IPCO 1996

The appellant sought access to records relating to the death of her husband at a hospital.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services granted partial access to a Coroner's Investigation Report, withholding four lines under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the redactions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information contained the personal information of an affected person and was highly sensitive.

Balancing the appellant's right of access against the privacy interests of the affected person, and noting the appellant had already received substantial disclosure, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, a genealogist, appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to portions of a statement of death, a marriage record, and a birth record under the personal privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some of the withheld information did not qualify as personal information and ordered its disclosure.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the remaining personal information, finding that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The appellant requested access to correspondence between Ontario Hydro and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited regarding an environmental impact statement on nuclear fuel waste disposal.

Ontario Hydro denied access to a three-page appendix, claiming exemptions for third party information and economic interests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that while the appendix contained scientific and technical information supplied in confidence, Ontario Hydro failed to establish that disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in the specified harms.

The Commissioner also found that the economic interests exemptions did not apply, as the impact statement was already finalized and the requirements of the provisions were not met.

Ontario Hydro was ordered to disclose the appendix.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board denying access to notes, minutes, or transcripts of a Board hearing.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's search for records was reasonable, as no transcripts or minutes are taken at hearings and the Labour Relations Officer's notes had been discarded.

The Inquiry Officer also determined that any notes taken by Board members during the hearing were not in the custody or under the control of the Board, and therefore not accessible under the Act.

The Board's decision was upheld.

The Inquiry Officer reconsidered Order P-792, which had ordered the Ministry of the Attorney General to disclose a memorandum.

Following two Divisional Court decisions that found the previous interpretation of section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to be patently unreasonable, the Inquiry Officer determined she had jurisdiction to reconsider the order.

Upon reconsideration, the Inquiry Officer found that the memorandum was prepared by Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice and was therefore exempt from disclosure under Branch 2 of section 19.

The previous order provisions requiring disclosure were rescinded.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services requested a reconsideration of Order P-1044, which had ordered the disclosure of certain police investigation records relating to a motor vehicle accident.

The Inquiry Officer found a jurisdictional defect in the original order's failure to consider the section 14(1)(a) law enforcement exemption independently from other subsections.

Upon reconsideration, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure of the records prior to the related Highway Traffic Act trial could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter.

The records were therefore found to be exempt under sections 14(1)(a) and 49(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant, a former student, appealed the College's response to a freedom of information request, claiming that further responsive records should exist, specifically notes of meetings and professors' notes regarding grades.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the College's search efforts, including an affidavit detailing record-keeping practices and steps taken to locate records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the College's search for records was reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for 'all evaluation documents' pertaining to two tender requests.

The Ministry provided evaluation tables and scores but the appellant appealed, arguing the request should have included the actual tender documents submitted by other bidders.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's interpretation of the request was reasonable and that it had fulfilled its obligations under section 24 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as the request did not indicate the appellant was seeking the actual tender documents.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services relating to an OPP investigation into complaints that a paper released by the appellant violated the hate sections of the Criminal Code.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records under various exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the records contained the personal information of other individuals compiled during a law enforcement investigation, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, two pages containing only the appellant's personal information did not qualify for exemption under section 13(1) as advice or recommendations, and were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to portions of records relating to his stay at a psychiatric facility in 1976 and 1977.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that section 49(d) did not apply, but upheld the application of section 49(b) to most of the undisclosed information, as it contained highly sensitive personal information of the appellant's family members.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of portions of the records that pertained only to the appellant and found that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs' decision to deny access to a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Investigation Report.

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

The Assistant Commissioner found that the report was prepared in relation to anticipated proceedings before the Grievance Settlement Board relating to labour relations.

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

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records concerning his complaint about police conduct during a search of his property.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the police officers' personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the presumption against disclosure did not apply because the records contained information provided by the appellant himself.

Balancing the privacy interests, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would not result in an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and ordered the Ministry to disclose the records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to disclose records to a requester.

In an interim order, the Inquiry Officer directed the Ministry to provide representations on the factors it considered in exercising its discretion to disclose the records under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

After reviewing the Ministry's representations, the Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry exercised its discretion in accordance with established legal principles and upheld the decision to disclose the records.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for records related to the referral and amendment of her compensation order.

The Board initially claimed no records existed, but later disclosed a draft order and a worksheet.

The appellant appealed, claiming more records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's search for responsive records was reasonable in the circumstances and upheld the Board's decision.

The appellant, a former employee of the Management Board Secretariat, appealed the Secretariat's decision to deny access to three pages of handwritten notes regarding a workplace complaint made against him.

The Secretariat claimed the records were exempt under sections 21(1) and 49(b) 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 information in the record was "highly sensitive" under section 21(2)(f) and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other individuals.

The Secretariat's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Education and Training's decision that no records existed in response to a request for statistical information relating to the employment of teachers by the Board of Education for the City of Hamilton from 1985 to 1995.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision regarding Letters of Standing, Permanent Letters of Standing, and Probationary and Continuing Education Contracts, finding that the Ministry either could not retrieve the historical data or did not possess the records.

However, the Inquiry Officer found the Ministry's search for Letters of Permission from 1985 to 1988 to be inadequate and ordered a further search.

The appellant requested access to copies of Deputy Returning Officer (DRO) Statements for certain polls in the 1994 municipal elections.

The City of Ottawa denied access, claiming the records were exempt under section 53(2) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act because section 105 of the Municipal Elections Act prohibits inspecting the contents of a ballot box without a judge's order.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the original DRO Statements are kept outside the ballot box and therefore do not fall within the scope of section 105.

The City was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant appealed the City of Oshawa's decision to deny access to various records relating to the passage of zoning by-laws and proposed land development.

The City claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including draft by-laws, closed meetings, advice or recommendations, third party information, economic interests, and solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of exemptions to most of the records, but ordered the disclosure of a few records that did not meet the criteria for the claimed exemptions.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the police for records relating to the 1975 sudden death investigation of his father.

The police denied access, citing exemptions for invasion of privacy and law enforcement records.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation, which is presumed to be an unjustified invasion of privacy if disclosed.

The Commissioner also held that the public interest override did not apply, noting that the legislature explicitly protected the privacy of deceased individuals for thirty years after death.

The appellant requested access to information regarding complaints filed against the Town of Amherstburg Police Services Board.

The Police issued a decision stating no responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing records should exist based on comments made by the Police Chief at a staff meeting.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Police provided sufficient evidence, including affidavits, demonstrating that the complaints were verbal and no written records existed.

The search was deemed reasonable and the appeal was dismissed.