IPCO 1996

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to correspondence between a reporter and the Office of the Public Trustee regarding a deceased individual's estate.

The Ministry initially claimed exemptions under sections 14(1)(a) and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, but later withdrew the section 14(1)(a) claim.

The Inquiry Officer found that the reporter corresponded in a professional capacity, so the records did not contain his personal information.

Information regarding the deceased's estate was ordered disclosed as it had received wide media attention, meaning disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the section 21(1) exemption for portions of the records containing employment and financial information of other identifiable individuals, finding its disclosure would be a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant requested records relating to a Fire Marshal's investigation of a fire that destroyed their residential property.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access to most of the records, citing the invasion of privacy exemption under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

During mediation, the appellant clarified they did not seek the personal information of other individuals, such as firefighters.

The Inquiry Officer found that once the personal information of other individuals was severed from the records, the remaining information could not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the severed records to the appellant.

The requester sought access to records relating to dock work completed by the appellant.

The Ministry of Natural Resources granted partial access, withholding some personal information under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant objected to the disclosure of the remaining records, arguing they were exempt under section 17(1) (third party information).

The Inquiry Officer found that the information was not supplied in confidence and did not meet the test for exemption under section 17(1).

However, the Inquiry Officer found that some of the records contained personal information whose disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 21(1), and ordered those portions withheld.

The Ministry's decision to disclose the remaining records was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Transportation for records relating to an explicit analysis of a new freeway corridor.

The Ministry initially denied access to a draft analysis and later provided a final report, claiming that no other responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional records should have been located.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records and dismissed the appeal.

The requester sought access to reports or summaries of investigations of bailiffs under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry denied access to eight reports, citing law enforcement and privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records met the three-part test for law enforcement reports under section 14(2)(a) of the Act, as they were prepared by the Ministry in the course of investigating potential violations of the Bailiffs Act.

The public interest override in section 23 was found inapplicable to section 14 exemptions.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to personal information held by the Ministry of the Attorney General relating to a complaint against him filed with the Police Complaints Commissioner.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumed invasion of privacy under section 21(3)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to the exempt portions, found the search for records reasonable, and denied the requests for continuing access and in-person viewing of original records.

The appellant requested access to the last two versions of the final test and solutions administered to police officers taking the breath alcohol training course.

The Ministry denied access under several exemptions, including section 18(1)(h) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for examination questions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had definite plans to reuse the questions and that section 18(1)(h) applied.

The Inquiry Officer also determined that the record could not be reasonably severed under section 10(2) because disclosing only the answers would either reveal the exempt questions or result in meaningless information.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The Chief of Police for the City of London appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to certain records relating to the Special Investigations Unit (SIU).

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) and section 49(a) of the Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained the personal information of the Chief and the SIU Director, and that they qualified for exemption under Branch 2 of section 19 as they were prepared by Crown counsel in contemplation of litigation regarding a potential libel suit.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the exemption but ordered the Ministry to conduct a further search for records relating to an SIU audit process, finding the initial search unreasonable.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs' decision to deny access to records concerning alliances or facilities-sharing arrangements between the Ministry and a named corporation.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that while correspondence and diagrams were supplied in confidence and exempt, draft agreements negotiated between the parties were not 'supplied' by the third party and must be disclosed.

The Ministry of Transportation received a freedom of information request for an agreement between the Ministry and a bus supplier.

The Ministry granted access to three schedules to the agreement, and the bus supplier appealed, claiming the schedules were 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 Schedule A was the product of negotiations and not 'supplied' to the Ministry, and that Schedule C was publicly discussed, making any expectation of confidentiality unreasonable.

However, the Inquiry Officer found that Schedule B contained information supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the supplier's competitive position.

The Ministry was ordered not to disclose Schedule B, but its decision to disclose Schedules A and C was upheld.

The appellant requested access to his OHIP billings and continuing access for two years under section 24(3) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry of Health disclosed the existing record but denied continuing access, arguing that an OHIP Claims Reference File is not produced on a set schedule.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that section 24(3) is intended for records produced or issued in series, not for records which are updated irregularly based on an individual's use of medical services.

The requester, a lawyer formerly on the Official Guardian panel, sought access to the Ministry's complete file regarding their involvement in the program after being unsuccessful in seeking re-appointment.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that one record contained highly sensitive personal information of a child and parents, and upheld its exemption under section 49(b).

Regarding the advice or recommendations exemption under section 13(1), the Inquiry Officer found that most records were factual, administrative, or did not relate to the deliberative process, and ordered their disclosure.

However, one draft letter seeking advice on a suggested course of action was found to be exempt under section 49(a).

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Insurance Commission for statistics regarding arbitration orders and appeals.

Following a previous order requiring a further search, the appellant appealed again, asserting the institution should possess records of withdrawn or settled appeals.

The institution argued the appeal was an abuse of process due to the volume of requests.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant was not abusing the access process, but accepted the institution's evidence that its tracking system could not ascertain the requested information.

The appeal was denied.

The requester sought continuing access to Ontario Provincial Police Media Relations News Releases on a bi-monthly basis for two years under section 24(3) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry denied continuing access, arguing news releases were not the type of records covered by the section.

The Assistant Commissioner found that news releases are produced on a frequent and regular basis and are appropriately included within the scope of section 24(3).

The Ministry was ordered to provide a schedule for continuing access.

The appellant sought access to the name of an individual who filed a complaint against them with the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

The Ministry of Environment and Energy denied access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the investigation of the complaint constituted a law enforcement matter and that disclosing the complainant's name would reveal a confidential source.

The appellant submitted an access request to the Metropolitan Toronto Police for copies of two letters relating to a prosecution initiated by the appellant.

The request was transferred to the Ministry of the Attorney General, which denied access to one letter under the solicitor-client privilege and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained the appellant's personal information but upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access, concluding that the record was exempt under section 49(a) as it was prepared by and for Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice, satisfying the requirements of section 19.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Finance regarding an access to information request for documents related to a transfer of shares and a cheque payment.

The Ministry claimed no further responsive records existed.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry took reasonable steps to locate responsive records by reviewing the relevant Ontario Securities Commission and Registration files.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to portions of records concerning the Consumer/Survivor Development Initiative and to charge a fee of $522.50.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 17(1) (third party information) and 21(1) (invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the third parties' banking information, finding that the section 17(1) exemption did not apply.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold personal information, including salaries and home addresses, under section 21(1).

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

The requester appealed the Public Guardian and Trustee's decision to deny access to a Certificate of Incapacity to Manage Property relating to the requester's son.

The Trustee claimed exemptions under sections 21 and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record primarily contained the personal information of the son and that presumptions against disclosure applied.

The record was held to be exempt from disclosure, with the exception of a small portion containing the requester's own contact information.