IPCO 1996

The appellant sought access to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board's file relating to allegations of sexual abuse made against him by his daughter.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to the records, citing the personal privacy exemption under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the records contained highly sensitive personal information supplied in confidence, or fell under presumptions against disclosure for medical and law enforcement records.

However, the monetary amounts awarded to the affected person were ordered disclosed as they were relevant to a fair determination of the appellant's rights in a related civil suit.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to a fire that resulted in his mother's death.

The appellant sought continuing access to the Coroner's Report under section 24(3) of the Act and argued that additional records relating to the Fire Marshal's Investigation Report should exist.

The Assistant Commissioner found that section 24(3) did not apply because the appellant did not request continuing access initially and access to the report was not granted.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the Ministry conducted a reasonable search for the requested records.

The appeal was dismissed.

A newspaper reporter appealed the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation's decision to deny access to letters regarding provincial grants for a municipal arena project.

The Ministry claimed the letters were exempt under the invasion of privacy provision in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the letters contained personal information and that factors favouring privacy protection outweighed any public interest in disclosure.

The Inquiry Officer also determined that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as disclosure would not shed light on the Ministry's decision-making processes.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant, an instructor at the College, requested access to records relating to a harassment investigation conducted against him.

The College denied access to portions of the interviewers' notes, citing exemptions for solicitor-client privilege, danger to safety or health, and invasion of privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the College's decision to withhold witness names and identifying information to protect personal privacy, as well as one page subject to solicitor-client privilege.

However, the Commissioner ordered the disclosure of notes relating to the substance of the complaint, finding that the appellant's right to adequate disclosure outweighed privacy concerns.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for records relating to a draft decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board claimed no responsive records existed.

During mediation, it was revealed a panel member might have responsive records.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Board conducted a reasonable search and that any records held personally by the panel member were not in the custody or control of the Board.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision that no records existed regarding the results of a dye test related to an environmental prosecution.

The Ministry provided an affidavit from the Prosecution Officer confirming that the premises were inaccessible and no dye test was conducted.

The Inquiry Officer found the Ministry's search for responsive records to be reasonable and denied the appeal.

The appellant, an unsuccessful candidate in three job competitions, appealed the Ministry of Transportation's decision to deny access to portions of the competition records, including interview answers, scores, and reference checks of other candidates.

The Inquiry Officer found that some general interview answers did not constitute personal information and ordered their disclosure.

However, the remaining information was found to be the personal information of other candidates, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry's decision to deny access to this information was upheld.

The appellant sought access to records describing the disciplinary action taken by the Ministry against a named employee, following an investigation into complaints made by the appellant and others.

The Ministry denied access to a two-page letter under the invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the record did not primarily constitute employment history, it contained highly sensitive personal information.

Balancing the privacy and access considerations, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would result in an unjustified invasion of the affected person's personal privacy and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The requester, a shop steward, sought access to a list of bargaining unit employees in the Ministry's Information Systems Branch, including their start dates.

The Ministry disclosed the names, units, classifications, and job titles, but withheld the start dates under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that start dates relate to employment history and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the requester's own start date to him.

The appellant requested access to a Memorandum of Agreement between the Ministry, the Ontario Lottery Corporation, the Toronto Raptors, and the NBA regarding the removal of NBA games from the Pro-Line Lottery.

The Ministry granted partial access but withheld portions under the third party information exemption in section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the withheld information was the product of negotiation rather than "supplied" by the third parties, failing part two of the exemption test.

Furthermore, the third parties failed to demonstrate that disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause the harms enumerated in part three of the test.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the remaining clauses of the agreement.

The appellant, an insurance agent, requested access to a complaint letter written about him to the Ontario Insurance Commission (OIC).

The OIC denied access under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the law enforcement exemption did not apply because the OIC had already disclosed the identities of the complainants to the appellant, meaning they were no longer confidential sources.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the OIC's decision to deny access to portions of the record containing the personal information of other individuals, as disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, ordering the disclosure of only the appellant's own personal information and information previously disclosed to him.

A newspaper reporter requested records from the Ministry of the Attorney General relating to an anti-racism training course for provincial prosecutors.

The Ministry denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, third party information, and personal privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered partial disclosure, finding that some records did not qualify as advice or recommendations, the third party information was not supplied in confidence, and disclosure of certain personal information would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The requester appealed a decision by the Management Board Secretariat regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to the sale of the Cawthra Bush lands.

The requester claimed that additional responsive records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Secretariat had provided sufficient evidence, including an affidavit detailing the searches undertaken, to demonstrate that it had made a reasonable effort to identify and locate responsive records.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested access to the blood alcohol test results of a deceased driver involved in a fatal motor vehicle accident.

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

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the test results constituted medical history under section 21(3)(a) and that the appellant failed to establish a compelling public interest under section 23 that would clearly outweigh the purpose of the privacy exemption.

The appellant sought access to an examination report of a credit union prepared by the Ministry of Finance under the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act.

The Ministry denied access, citing the law enforcement exemption under section 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the report was prepared in the course of an inspection to enforce compliance with the CUCPA, and that the routine inspection exception in section 14(4) did not apply because the examination was discretionary rather than mandatory.

The appellant requested copies of all reports from an investigation of an industrial accident that resulted in two deaths.

The Ministry of Labour denied access, claiming the law enforcement exemption under section 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer applied a three-part test and found that the record was a report prepared in the course of a law enforcement investigation by an agency with the function of enforcing compliance with a law.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to his two claim files from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board granted full access to approximately 400 pages of records, but the appellant appealed, claiming that medical reports from specific professionals were missing.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board provided sufficient evidence, including sworn affidavits from employees, to demonstrate that it had made a reasonable effort to identify and locate all responsive records.

The Board's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested records relating to the Ontario Coroners' Council's investigation of his complaint against four coroners regarding the investigation and inquest into his mother's death.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, law enforcement, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the advice and law enforcement exemptions did not apply.

While some personal information was exempt as an unjustified invasion of privacy, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of most of the records, emphasizing the need for an adequate degree of disclosure to ensure the fairness of the administrative process.

The appellant sought access to records held by the Official Guardian (now the Children's Lawyer) relating to a custody and access proceeding involving his son.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to a portion of the records, citing exemptions for advice or recommendations, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found no reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Children's Lawyer and concluded the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the exemptions to many of the records, but ordered the disclosure of several records that did not qualify for exemption.

The appellant requested ongoing access to copies of the Ministry's business names registration microfilm under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry denied access, claiming exemptions under sections 22(a) (information available to the public) and 18(1) (valuable government information and economic interests).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the alternative record-by-record search system did not provide the requested bulk information, and that the raw registration data was neither commercial information nor the property of the Government of Ontario.

The Ministry also failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of prejudice to its economic interests.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the microfilm and provide a schedule for continuing access.