IPCO 1997

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for the personal information of a named individual contained in the records of a deceased parolee.

The Ministry granted partial access, denying access to some records on the basis of the invasion of privacy exemption and claiming other parts were non-responsive.

The appellant appealed, arguing the request included the parolee's information, more records existed, and the exemption did not apply.

The Inquiry Officer found the search was reasonable, the scope was limited to the named individual, and upheld the application of the invasion of privacy exemption for most of the withheld information, ordering disclosure of only a severed portion of one page.

The appellant requested access to police records regarding a domestic incident involving herself and her former spouse.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, claiming exemptions including invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that applying the presumed unjustified invasion of privacy to the affected person's name, address, and date of birth would lead to an absurd result, as the appellant was already aware of this information.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose this information, but its decision to withhold the remaining personal information under section 21(1) was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to several records relating to her property under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that an inspection report was exempt as a law enforcement report under section 14(2)(a).

Other records were found exempt under section 14(1)(d) to protect a confidential source, and under section 49(b) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose certain photographs that did not contain personal information.

The appellant sought access to the Ministry of Education and Training's decision and internal memoranda regarding a complaint against a teacher.

The Ministry denied access, citing various exemptions.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer considered whether the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(6).

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were prepared and used by the Ministry in relation to discussions about an employment-related matter in which the Ministry had a legal interest.

Consequently, the records fell within section 65(6)3 and were excluded from the scope of the Act.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, an insurance adjuster, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to witness statements taken by the OPP following a motor vehicle accident.

The Ministry relied on the personal privacy exemption under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption against disclosure in section 21(3)(b).

As the presumption was not rebutted, the Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

A reporter requested access to complaints and investigative reports regarding a formerly licensed credit and collections company whose licence was revoked.

The Ministry granted partial access and claimed exemptions for the remaining records.

During the appeal, the Ministry withdrew several exemption claims but maintained the personal privacy exemption for certain records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third-party information exemption did not apply to the company's bank account information as it was not supplied in confidence and the harms test was not met.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the personal privacy exemption for names, addresses, and driving histories of identifiable individuals, finding that their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b) of the Act, and that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of a General Occurrence Report and police officer's notes relating to an incident investigated by the OPP.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including section 49(b) for invasion of privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner 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 personal privacy under section 21(3)(b).

The Ministry's decision to withhold the records was upheld.

The appellant sought access to records relating to aboriginal fishing rights from the Ministry of Natural Resources.

After the Ministry disclosed one record, the remaining issue was whether the public interest override in section 23 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applied to the remaining exempt records.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the determination of aboriginal fishing rights is a matter of public interest, disclosure of the specific records at this stage would not result in a more informed citizenry or enhance the public's ability to express public opinion.

The Ministry's decision to withhold the records was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for witness statements from an OPP investigation into the accidental death of his son.

The Ministry denied access to the statements of individuals who did not consent to disclosure, citing the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 21(3)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The public interest override did not apply as the appellant's interest, while compelling, was private.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose only the information relating to the consenting individuals.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $22,513 issued by the Ministry of Health for responding to a freedom of information request regarding doctor's billing practices.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's estimates for paper record searches, preparation time, and photocopying, but found the estimate for searching electronic files to be excessive.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Ministry to adjust its fee estimate to $14,179, reflecting a more reasonable calculation for electronic search time.

The appellant, a CUPE tri-local committee, appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to certain records related to funding and internal correspondence regarding four agencies.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were responsive to the request and not excluded from the Act under section 65(6) because the Ministry did not have a legal interest in the agencies' labour relations.

However, the Officer upheld the exemption of salary information under section 21(1) as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, and exempted other records under section 17(1) because their disclosure would significantly interfere with the agencies' ongoing labour negotiations.

The appellant requested access to records relating to the development of a film production project funded by the Ontario Film Development Corporation (OFDC).

The OFDC granted partial access but denied access to several records, claiming exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed.

The Interim Commissioner found that most of the withheld records contained confidential commercial and financial information supplied by a third party, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the third party's competitive position.

These records were held exempt under sections 17(1)(a) and (c).

One letter was ordered disclosed as it did not meet the exemption criteria.

The Commissioner also declined to order the exchange of representations or apply the public interest override.

The appellant, representing the family of a deceased individual shot by police, appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to portions of a Special Investigations Unit (SIU) file.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant failed to establish they were the deceased's personal representative under section 66(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Final Investigative Report was held to be exempt under the law enforcement exemption in section 14(2)(a).

The remaining records were exempt under section 21(1) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, given they were compiled during an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of police officers' notes and witness statements relating to a motor vehicle accident.

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 personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the personal information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption against disclosure in section 21(3)(b).

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for their complete master file regarding disability benefits.

The Ministry granted full access to the 160-page file, but the appellant appealed, claiming additional medical reports from 1978 should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search was reasonable, noting that the requested documents pre-dated the appellant's 1988 application and were likely held by the Federal Government in Canada Pension Plan files.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Labour for records relating to policies compelling employers to disclose self-initiated environmental audits.

The Ministry initially responded that no responsive records existed, but after mediation and further searches, located and disclosed several records.

The appellant appealed, maintaining that additional records existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had provided sufficient evidence of its inquiries and searches, concluding that the Ministry's search for additional records was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Police Complaints Commissioner for records relating to an investigation initiated by the appellant and her husband.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to thirteen records under sections 14(2)(a) and 49(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that only one record met the three-part test for a report prepared in the course of law enforcement.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the remaining twelve records to the appellant.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to a Sheriff's report and a witness statement regarding an investigation into a bailiff company.

The Inquiry Officer denied the requester's preliminary requests for oral representations and an exchange of representations.

On the merits, the Inquiry Officer found that portions of the records contained only the requester's personal information or non-personal information and ordered them disclosed.

However, the remaining portions contained intertwined personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold these portions under the invasion of privacy exemption, finding that the public interest override did not apply as the requester's interest was personal rather than public.

A requester sought access to Ministry of Natural Resources purchase orders.

The Ministry decided to grant full access.

A third party appealed, claiming a purchase order containing pricing details for repair services qualified for exemption under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal, finding that while the record contained commercial information supplied by the third party, the appellant failed to establish that the information was supplied in confidence.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

The Ministry of Natural Resources received a freedom of information request for purchase orders and bid summary sheets.

The Ministry decided to grant full access.

A third party appealed, claiming a one-page Contract Purchase Transaction containing pricing details for camera repair services was exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal, finding that while the record contained commercial and financial information supplied by the third party, the third party failed to establish a reasonable expectation that the information was supplied in confidence.