IPCO 1996

The appellant, the alleged perpetrator of an assault, requested access to records relating to a claim for compensation filed by the affected person with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

The Board denied access under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records contained personal information whose disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy, while others did not.

The Inquiry Officer ordered partial disclosure of the records and found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The requester sought access to a Special Investigations Unit (SIU) report and witness statements relating to a fatal car accident involving her son following a police pursuit.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to the SIU report under the law enforcement report exemption and withheld most witness statements citing an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the exemption for the SIU report, finding it met the three-part test under section 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner also upheld the privacy exemptions for the witness statements, except for portions of statements from two civilian witnesses who had consented to disclosure, which were ordered to be released.

The appellant, an employee of the City of Thorold, appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to a letter of complaint and attached documents regarding alleged wrongdoing by public officials.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the attached documents did not contain personal information and ordered their disclosure.

However, the cover letter contained personal information compiled as part of a police investigation, and its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry's decision to withhold the cover letter was upheld.

The appellant requested access to police investigation records concerning a motor vehicle/bicycle accident in which he was severely injured.

The Ministry granted partial access, claiming exemptions under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the remaining records, which included interview reports and the investigating officer's notes.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b).

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed Ontario Hydro's decision to deny access to a document containing recommendations from an internal investigation into a harassment complaint initiated by the appellant.

Ontario Hydro claimed exemptions under sections 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 21 (invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected persons' privacy under section 49(b), as the highly sensitive information pertained primarily to the appellant.

Furthermore, the record did not qualify for the advice or recommendations exemption under section 13(1) because the suggested course of conduct was not sufficiently specific.

Ontario Hydro was ordered to disclose the record in its entirety.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision denying access to the first three characters of the postal codes of individuals who sat on a jury in Metropolitan Toronto during 1994.

The Ministry argued that the records were not subject to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act due to federal paramountcy and the Juries Act.

The Assistant Commissioner determined that the jury rolls were created and administered by the sheriff acting as an officer of the court, under judicial supervision.

Consequently, the Ministry did not have custody or control of the records for the purposes of the Act, and the records fell outside its scope.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to a fire investigation at their place of business.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under the law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the investigation remained ongoing and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter.

The appeal was dismissed and the Ministry's decision to deny access under sections 14(1)(b) and 49(a) was upheld.

The appellant submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Ministry of Finance for the appointment book or similar records for the Ontario Insurance Commission library.

The institution identified a Visitors' Log Book but advised the appellant that his name did not appear in it and no other responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, questioning whether all responsive records had been identified.

The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal, finding that the institution had made a reasonable effort to identify and locate records responsive to the request.

The appellant filed appeals claiming a deemed refusal after the Ministry returned three freedom of information requests as frivolous and vexatious without retaining copies.

The Appeals Officer asked the appellant to re-submit the requests or allow copies to be forwarded to the Ministry so proper decision letters could be issued.

The appellant refused both options.

The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellant had frustrated the appeals process and that allocating further resources was unjustified.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to the Special Investigations Unit's hiring policies and the recruitment of a specific individual.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the advice or recommendations exemption did not apply, as the information was not sufficiently connected to the deliberative process of government decision-making.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the personal information of the specific individual should be disclosed based on his consent, but upheld the privacy exemption for the personal information of other candidates, finding no compelling public interest to override the exemption.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Transportation for records relating to the Bradford Bypass Proposal.

The Ministry denied access to several records, citing the Cabinet records exemption under section 12 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the denial and questioned the reasonableness of the Ministry's search for records.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records were exempt as Management Board submissions and minutes, and that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to handwritten police notes relating to a fraud investigation involving the requester's mother's estate.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the personal information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and fell within the presumption against disclosure in section 21(3)(b).

The appellant, who operates a business locating heirs to estates, submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Transportation for a complete list of the names and driver's licence numbers of all Ontario drivers.

The Ministry denied access, citing the mandatory personal privacy exemption.

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the requested bulk data constituted personal information and its disclosure would result in an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Commissioner also found that the appellant's commercial interest in the data did not constitute a compelling public interest sufficient to override the privacy exemption.

The appellant requested access to a medical expert's report obtained by an Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) investigator during the investigation of the appellant's human rights complaint.

The OHRC denied access, claiming exemptions for law enforcement and invasion of privacy under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the OHRC failed to demonstrate how disclosure of the record would interfere with an ongoing law enforcement matter or investigation.

Furthermore, the record contained the professional medical opinion of the doctor, not personal information, and therefore did not qualify for the invasion of privacy exemption.

The OHRC was ordered to disclose the record to the appellant.

The appellant, a corporation that locates missing heirs, requested a list of names of persons whose estates passed to the Public Trustee by escheat.

The Ministry of the Attorney General issued a fee estimate of $14,940 and denied the appellant's request for a fee waiver.

The appellant appealed the fee waiver denial.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the appellant failed to substantiate its claim of financial hardship or meet any other criteria for a fee waiver under section 57(4) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester sought access to information regarding trapping licences issued by the Ministry of Natural Resources for a property jointly owned by members of a corporation.

The Ministry denied access to the personal information of the trappers, citing the invasion of privacy exemption under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained personal information and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also found that there was no compelling public interest under section 23 that outweighed the purpose of the exemption.

The requesters appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to a videotape made by the Ontario Provincial Police during the execution of a search warrant on their property.

The Ministry relied on the law enforcement exemption under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the videotape contained the requesters' personal information but upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access, concluding that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement matter, as charges remained outstanding.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism to deny access to records relating to agreements between an Ontario Development Corporation and a named corporation.

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

The Inquiry Officer applied the three-part test for the exemption and found that while some information was supplied in confidence and its disclosure could prejudice the corporation's competitive position, the remaining information was not 'supplied' to the Ministry.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption for the supplied information and ordered the disclosure of the rest.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of an operational review report of the Thistletown Regional Centre.

The Ministry claimed the records contained personal information regarding allegations of sexual harassment, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

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

The Officer also found that while some portions contained highly sensitive personal information exempt under section 21(1), other portions reflecting management's approach to the allegations did not contain personal information and must be disclosed.

The appeal was partially granted.

The appellant, a lawyer representing individuals who contracted HIV through the blood supply, requested access to all documents relating to the Multi-Provincial and Territorial Assistance Package (MPTAP).

The Ministry of Health denied access to 842 responsive records, claiming various exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

During the appeal, the number of records at issue was reduced.

The Inquiry Officer refused to allow the Ministry to raise new discretionary exemptions late in the process.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to the majority of the remaining records under exemptions for Cabinet records, advice and recommendations, relations with other governments, third party information, and solicitor-client privilege.

A small number of records were ordered disclosed.