IPCO 1996

The appellant, an employee of the Ministry of Transportation, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to a grievance and a refusal to work under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

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 grievance records related to proceedings before the Grievance Settlement Board and the OHSA records related to an investigation in which the Ministry had an interest.

Both sets of records were held to fall within the section 65(6) exclusions and were therefore outside the scope of the Act.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to an OPP report concerning the re-investigation of her son's death.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The public interest override did not apply, and the Ministry could not waive the mandatory privacy rights of the individuals involved.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted three requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) for records relating to his retirement and study grant.

OISE denied access to some records, claiming they were excluded under the labour relations and employment provisions of section 65(6), and claimed no responsive records existed for the remainder.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the withheld records were maintained in relation to the appellant's civil lawsuit against OISE for breach of his employment contract, and thus fell within the section 65(6) exclusion.

While OISE's search for some records was found to be unreasonable, no further search was ordered because OISE had been dissolved and integrated into the University of Toronto, removing the records from the scope of the Act.

The appellant requested records relating to an Ontario Securities Commission investigation into a real estate development.

The Ministry of Finance, on behalf of the OSC, responded that no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing the search was inadequate.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to provide sufficient evidence of a reasonable search, as it did not detail whether relevant files were located or examined.

The OSC was ordered to conduct a further search and issue a new decision letter.

The appellant requested information from the Ministry of the Attorney General relating to two complaint files in the office of the Police Complaints Commissioner.

The Ministry denied access to certain pages, claiming exemptions for advice and recommendations, law enforcement, invasion of privacy, and discretion to refuse the requester's own information.

The Inquiry Officer declined to consider a late-raised discretionary exemption and found that while a duty report was exempt under the invasion of privacy provision, the remaining records did not qualify for the law enforcement exemptions and must be disclosed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records pertaining to a review of the correctional system, including possible closures and privatization of facilities.

The Ministry claimed the remaining record was exempt under section 12(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as a cabinet record.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the record contained policy options or recommendations and was prepared for submission to Cabinet, thereby qualifying for the exemption.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the Ministry's search for additional records was reasonable.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, an unsuccessful tenderer, appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to the successful bidder's proposal submission under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry and the successful bidder claimed the record was exempt under section 17(1) as third party information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained technical and commercial information supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the successful bidder's competitive position.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to statements taken by the OPP during an investigation into his claim that he was detained at a reserve by members of a First Nation band.

The Ministry disclosed the appellant's own statements but withheld the statements of other individuals under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

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

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the parts of the records that did not contain the personal information of individuals other than the appellant, while the statements of the band members were withheld.

The Ministry of Health decided to disclose the medical records of two children to their non-custodial father, who had access rights.

The children's mother appealed the decision, arguing that disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that section 20(5) of the Children's Law Reform Act expressly authorizes an access parent to receive information regarding the health of their children.

Therefore, the exception in section 21(1)(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applied, and the records were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant requested access to records relating to a workplace harassment investigation conducted by the Ministry of Community and Social Services regarding complaints the appellant made against another employee.

The Ministry granted partial access but withheld certain records under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer considered whether disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 49(b).

The Inquiry Officer found that while the names of the respondent and affected persons, as well as their statements, were generally exempt, the appellant was entitled to an adequate degree of disclosure regarding the allegations and the direct response to the complaint.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the respondent's name where it appeared in certain records, as well as specific portions of the investigation report and the respondent's statement, while the decision to withhold the remaining personal information was upheld.

The appellant requested access to a Special Investigations Unit (SIU) report regarding the death of a psychiatric patient following police restraint.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the SIU report met the three-part test for exemption under section 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as it 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 public interest override in section 23 did not apply to section 14 exemptions.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records from the Liquor Control Board of Ontario relating to a sexual harassment investigation undertaken in response to her complaint.

The LCBO 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 Assistant Commissioner found that the records were prepared and maintained in relation to anticipated proceedings before the Grievance Settlement Board, which relate to labour relations.

Therefore, the records fell within the parameters of section 65(6)1 and were excluded from the scope of the Act.

The LCBO's decision was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, an employee of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, made a freedom of information request for records relating to a workplace harassment investigation he had initiated against his supervisor.

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 Assistant Commissioner found that the records were collected, prepared, and used in relation to meetings and communications about an employment-related matter in which the Ministry had an interest, specifically potential liability under the Human Rights Code.

Therefore, the records fell within the section 65(6)3 exclusion and the Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, through an agent, requested access to records held by the Ontario Human Rights Commission relating to a human rights complaint in which he was a respondent.

The OHRC denied access to various records, claiming exemptions for advice and recommendations, law enforcement reports, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of certain records that did not qualify for the claimed exemptions or did not contain the personal information of other individuals.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the OHRC's decision to withhold the remaining records, finding that they were either exempt under the claimed discretionary exemptions or their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the OHRC had conducted a reasonable search for records relating to the cost of the investigation.

The appellant, who was convicted of a young girl's murder, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to parts of a forensic sciences report under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information related to the deceased's medical history and was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumptions against disclosure in sections 21(3)(a) and (b).

The Ministry's decision to deny access under section 49(b) was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Human Rights Commission for his complete human rights complaint file, specifically seeking the 'final Commissioner's report'.

The OHRC disclosed most of the file but withheld certain records under the advice and recommendations, law enforcement, and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The appellant appealed the exemptions and the adequacy of the search.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the exemptions to most of the withheld records, finding they contained advice, law enforcement reports, or personal information of others.

However, portions of two records containing only the appellant's personal information were ordered disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer also found the OHRC's search for the final report was reasonable.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to various records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requested records related to the Ministry's management of grievances and a human rights complaint involving the appellant.

The Ministry claimed exemptions based on economic and other interests, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were exempt under sections 18(1)(e), 19, 21, and 49(b) of the Act, while others did not qualify for exemption.

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

A law firm requested access to OPP investigation records concerning criminal charges against a former employee of its client, who had commenced a wrongful dismissal action.

The Ministry denied access under several exemptions, including the personal privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the personal information of the named individual and others, which was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

As such, the information fell within the presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and 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 Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation for a copy of a jobsOntario Community Action Fund application filed by a non-profit organization.

The Ministry granted partial access, denying parts of the record under sections 17 and 21 of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some of the withheld information did not qualify as personal information or its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the third party commercial information was not supplied in confidence and its disclosure could not reasonably be expected to result in the harms outlined in section 17(1).

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

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing received a freedom of information request for records relating to the requesters, who were members of a residential artists co-operative.

The Ministry decided to disclose portions of the minutes of two in camera board meetings.

The co-operative appealed the decision, arguing the records were exempt from disclosure as third party information under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer applied the three-part test for the exemption and found that while the records contained commercial or financial information, the co-operative failed to establish that the information was supplied to the Ministry in confidence.

The appeal was dismissed and the Ministry's decision to disclose the records was upheld.