IPCO 1996

A requester sought access to tender and bonding documents submitted by a construction firm to the Ontario Clean Water Agency.

The Agency decided to disclose the records, and the construction firm appealed, claiming the records contained trade secrets and confidential commercial information exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Upon reconsideration of a previous order, the Inquiry Officer found that while the records contained commercial and financial information, the firm failed to establish that the information was supplied in confidence or that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause harm.

The Agency's decision to disclose the records was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Finance (on behalf of the Ontario Securities Commission) to deny access to records relating to an investigation of a mutual funds salesperson.

The Inquiry Officer found that certain records were exempt from disclosure as their release would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under sections 21 and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, the OSC failed to establish that the remaining records were exempt under the law enforcement provisions of section 14(1), and those records were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant sought access to a letter that initiated an investigation into her competence by the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The Public Guardian denied access under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the authors' personal privacy.

The appellant also requested access to the representations of the other parties during the inquiry.

The Inquiry Officer denied the request for representations, finding no right of access under section 52(13).

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Public Guardian's decision to withhold the record, finding that the information was highly sensitive, supplied in confidence, and its disclosure would unfairly expose individuals to harm.

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

The appellant requested access to a Crown brief relating to a fatal highway traffic accident involving her husband.

The Ministry of the Attorney General disclosed most witness statements but withheld home addresses, telephone numbers, and the statement of the suspected truck driver under the personal privacy exemption of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing she needed the information for civil proceedings and citing the public interest override.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information was compiled for a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumed unjustified invasion of privacy.

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

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested medical, psychiatric, and institutional records relating to his incarceration at the Toronto Jail.

The Ministry granted partial access, claiming exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including law enforcement and invasion of privacy.

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

The Officer ordered partial disclosure, finding that while the appellant had a right to access his own personal information, certain portions, such as the employment history and injuries of affected persons, were exempt as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant made a freedom of information request for records relating to an OPSEU strike, essential services, and related Ontario Labour Relations Board proceedings.

The Management Board Secretariat denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the scope of the Act under the labour relations exclusions in sections 65(6)1 and 65(6)2.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision for most records, finding they were collected or prepared in relation to court proceedings or negotiations relating to labour relations.

However, the final agreement between the union and the employer was ordered disclosed as it fell within the exception in section 65(7)1.

The appellant requested electronic copies of the 1995 property assessment rolls for the region of Ottawa-Carleton from the Ministry of Finance.

The Ministry denied access under section 22(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, stating the information was publicly available for viewing at municipal offices or for purchase on computer tape for approximately $1,700.

The Commissioner found that while viewing the rolls at individual municipalities did not satisfy the request for a compiled record, the availability of the computer tape through a regularized system of access meant the information was 'published or available to the public'.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, a pedestrian struck by a police car, requested access to the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) file concerning the accident.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to the records, citing exemptions for law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the SIU's final investigation reports were exempt as law enforcement reports.

Certain correspondence and memoranda were exempt under solicitor-client privilege.

Personal information of other individuals compiled during the investigation was exempt as an unjustified invasion of privacy.

However, the Ministry was ordered to disclose administrative records, lab reports, and portions of documents that did not fall under these exemptions.

A former employee of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services requested access to his personnel file and other records.

The Ministry denied access under section 65(6) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the records were excluded from the Act as they related to labour relations and employment proceedings.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records were used and maintained in relation to ongoing proceedings before the Grievance Settlement Board and the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to deny access to 40 pages of records regarding their company's registration with the Small Business Development Corporation.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under law enforcement and personal privacy provisions.

The Inquiry Officer refused to allow the Ministry to raise a new discretionary exemption late in the appeals process.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the withheld records were properly exempt under the law enforcement exemptions (confidential source and law enforcement report) and the personal privacy exemption, but ordered the disclosure of three records that did not qualify for exemption.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to certain records relating to funding for a flood control project.

The Ministry claimed exemptions for Cabinet records and advice or recommendations.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry could not raise a new discretionary exemption late in the appeals process.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of the Cabinet records exemption to documents prepared in 1988, but ordered the disclosure of briefing notes prepared in 1995, finding they were not presently before Cabinet.

The Assistant Commissioner also found the Ministry's search for records was reasonable and that the Commissioner's office lacks the authority to award costs.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Finance for records relating to his property tax assessment.

The Ministry refused access, claiming the request was frivolous or vexatious as part of a pattern of conduct amounting to an abuse of the right of access or made in bad faith.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to establish reasonable grounds that the request was part of a pattern of conduct or made in bad faith.

The Ministry was ordered to make an access decision.

The appellant submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of the Attorney General for a transcript of a cross-examination of a named individual.

The Ministry denied access under section 21, citing an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information of individuals other than the appellant and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as there was no compelling public interest sufficient to outweigh the purpose of the exemption.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to a named individual and a publication investigated as potential hate literature.

The Ministry denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, solicitor-client privilege, danger to safety or health, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer refused to consider late-raised discretionary exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the records were exempt under Branch 2 of the solicitor-client privilege exemption, as they were prepared by or for Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice.

Four records were found not to qualify for this exemption and were ordered disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the Ministry's application of the personal privacy exemption to certain records and concluded that the Ministry had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for all records relating to him, specifically mentioning police investigative notes.

The Ministry asked for clarification, which the appellant did not provide.

The Ministry searched its occurrence database using the appellant's name but found no records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the request lacked sufficient specificity to allow a broader search and that the Ministry had reasonably fulfilled its duty to assist the appellant in reformulating the request.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested access to a complete police file, including police officers' notes and witness statements, relating to a specific incident.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access to parts of the notes and the witness statements under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the personal information in the records was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption of an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b).

The appeal was dismissed and the Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Environment and Energy's decision to grant only partial access to records relating to an Environmental Technologies Program grant awarded to a third party company.

The Ministry and the company claimed the withheld information was exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third party commercial information.

The Inquiry Officer found that some of the information did not meet the harms test under section 17(1) and ordered it disclosed, but upheld the exemption for the remaining information.

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

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Environment and Energy's decision to deny access to portions of two internal electronic mail messages regarding the Keele Valley landfill site.

The Ministry claimed the severed information was exempt under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as advice or recommendations.

The Inquiry Officer found that the severed information did not contain a suggested course of action and was not sufficiently connected to the deliberative process of government decision-making.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Ministry to disclose the records to the appellant.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Natural Resources for correspondence relating to two property lots.

The Ministry granted partial access but withheld certain records under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant appealed, arguing the records were relevant to concerns about property values.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information of affected third parties and were unrelated to the appellant's concerns.

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 Liquor Control Board of Ontario for records relating to an investigation into a wine-making operation.

The LCBO denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for solicitor-client privilege and personal privacy.

The appellant appealed the denial and challenged the reasonableness of the LCBO's search for e-mail records.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the LCBO's decision, finding that the records were exempt under sections 49(a) and 49(b) of the Act, and concluded that the LCBO had conducted a reasonable search.