IPCO 1997

The complainant, a sewage treatment plant manager, alleged that the Ministry of Environment and Energy improperly disclosed his personal information to a third party acting on behalf of a village mayor.

The Ministry had provided the third party with a copy of a letter sent to the complainant regarding his operator's license, which included his home address and employment history.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that while disclosing the status of the license was for a consistent purpose under section 42(c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, disclosing the letter itself containing additional personal information was not in compliance with the Act.

The complainant alleged that the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) improperly disclosed his personal information, including his claim file, to an insurance company without valid consent.

The WCB relied on an authorization signed by the complainant in 1994 for a separate long-term disability claim.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner's Compliance Review Officer found that the information disclosed constituted 'personal information' under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer concluded that the disclosure was not in compliance with section 42 of the Act, as the complainant had not identified the specific information to be disclosed nor consented to the disclosure of his entire WCB file.

The WCB was recommended to ensure future compliance with section 42.

The appellant, on behalf of the City of Toronto, submitted freedom of information requests to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for market value assessment studies relating to four municipalities.

The Ministry denied access on the basis that it did not have custody or control of the records.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry did not have custody or control, but ordered the Ministry to forward the requests to the Ministry of Finance and the Town of Markham pursuant to section 25(1) of the Act, as those institutions likely had custody or control of responsive records.

The appellant, acting as counsel for corporate applicants seeking registration as gaming suppliers, requested access to their application files held by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that some records contained information about individuals in their professional capacities and ordered their disclosure.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold investigation reports and other records under the law enforcement and personal information exemptions, finding that the ongoing due diligence investigations constituted a law enforcement matter.

A journalist appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to deny access to records concerning the economic, social, and budget impacts of Quebec independence.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13(1), 15(a), and 18(1)(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records qualified for these exemptions.

However, applying the public interest override in section 23, the Officer ordered the disclosure of portions of the records that did not reveal strategic plans or detailed economic impacts, finding a compelling public interest in informed public discussion about the consequences of Quebec independence.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for a tape recording of testimony from a trial under the Dog Owner's Liability Act.

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

The appellant appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the tape recording formed part of the court records and was therefore not in the custody or under the control of the Ministry.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, the president of a private hospital, appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to withhold portions of records relating to the issuance of a private hospital licence in 1985, claiming an invasion of privacy under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant also challenged the reasonableness of the Ministry's search for records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the personal information in the records was already known to the appellant and its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Officer also found that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records in full.

The appellant, a home care provider, sought access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the name and telephone number of an individual who complained to the Ministry of Community and Social Services about her compliance with the Day Nurseries Act.

The Ministry denied access, citing danger to safety and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the information was 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 Officer also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as the appellant's interest was essentially private.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Health for records relating to the funding of defibrillators in Ontario.

The Ministry issued a revised fee estimate of $1785.80 and denied the appellant's request for a fee waiver.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate and the denial of the fee waiver.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the fee estimate, finding it was calculated in accordance with the Act.

The Commissioner also upheld the denial of the fee waiver, as the appellant failed to provide evidence of financial hardship and did not establish that dissemination of the records would benefit public health or safety.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to inspection reports concerning the use of animals in research facilities.

The appellant sought access to the numbers and species of animals used, and the nature of the research performed.

The Ministry and affected parties argued that disclosure would endanger the security of the facilities and the safety of researchers, and that the records contained confidential third-party information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the number and species of animals used were already publicly available through the Canadian Council on Animal Care and ordered their disclosure.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption for information relating to the nature of the research performed, finding that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger life, safety, or security, except for two facilities that consented to disclosure.

A newspaper reporter appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services' decision to deny access to incident reports regarding physical assaults at a detention centre.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 14(2)(d) (correctional record) and 21(1) (invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while portions of the records contained personal information and were exempt, the remaining information did not constitute personal information and did not qualify for the correctional record exemption.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the severed records.

The Ministry of Finance requested a reconsideration of Order P-1351, which ordered the Ministry to seek the Executive Council's consent to disclose certain impact studies under section 12(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the previous order provisions exceeded the Commissioner's jurisdiction by effectively substituting the Inquiry Officer's discretion for that of the head and impinging on the Premier's conventional powers.

The provisions were rescinded.

However, the Inquiry Officer found that the head's original decision not to refer the matter to the Executive Council was a reviewable exercise of discretion that failed to consider relevant factors.

The head was ordered to reconsider the decision.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to the billing amounts of the ten highest billing general practitioners in Metropolitan Toronto.

The Ministry claimed the information was exempt under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that because the appellant narrowed the request to only the dollar amounts, without names or identifiers, the record did not contain 'personal information' about an identifiable individual under section 2(1).

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the billing figures.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Management Board Secretariat for electronic versions of the Revised Statutes of Ontario and Revised Regulations of Ontario.

The institution denied access under section 22(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the information was publicly available.

The Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the statutes and regulations were available for purchase on CD-ROM and accessible for free on the Internet.

The Commissioner also dismissed the appellant's Charter arguments, noting that section 22(a) directs requesters to alternative sources rather than denying access.

The appellant submitted two freedom of information requests to the Ministry of Finance for records relating to the assessment of his property for municipal realty tax purposes.

The Ministry claimed that no further responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the Ministry's search was inadequate.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search was reasonable for the second request and for the specific 'Notice of Valuation' document in the first request.

However, the Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry interpreted the first request too narrowly by failing to search a database for 'any other shred of evidence' proving the appellant was notified of the original assessment.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct a further search.

The appellant, a licensed meat plant operator, submitted 55 freedom of information requests to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs for records relating to the meat inspection program and activities during an OPSEU strike.

The Ministry denied access to numerous records, claiming they were excluded from the Act under the labour relations provisions of section 65(6), or exempt under various provisions including solicitor-client privilege, law enforcement, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision for the majority of the records, finding they were properly excluded or exempt, but ordered the disclosure of a small number of records that did not meet the exemption criteria.

The Ministry's search for records was also found to be reasonable.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to a non-profit housing project.

The Ministry denied access to certain records, claiming exemptions for third party information and solicitor-client privilege.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third party information exemption did not apply because there was insufficient evidence that the information was supplied in confidence.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the solicitor-client privilege exemption did not apply to a briefing note, as it did not represent confidential communication for legal advice nor was it prepared by Crown counsel for litigation.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant requested access to her deceased husband's OHIP Claims Reference File to determine the cost of his medical treatment and make donations to the hospitals involved.

The Ministry of Health denied access under the personal privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing she had a right of access as the executrix of his estate under section 66(a).

The Inquiry Officer found that section 66(a) did not apply because the request related to the appellant's personal affairs, not the administration of the estate.

The records were found to contain medical history, triggering the presumption against disclosure in section 21(3)(a), and the Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant, a historian barred from entering Canada due to accusations of inciting hatred, submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for all documents concerning him.

The Ministry disclosed some records but withheld a handwritten note and a two-page memorandum under the solicitor-client privilege exemption.

The appellant appealed the denial and argued more records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding the withheld records were exempt under sections 19 and 49(a) of the Act, and concluded the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Natural Resources for correspondence relating to a specific court case and the involvement of a former Minister.

The Ministry identified responsive records and charged a fee of $183.60 for search time and photocopying.

The appellant appealed the fee, arguing that the Ministry searched for irrelevant records such as media clippings.

The Inquiry Officer found that while media clippings were not responsive to the request for 'correspondence', the search time expended by the Ministry was reasonable and the fees were calculated in accordance with the Act and Regulation.

The fee was upheld.