IPCO 1997

The appellant, a former inmate, requested access to an Accident & Injury Report and other records relating to an alleged assault by fellow inmates.

The Ministry granted partial access, claiming exemptions under sections 21 and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the remaining information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the presumption against disclosure in section 21(3)(b) applied to information compiled during a police investigation, but that applying it to information provided by the appellant or in his presence would lead to an absurd result.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the information provided by the appellant and the decision to withhold the remaining information was upheld.

The appellant, a genealogist, appealed the Ministry's decision denying access to certified copies of marriage and death records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed the records contained personal information and their disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner allowed the late-filed appeal to proceed but upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the appellant's commercial genealogy business did not constitute a 'research purpose' under section 21(1)(e), and that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply to his private commercial interests.

The appellants, who were respondents in an ongoing Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) hearing, appealed the OSC's decision to deny access to information in its intelligence files under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the OSC's decision, finding that two records were exempt under section 14(2)(a) as reports prepared in the course of law enforcement, and the remaining three records were exempt under section 14(1)(g) because their disclosure would reveal law enforcement intelligence information.

The OSC properly exercised its discretion under section 49(a) to deny access to the records containing the appellants' own personal information.

The appellant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to a specific Mortgage Broker's file.

The Ministry of Finance denied access to the records, citing exemptions for law enforcement, third party information, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third party information exemption did not apply.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold certain records under the solicitor-client privilege, law enforcement, and invasion of privacy exemptions.

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

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to the appellant's bookstore, which was alleged to have spread hate propaganda in the 1980s.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, danger to safety or health, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the law enforcement and solicitor-client privilege exemptions for most records.

However, the Officer rejected the Ministry's claim that disclosure would seriously threaten safety or health, noting the appellant was already aware of the published hate literature.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose certain records and parts of records.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission denying access to an organizational review report under section 65(6) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

During the inquiry, the appellant advised that he had obtained a copy of the record through other means but wished to proceed with the appeal to obtain it under the Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appeal was moot, as the appellant already possessed the record and no useful purpose would be served by proceeding.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought access to records related to a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) investigation that led to his dismissal.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected, prepared, and used in relation to employment-related matters in which the Ministry had an interest, satisfying the requirements of section 65(6)3.

The exception in section 65(7)1 did not apply, and the Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for six manuals used by the Centre of Forensic Sciences.

The Ministry denied access, claiming exemptions for law enforcement, facilitating the commission of an unlawful act, valuable government information, and economic interests.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to meet its onus for any of the claimed exemptions, noting that the Ministry had previously offered to let the appellant view the manuals informally and failed to demonstrate how disclosure would cause the alleged harms.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Transportation's decision to deny access to a consultant's report regarding the operation of an office where the appellant was formerly employed.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that the record was prepared on behalf of the Ministry in relation to communications about employment-related matters in which the Ministry has a legal interest.

As all requirements of section 65(6)3 were met, the record was excluded from the scope of the Act, and the Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant sought access to the identity of a person who filed a complaint against her regarding the care of her husband.

The Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee denied access to the complainant's name, citing the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the information was highly sensitive and supplied in confidence, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the complainant's personal privacy under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant, a non-profit organization, appealed a fee estimate of $591.60 and the denial of a fee waiver by Ontario Hydro regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to nuclear performance and costs.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the fee estimate as reasonable and calculated in accordance with the Act.

The request for a fee waiver was denied, as the appellant failed to demonstrate financial hardship or that dissemination of the records would benefit public health or safety.

The Inquiry Officer also found it would not be fair and equitable to waive the fee given the circumstances.

The appellant, a Ministry employee, requested access to an Engineering Development Program Audit Report under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded under section 65(6) of the Act as they related to employment-related matters in which the Ministry had an interest.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were prepared on behalf of the Ministry in relation to communications about a training program, which constituted an employment-related matter.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Ministry had a legal interest in the matter, as the findings could affect its legal rights or obligations regarding fair hiring practices.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to hate crime investigations and prosecutions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 14, 19, 20, and 21 of the Act.

During mediation, the appellant narrowed the request, leaving sections 20 and 21 at issue.

The Inquiry Officer found that individuals acting in their professional or official capacities did not have their personal information protected under section 21, ordering disclosure of those portions.

The Inquiry Officer also rejected the Ministry's claim under section 20 that disclosure would seriously threaten health or safety, noting that much of the information had already been published.

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

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for access to her complaint file with the Professional Standards Bureau of the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(6)3 as they related to employment-related matters.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records were collected and used in relation to an internal police investigation under the Police Services Act, which constitutes an employment-related matter in which the Ministry has an interest.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to certain records related to inmates collecting social assistance.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including solicitor-client privilege under section 19.

The Inquiry Officer found that the remaining records at issue were prepared by or for Crown counsel and contained legal advice, qualifying them for exemption under Branch 2 of section 19.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's fee estimate and its decision to deny a fee waiver for a freedom of information request regarding ancillary student health care fees.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's fee estimate, finding the formula of two minutes per page for severing to be reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer also dismissed the request for a fee waiver, concluding that while the subject matter was of public interest, the appellant failed to demonstrate how disseminating the records would yield a public benefit by disclosing a public health concern or contributing meaningfully to the understanding of a public health issue.

The appellant requested a correction of his personal information contained in another individual's parole file, or alternatively, that a statement of disagreement be attached.

The Ministry refused the correction but attached the statement of disagreement.

The appellant appealed the refusal to correct the information.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records reflected the views and information gathered by professionals and could not be considered inexact, incomplete, or ambiguous simply because the appellant disagreed with them.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to severed portions of a preliminary draft report under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the severed information constituted advice and recommendations of a consultant, qualifying for the exemption.

The exception under section 13(2)(f) did not apply as the report did not evaluate the institution's performance or efficiency.

The Ministry's exercise of discretion was upheld despite the appellant's claim that the report had been leaked to the media.

The appellant requested information regarding the number of OAG-6 positions in the Ministry, including position titles and how many were bilingual.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under the labour relations and employment-related matters exclusion in section 65(6)3.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were prepared for communications about labour relations in which the Ministry has a legal interest, specifically regarding classification levels and compliance with the Public Services Act.

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

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Community and Social Services denying access to severed portions of their psychological records at the Children's Psychiatric Research Institute.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were clinical records compiled in a psychiatric facility in respect of a patient, as defined by the Mental Health Act.

Consequently, the records were excluded from the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(2)(a), and the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.