IPCO 1996

The Ottawa Public School Board appealed a decision by the Ministry of Finance denying access to a Municipal Enumeration Form under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

During the appeal, it was revealed that the original form had been destroyed and the only remaining copy was a severed version that the Ministry had already disclosed to the Board during Assessment Review Board proceedings.

The Inquiry Officer found that because the Board already possessed the record through legitimate means, the appeal was moot and no useful purpose would be served by proceeding.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing relating to the cancellation of a non-profit housing project.

The Ministry disclosed some records but withheld others under various exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including advice or recommendations, Cabinet records, and solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry properly applied the exemptions to the withheld records, except for one record which the Ministry was ordered to disclose.

The appellant sought access to records held by the Ontario Insurance Commission regarding an investigation into her employment practices as an insurance agent.

The OIC denied access to the records, claiming exemptions for law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that an Investigations Request form was not exempt and ordered its disclosure.

However, the Investigation Report, a Legal Review Request, and records containing the personal information of other individuals were found to be exempt.

The Inquiry Officer also determined that the OIC's search for responsive records was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a decision by Sheridan College denying access to special agreements regarding the continued employment and retirement of two individuals.

The College 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 found that the records contained personal information and that their disclosure would generally result in an unjustified invasion of privacy, as they detailed retirement terms and financial arrangements.

However, portions describing the employment responsibilities of the individuals fell under the exception in section 21(4)(a) and were ordered disclosed.

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

The appellant requested access to records relating to the conditions of detention and release of a psychiatric patient who had been found not guilty by reason of insanity.

The Ministry of Health denied access under section 65(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which excludes clinical records of psychiatric patients.

The appellant appealed, arguing the records were not clinical and that section 65(2) violated sections 7 and 15(1) of the Charter.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding the records were clinical records and that the Charter arguments failed.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a motor vehicle accident, including police notes and witness statements.

The Ministry granted partial access, withholding some information under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The appellant appealed, claiming additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry conducted a reasonable search and located additional records.

The Officer ordered the disclosure of certain severed information that did not contain personal information or for which consent was provided, but upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the remaining information as its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b) of the Act.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to himself as a support payer.

The Ministry denied access to several records under various exemptions, including personal privacy, advice or recommendations, and law enforcement.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the personal privacy exemptions, finding the information highly sensitive.

The advice or recommendations exemption was rejected as the records did not contain suggested courses of action.

The law enforcement exemption was upheld for some records revealing investigative techniques, but rejected for others detailing enforcement techniques.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records.

The appellant, a former employee of the LCBO, submitted a freedom of information request for records relating to his civil and criminal cases involving the LCBO.

The LCBO denied access to the identified records, claiming they were excluded from the Act under section 65(6), and suggested the appellant contact the OPP for other records.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the LCBO failed to conduct a reasonable search and failed to fulfill its obligations under section 25(1) of the Act to forward the request to other institutions that might have custody or control of responsive records.

The LCBO was ordered to conduct a further search.

The appellant, a former employee, submitted a 51-item freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services to prepare for a human rights complaint.

The Ministry subdivided the request into 33 separate requests and demanded additional application fees.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that items 1-16 and 20-50 were reasonably related to the appellant's employment and discrimination complaint, and should be treated as a single request covered by the initial $5 fee.

The Ministry's categorization of the last four items as three separate requests requiring additional fees was upheld.

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

The Agency decided to grant access, and the construction firm appealed, arguing the records were exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained commercial and financial information, but the appellant failed to establish that disclosure would cause the harms specified in section 17(1), particularly given a prior Ontario Labour Relations Board ruling ordering production of the documents.

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

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for records regarding the payment of monies to a named police informant.

The Ministry initially denied access under various exemptions, and later raised additional discretionary exemptions, including section 21(5) (refusal to confirm or deny the existence of a record).

The Inquiry Officer allowed the late raising of the exemptions, finding no significant prejudice to the appellant.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of the records, concluding that confirming their existence would reveal personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, constituting a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant, an employee of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of minutes from Area Managers' meetings.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under the labour relations exclusion in section 65(6)3, and claimed exemptions under sections 18 and 19.

The Assistant Commissioner found that some portions of the records were excluded under section 65(6)3 as they related to matters in which the Ministry had an interest, while others merely reflected concerns and fell within the Act.

The Assistant Commissioner also upheld the application of solicitor-client privilege to certain records and the exemption for a pending policy decision, but ordered the disclosure of other items.

The appellant, a police officer, requested access to records relating to an investigation by the Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner into complaints made against him.

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

The Inquiry Officer declined to consider discretionary exemptions raised late in the appeals process.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were exempt under the personal privacy and solicitor-client privilege exemptions, but ordered the disclosure of other records that did not qualify as law enforcement reports or where disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The appellant, a police officer, made a freedom of information request for records relating to a criminal investigation he conducted and subsequent complaints made against him.

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

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that some records were exempt under the personal privacy and solicitor-client privilege exemptions, but ordered the disclosure of several records that had already been copied to or supplied by the appellant, as their disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Ministry was ordered to provide further representations on the application of section 49(b) to certain records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to a letter sent to the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee by an affected person.

The Ministry claimed the record was exempt under sections 21 and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained highly sensitive personal information supplied in confidence by the affected person.

Weighing the factors, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the factors favouring privacy protection outweighed those favouring disclosure, and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access.

The appellant, an employee of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, requested access to records relating to a workplace harassment investigation and subsequent review.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6).

The adjudicator found that the records were prepared by the Ministry in relation to meetings and discussions about employment-related matters in which the Ministry has an interest.

The Ministry's decision was upheld, and the records were found to be excluded from the Act.

The appellant, an employee of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, requested access to email records from backup tapes under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry provided a fee estimate of $6,782.36 for restoring the tapes and computer programming, and denied the appellant's request for a fee waiver.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate and the denial of the fee waiver.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the fee estimate as reasonable and found that the Ministry's decision to deny the fee waiver was fair and equitable, noting the Ministry's efforts to accommodate the appellant and the lack of evidence of financial hardship.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to two job competitions for which she was an unsuccessful candidate.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the job competition records were collected, prepared, maintained, or used in relation to meetings, discussions, or communications about employment-related matters in which the Ministry has an interest, specifically regarding its legal obligations under the Human Rights Code.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, a former employee of the LCBO, submitted a freedom of information request for records relating to his civil, criminal, and arbitration cases following his suspension and termination.

The LCBO denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(6).

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the LCBO's decision, finding that the records were prepared and maintained in relation to proceedings before the Grievance Settlement Board, which relate to labour relations, and thus fall outside the scope of the Act.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records concerning the investigation of a complaint about unlicensed individuals investigating workplace harassment on behalf of the federal government.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 15, 17, and 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third party information exemption (section 17) and the intergovernmental relations exemption (section 15(a)) did not apply.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the application of section 15(b) to two records, as they contained information received in confidence from the federal government during an investigation under the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the remaining records.