IPCO 1996

Two insurance companies appealed the Ontario Insurance Commission's (OIC) decision to disclose their private passenger automobile rates and rating rules to a requester under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The companies argued the records were exempt as third-party information and that the OIC breached procedural fairness by failing to provide proper notice under section 28.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the OIC failed to meet its procedural obligations under section 28, the records themselves were not exempt under section 17(1) because the companies could not demonstrate a reasonable expectation of confidentiality when the information was supplied.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant requested access to records from the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) regarding applications for beer price increases by three breweries.

The LCBO denied access to portions of the records under the third-party information and economic interests exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the pricing and costing information was supplied in confidence and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of the breweries, qualifying for exemption under section 17(1).

However, the LCBO failed to establish that disclosure of the remaining information would prejudice its economic interests under section 18(1)(c).

The Commissioner also found no compelling public interest to override the exemptions under section 23.

The LCBO was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the records.

The appellant, a real estate broker, appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to an anonymous letter of complaint and its envelope under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under the law enforcement and unjustified invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained the appellant's personal information but qualified for exemption under section 14(1)(d) as its disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal the identity of a confidential source in a law enforcement matter.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ontario Insurance Commission's decision to deny access to portions of a successful tender proposal and contract for evaluating Designated Assessment Centres.

The OIC and the affected company claimed the mandatory third-party information exemption under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the company was not a public agency.

The Officer determined that certain parts of the proposal detailing the company's methodology and references qualified as trade secrets and commercial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the company's competitive position and result in undue loss.

The OIC's decision to withhold those specific portions was upheld, while the remaining non-exempt portions were ordered disclosed.

A requester appealed the Ministry of Health's refusal to disclose minutes of the Canadian Blood Agency (CBA) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 15(a) (relations with other governments).

The Inquiry Officer first determined the records were in the Ministry's custody.

The Officer upheld the section 15(a) exemption for the discussion portions of the minutes, finding disclosure could prejudice intergovernmental relations.

However, the carried motions were ordered disclosed, subject to severances under section 17 for third-party commercial information supplied in confidence.

The public interest override under section 23 was not established.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Environment and Energy's decision to deny access to individual review comments and reviewers' titles regarding the Dufferin Waste Landfill Study.

The Inquiry Officer found that the academic qualifications of the reviewers constituted personal information and were exempt from disclosure under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The reviewers' comments were also found to be exempt under section 13(1) as they constituted advice or recommendations that suggested a course of action for the deliberative process.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for a 'confidential document' referred to during an Examination for Discovery of a Ministry of Health employee.

The Ministry located one document, which the appellant stated was not the requested record, and subsequently advised that no other responsive documents existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing the document must exist based on the discovery transcript.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to identify and locate the requested record, supported by affidavits detailing the search efforts, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to records relating to a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention investigation in which the appellant was a respondent.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13(1), 19, 21, and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of solicitor-client privilege to one record and found that disclosure of several other records would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the original complaint and a summary prepared by the complainant, finding that their release was necessary to ensure an adequate degree of disclosure to the appellant as a respondent to the complaint.

The appellant submitted three freedom of information requests to the Ministry for 55 categories of records relating to meat inspections during a strike.

The Ministry extended the 30-day time limit by over 100 days, citing the large volume of records and the need for outside consultations.

The appellant appealed the time extension.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to demonstrate that the requests necessitated a search through a large number of records that would unreasonably interfere with its operations, or that the required consultations justified the lengthy extension.

The time extension was deemed unreasonable, and the Ministry was ordered to issue a decision letter by a specified date.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $504.34 for a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Community and Social Services regarding social contract days and payroll records.

The Inquiry Officer first determined that the labour relations exclusion in section 65(6) of the Act did not apply.

The Inquiry Officer then found that some of the requested records contained the appellant's personal information, meaning search and preparation fees could not be charged for those specific records.

The fee estimate was adjusted to $481.94 to reflect the correct calculation for search time, photocopying, and shipping.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $5130 provided by the Ministry of Finance for processing a freedom of information request regarding a trust company.

The Ministry estimated 173 hours of search and preparation time to locate and sever responsive records from 14.5 linear feet of complex files.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the files and upheld the fee estimate as reasonable under section 57(5) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed a decision by Humber College of Applied Arts and Technology denying access to tests, quizzes, and examinations for two courses.

The College claimed the records were exempt under section 18(1)(h) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they contained questions to be used in an examination for an educational purpose.

The Inquiry Officer found that the College intended to incorporate the questions into future examinations and that there was a limited amount of information available for testing materials in the courses.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the College's decision to deny access to the records.

The appellant requested access to any records entered with the Supreme Court of Ontario naming him as a party.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied the request, stating that court records are not in its custody or control.

The appellant appealed, arguing that microfilm duplicates of court records should be considered within the Ministry's control.

The Inquiry Officer found that court records, including duplicates maintained for security purposes, are not in the custody or control of the Ministry and are therefore not subject to the Act.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Ministry was not obligated to search court files for the requested records.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The requester, a law firm representing an insurance company and a snowmobile driver involved in an accident, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to a witness statement and portions of a police officer's notebook.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 21(1) 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 an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 21(3)(b), which could not be rebutted by the factors in section 21(2).

The appellant requested access to the ONBIS database and the NUANS tape from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

The Ministry denied access, claiming exemptions under sections 22(a) and 18(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that section 22(a) did not apply because the alternative record-by-record search system did not provide access to the entire database.

However, the Assistant Commissioner held that the ONBIS database as a whole qualified for exemption under section 18(1)(a) because it contained technical information (software and database management system) belonging to the Government of Ontario (via Crown copyright in the compilation) that had potential monetary value.

The appeal regarding the NUANS tape and bulk data elements was deferred for further clarification.

The Ontario Insurance Commission received a freedom of information request for the 1994 annual return filed by an insurance company.

The company objected to the disclosure of its financial statements, arguing they were exempt under section 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third party information supplied in confidence.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the records contained financial information, they were not supplied in confidence, as the company ought to have known from previous similar requests that the Commission did not view the information as confidential.

The appeal was dismissed and the records were ordered disclosed.

The appellants requested access to witness statements and the Crown brief related to a stayed criminal prosecution against their deceased step-father for childhood abuse.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information of affected persons and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

Furthermore, the records prepared by police for the Crown brief qualified for exemption under the solicitor-client privilege exemption (Branch 2).

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records relating to an agreement for the payment of his legal fees by the Crown after charges of conspiracy to commit murder were stayed.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to 154 pages, claiming solicitor-client privilege and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were protected by solicitor-client privilege, settlement privilege, or the invasion of privacy exemption, while others, such as invoices and release documents, were not exempt and ordered their disclosure.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to various records under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Following an interim order directing the Ministry to provide written representations on its exercise of discretion, the Inquiry Officer reviewed the submissions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry exercised its discretion in accordance with established legal principles and upheld the decision to deny access to the records.

The Ontario Insurance Commission received a freedom of information request for the 1994 annual return filed by an insurance company.

The company objected to the disclosure of its consolidated and non-consolidated financial statements, arguing they were exempt under section 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third party information supplied in confidence.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the information was financial and supplied to the institution, the company failed to establish that it was supplied explicitly or implicitly in confidence.

The appeal was dismissed and the records were ordered disclosed.