IPCO 1997

A news organization appealed a fee estimate issued by the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation in response to a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The request sought minutes of Board of Directors meetings and statistical information about the fund.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the fee estimate of $90 for search and preparation time for the minutes and $15 for search time for the statistical information, finding the estimated times to be reasonable.

The appellant appealed GO Transit's decision that no records existed responsive to his request for an agreement or contract between GO Transit and the Ontario Clean Water Agency regarding the use of a road.

The sole issue was whether GO Transit conducted a reasonable search.

The Inquiry Officer found that GO Transit had conducted a reasonable search of 23 files across multiple departments and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to the investigation of a fire at the appellant's place of business.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including the law enforcement exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records related to an ongoing law enforcement matter, as criminal charges had been laid against the appellant and the case was before the courts.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access under sections 14(1)(a) and 49(a) of the Act.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to portions of their file with the Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner and to transfer part of the request to the Peel Regional Police Services Board.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the transfer of the request.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were not exempt as law enforcement reports under section 14(2)(a) and that the appellant's own tax return information was not exempt under section 17(2).

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption of a portion of one page containing the personal information of another individual under section 21(1).

The appellant requested access to his compensation claim file from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

The Board denied access to 41 pages under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the personal information of the appellant, the affected police officers, and other individuals.

The presumption against disclosure in section 21(3)(b) did not apply because the records related to the investigation of charges against the appellant, not the officers.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the records, except for the names and employment addresses of the affected officers, which were protected as highly sensitive personal information.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to an OPP officer's handwritten notes regarding an incident involving the appellant.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under sections 21(1) and 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 in section 21(3)(b).

The decision to deny access was upheld as disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry of Environment and Energy received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to the continuation of the Intervenor Funding Project.

The Ministry denied access to portions of a record, claiming exemptions for Cabinet records and advice or recommendations.

The requester appealed the severances.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the severances were properly exempt under either section 12(1) or 13(1), as they would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations or the advice of a public servant.

However, two severances did not qualify for either exemption and were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant requested access to documents disclosed during his criminal trial from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, citing solicitor-client privilege and invasion of privacy.

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 Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Police Complaints Commissioner (PCC) for records relating to the investigation of his complaint against members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police.

The PCC denied access to 19 records, claiming exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were not excluded from the Act under section 65(6) as employment-related records.

The Officer upheld the exemption for one record as a law enforcement report under section 14(2)(a) but ordered the disclosure of several others.

For the remaining records containing personal information of other individuals, the PCC was ordered to re-exercise its discretion under section 49(b).

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services' decision to deny access to an OPP report regarding an investigation into allegations of fraud and corruption.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Criminal Code.

Therefore, the presumption in section 21(3)(b) applied, and disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to a record relating to a transfer of shares in a corporation.

The Ministry claimed the record was exempt from disclosure under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information relating to the financial history or activities of affected persons, and that its disclosure was presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(f).

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, an injured worker, requested access to his Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) claim file under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The WCB provided the file, but the appellant appealed, arguing that additional records, including an audit report and documents he mailed to the WCB, should have been located.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed affidavits from the WCB detailing their search efforts and concluded that the WCB's search for responsive records was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested access to a brief and an investigation report prepared by the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) regarding a motor vehicle accident involving a police pursuit.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to portions of the records, claiming exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records constituted a report prepared in the course of a law enforcement investigation by an agency with the function of enforcing compliance with a law, and thus qualified for exemption under section 14(2)(a).