming they contained third party information.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained technical information supplied implicitly in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the competitive position of the third party.

The appellant requested access to written reports in personnel or institutional files mentioning her name in anything other than positive ways.

The Ministry identified four occurrence reports and denied access under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the reports contained the personal information of the appellant and other employees.

After weighing the factors under section 21(2), the Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of the reports, subject to minor redactions of personal information not directly related to the subject matter of the reports.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to portions of an investigation report regarding workplace discrimination complaints.

The Ministry claimed the undisclosed information was exempt under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the undisclosed paragraphs contained the personal information of the appellant and another identifiable individual.

Balancing the appellant's right of access against the privacy interests of the other individual, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

A requester sought access to two Hepatitis-B tender documents awarded in 1994.

The Ministry of Health decided to disclose the first page of the tender documents, which included the successful bid prices.

The successful company appealed, arguing the information was exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as confidential commercial information.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that because the total bid prices had already been publicized on the Open Bidding Service, there could be no reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services' decision to deny access to records relating to the accommodation and telecommunications services provided to a high-profile inmate.

The records consisted of three Ministry Issue Notes.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained detailed information relating to the steps taken by correctional authorities regarding the supervision of an inmate, and were therefore exempt from disclosure under section 14(2)(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as correctional records.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to the accommodation and telecommunications services provided to a high-profile inmate.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were exempt under section 14(2)(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they contained detailed information about the inmate's history and supervision.

The remaining records were found to be exempt under section 21(1) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision denying access to a 1962 Patent Inspection Report for a cottage lot on the basis that the record did not exist.

The sole issue was whether the Ministry's search for the record was reasonable.

The Ministry provided an affidavit detailing its search of the Bracebridge Area office and the Crown Land Registry, including microfiched files.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search was reasonable in the circumstances and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, a former employee of a service provider for the Ontario Lottery Corporation (OLC), appealed the OLC's access decision, arguing that additional records pertaining to his dismissal should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the OLC's search for records in the Network Administrator's office and for a specific tape recording was reasonable.

However, the search was found to be unreasonable regarding other potential records, such as written notes of phone conversations with the OLC 'Hotline'.

The OLC was ordered to conduct a further search for these specific records.

The appellant requested access to the entire file relating to her deceased son, who had been involved in a Ministry-operated Homeshare program.

The Ministry granted substantial access but denied access to parts of some records, citing the invasion of privacy exemptions under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant did not establish the right to exercise her son's access rights under section 66.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of certain passages containing only the personal information of the appellant and her husband, but upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the remaining information as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of third-party privacy.

The Ministry's search for a missing page was deemed reasonable.