IPCO 1997

A member of a news organization appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services' decision to deny access to handwritten notes of interministerial committee meetings regarding the occupation of Ipperwash Provincial Park.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13(1), 14(1)(f), 19, and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) applied to certain passages, but privilege had been waived for others.

The remaining exemptions were found not to apply, as the record did not pose a risk to fair trial rights, did not contain advice or recommendations, and did not contain personal information.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 23 would have applied to the section 13(1) exemption due to the compelling public interest in the government's role in the events at the Park.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the record.

The appellant, a member of a news organization, appealed the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs' decision to deny access to handwritten notes of interministerial committee meetings regarding the 1995 occupation of Ipperwash Provincial Park.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13(1), 14(1)(f), 19, and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that portions of the record were exempt under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege), except where privilege had been waived.

The section 14(1)(f) (fair trial) and section 21(1) (invasion of privacy) exemptions were found not to apply.

While one passage was found to contain advice or recommendations under section 13(1), the Inquiry Officer ordered its disclosure, finding that the compelling public interest in the events at Ipperwash clearly outweighed the purpose of the exemption under section 23.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the record.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Human Rights Commission for her entire sexual harassment complaint file, asking that it be transferred to the Ontario Teachers' Federation.

The OHRC disclosed most of the file but withheld 23 pages under the advice or recommendations and invasion of privacy exemptions.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer upheld the exemptions for almost all the withheld records, finding they contained staff recommendations or personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

One page containing purely factual information was ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $38,836.33 issued by the Ministry of Education and Training for a freedom of information request regarding an educational institution.

The Ministry argued the appeal was filed late, but the Inquiry Officer allowed it to proceed due to the Ministry's own delays and lack of prejudice.

The Inquiry Officer reduced the fee estimate for readily available records to $2,760.80 and the estimate for searching student files to $21,603.

The appellant's request for a fee waiver based on financial hardship and public interest was denied.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for a copy of his deceased father's marriage registration.

The Ministry granted partial access, withholding the personal information of the bride, her parents, the witnesses, and the officiating individual under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing he was entitled to the record as a 'child of the marriage' under the Vital Statistics Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the appellant did not meet the definition of 'child of the marriage' under the Vital Statistics Act, the Divorce Act, or the Family Law Act, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant, a member of a news organization, requested records relating to meetings of the interministerial committee on aboriginal emergencies regarding the situation at Ipperwash Provincial Park.

The Ministry of Transportation denied access to handwritten notes of a meeting, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations and the right to a fair trial.

The Inquiry Officer found that neither exemption applied.

The Inquiry Officer also found that, even if the advice or recommendations exemption had applied, the compelling public interest in disclosure of records relating to the events at Ipperwash Provincial Park would have clearly outweighed the purpose of the exemption.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record, with the exception of a small portion containing personal information.

The appellant requested access to her 'Agent's Licence' file from the Ontario Insurance Commission.

The OIC denied access to four internal memoranda, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the appellant's personal information but were prepared by or for legal counsel for use in giving legal advice.

The OIC's decision to deny access under section 49(a) and Branch 2 of section 19 was upheld.

The appellant, a member of a news organization, appealed a decision denying access to minutes and notes of meetings of the interministerial committee on aboriginal emergencies regarding the occupation of Ipperwash Provincial Park.

The institutions claimed exemptions under solicitor-client privilege, right to a fair trial, advice or recommendations, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were exempt under solicitor-client privilege, but rejected the fair trial and invasion of privacy exemptions.

While some records qualified for the advice or recommendations exemption, the Inquiry Officer applied the public interest override, ordering their disclosure due to the compelling public interest in the events at Ipperwash.

The appellants, reporters for a Toronto newspaper, appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to the names and identifying information of police officers and victims contained in 64 Informations and Indictments.

The Ministry claimed the invasion of privacy exemption under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the information was publicly available in court facilities, the disclosure of the withheld information, which included criminal convictions and acquittals, was highly sensitive and could unfairly damage reputations.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the privacy interests outweighed the factors favouring disclosure and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records concerning sheltered workshops and Vocational Rehabilitation Services under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 12(1)(b) (Cabinet records) and 13(1) (advice or recommendations).

The Inquiry Officer refused to allow the Ministry to raise the discretionary section 13(1) exemption for additional records late in the process, as no extenuating circumstances were provided.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of several records, finding they did not qualify as Cabinet records, but upheld the section 13(1) exemption for other records that contained advice or recommendations.

The appellant requested access to records detailing financial expenses incurred by the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) during an investigation and subsequent proceedings.

The OHRC denied access to legal accounts, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and advised the appellant to request other records from the Ministry of Citizenship.

The Inquiry Officer found the OHRC's search for records was reasonable, but ordered the OHRC to formally transfer the request for the Ministry's records under section 25(1).

The Inquiry Officer also held that the legal accounts did not qualify for solicitor-client privilege as they did not reveal the substance of legal advice, and ordered their disclosure.

The appellant sought access to records relating to the settlement of the Point Grondine land claim by the Governments of Canada and Ontario and the Wikwemikong Unceded First Nation.

The Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat denied access to numerous records, claiming exemptions for Cabinet records, advice or recommendations, intergovernmental relations, valuable government information, economic interests, and solicitor-client privilege.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the records and upheld the application of the exemptions to many of the records, particularly those revealing confidential intergovernmental communications, solicitor-client privileged information, and Cabinet deliberations.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of several other records where the evidentiary burden for the exemptions was not met.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for an audio tape of a Small Claims Court trial.

The Ministry denied the request on the basis that court records are not in its custody or control.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer applied established precedent to find that the tape is a record in a court file relating to a court action.

Consequently, the Ministry exercises only bare possession, not custody or control, and the record falls outside the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to OPP occurrence reports and internal investigation reports.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and argued some records were excluded under the Young Offenders Act.

The Inquiry Officer found the records were not YOA records.

Applying the absurd result principle, the Officer ordered disclosure of information the appellant had provided or was present for, while upholding the exemption for other individuals' personal information to protect their privacy.

The appellant, a member of a news organization, appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to notes of interministerial committee meetings regarding the 1995 aboriginal occupation of Ipperwash Provincial Park.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for advice or recommendations, law enforcement, right to a fair trial, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that four of the five records were entirely exempt under solicitor-client privilege as they were prepared by Crown counsel for use in litigation and giving legal advice.

However, the first record, consisting of notes taken by non-lawyers, was ordered disclosed (with minor severances) as the exemptions claimed did not apply, and any solicitor-client privilege had been waived by public statements made in the Legislature.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for records relating to a disturbance at a youth centre and subsequent allegations of abuse by staff.

The Ministry denied access, claiming various exemptions and that the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(6) as employment-related matters.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected, prepared, maintained, or used in relation to meetings, discussions, or communications about an employment-related matter in which the Ministry had an interest.

The records were therefore excluded from the scope of the Act under section 65(6)3.

The appellant requested access to all information gathered during a Special Investigations Unit (SIU) investigation into an incident where the appellant was shot by a police officer.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to 301 pages of records under various exemptions, including the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the personal information of the appellant inextricably intertwined with that of other identifiable individuals.

Because the information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, the presumption against disclosure applied.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Community and Social Services denying access to records relating to his son under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The records consisted of a consultation note and treatment plans.

The adjudicator found that the records contained medical and psychological information, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 21(3)(a) of the Act.

Applying the Divisional Court's decision in John Doe v. Ontario, the adjudicator held that factors under section 21(2) could not rebut this presumption.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated a privacy breach involving a municipal board of education after confidential student records were found in a dumpster and blown into a residential area.

The Commissioner determined that the records contained personal information, that the disclosure was not in compliance with section 32 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that the Board failed to dispose of the records in a secure manner.

The Commissioner recommended that the Board develop written guidelines for the destruction of personal information, consider purchasing shredders or secure containers, and maintain a formal disposal record.

The complainant alleged that the Management Board Secretariat improperly disclosed her personal information to a private collection agency to recover a social assistance overpayment.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether the information was 'personal information' under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and whether its disclosure complied with section 42.

The Commissioner concluded that the information was personal information, but its disclosure to the collection agency was for the same purpose for which it was obtained, and thus complied with the Act.

The Commissioner also found adequate safeguards were in place but recommended contractual improvements for future agreements.