IPCO 1997

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's decision to deny access to records relating to a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) complaint made against the appellant.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded from the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6)3.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected in relation to employment-related matters in which the Ministry has an interest, specifically potential liability under the Human Rights Code.

The appeal was dismissed and the Ministry's decision upheld.

The appellant, an inmate, appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services' decision to deny access to certain records relating to his security, discipline, and health care under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

During mediation, the issues were narrowed to two paragraphs on page 21 and one paragraph on page 22.

The Ministry claimed these were exempt under sections 14(1)(i) and (k) of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry provided sufficient evidence that disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to jeopardize the security of a centre for lawful detention under section 14(1)(k).

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denying access to a 911 tape relating to a domestic occurrence.

The tape contained the voices of the appellant, his son, and his former wife.

The Ministry argued that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that applying the presumption against disclosure would lead to an absurd result, as the appellant was present during the call and directed his son on what to say.

Balancing the factors, including the appellant's need for the tape to determine his rights and his prior knowledge of the information, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy and ordered the Ministry to release the tape.

A labour organization appealed a fee estimate of $705.70 charged by the Ministry of Community and Social Services for processing a freedom of information request.

The appellant also requested a fee waiver.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the fee, finding that the search time and photocopying charges were reasonable and lower than the maximum permitted by regulation.

The appeal for a fee waiver was dismissed as the appellant failed to provide evidence of financial hardship or that disclosure would benefit public health or safety.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for records relating to allegations made to his probation officer.

The Ministry granted partial access, claiming the invasion of privacy exemption under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the remainder.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that disclosure of some of the severed information would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, while the remainder would not.

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

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records relating to the appellant held by the Ontario Provincial Police, pursuant to section 14(3) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the disclosure of the requested records, if they exist, could reasonably be expected to reveal law enforcement intelligence information under section 14(1)(g).

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, concluding that disclosing the mere existence or non-existence of such records would communicate information falling under the exemption.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Natural Resources for records relating to the provincial intent to create a public park in the Rouge River Valley.

The Ministry denied access to 41 records, claiming exemptions for Cabinet records and advice/recommendations under sections 12(1) and 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision for the majority of the records, finding that their disclosure would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations or advice and recommendations.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of certain records and portions of records that did not fall within the claimed exemptions.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for records relating to his applications for appointment as a private bailiff.

The Ministry initially withheld some information but later disclosed it during the inquiry.

The sole remaining issue was the reasonableness of the Ministry's search for records.

The Inquiry Officer found the search reasonable for the appellant's application file and related correspondence, but unreasonable regarding records about the need for private bailiffs and Ministry policies.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct a further search for those specific records.

The appellant, a trade organization, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to a report on the review of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

The Ministry claimed the record was excluded under the labour relations provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and exempt as a Cabinet record.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record was not excluded under the labour relations provisions, as its connection to labour relations was too remote.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access, finding that the record was exempt from disclosure as it contained policy options or recommendations submitted to a committee of the Executive Council.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat for correspondence relating to a court decision on aboriginal fishing rights.

The Secretariat denied access to three records, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision, finding the records were confidential communications between a client and legal advisor.

The appellant's argument for a public interest override under section 23 was dismissed because section 23 does not apply to records exempt under section 19.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to two police complaint files.

The Ministry responded that no additional records existed beyond those already provided.

The appellant appealed, arguing that more records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the steps taken by the Ministry to locate the records, including searches of index systems and consultations with investigators, and concluded that the Ministry's search was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to three letters concerning the appellant and an affected person.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the letters contained personal information supplied in confidence by the affected person.

Balancing the appellant's right of access against the affected person's privacy rights, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would result in an unjustified invasion of privacy and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access.

The appellant requested information regarding the frequency of mechanical restraints used on patients at a Ministry facility.

The Ministry provided a fee estimate of $2250 for 75 hours of manual search time.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate and the Ministry's refusal to grant a fee waiver.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the fee estimate, finding that a search of individual resident files was necessary to compile the requested statistics.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the denial of a fee waiver, as the appellant failed to provide evidence of financial hardship or that dissemination of the record would benefit public health or safety.

The appellant sought access to records relating to a disturbance at the Bluewater Youth Centre and subsequent allegations of mistreatment at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre.

The Ministry denied access, claiming exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and arguing the Young Offenders Act removed the records from the Act's jurisdiction.

The Inquiry Officer found no conflict with the Young Offenders Act as the records at issue did not identify young persons.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the law enforcement exemption for small portions of the records but ordered the disclosure of the remaining factual information, finding it did not qualify as advice or recommendations.

A member of a news organization appealed the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat's decision to deny access to the minutes of the Interministerial Committee of Aboriginal Emergencies meeting held during the 1995 Ipperwash Provincial Park occupation.

The institution claimed exemptions under solicitor-client privilege, right to a fair trial, and advice or recommendations.

The Commissioner found that portions of the record were subject to solicitor-client privilege, except where privilege had been waived by the Attorney General in the Legislature.

The fair trial exemption did not apply.

While the advice or recommendations exemption applied to certain options listed in the minutes, the Commissioner ordered their disclosure, finding that the compelling public interest in the government's handling of the Ipperwash crisis clearly outweighed the purpose of the exemption.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Finance regarding a freedom of information request.

The appellant sought to view the responsive records at a Ministry office in Ottawa to avoid paying photocopy fees for records he did not want, and challenged the fees charged ($131.60 for photocopies and $30 for preparation).

The Inquiry Officer allowed the appellant to raise these as new issues in an existing appeal.

The Officer upheld the Ministry's refusal to allow viewing in Ottawa due to security and copying costs, and upheld the $131.60 photocopy fee.

However, the $30 preparation fee was not upheld as the Ministry failed to provide sufficient evidence of the preparation activities undertaken.

The appellant, a former employee of the LCBO, requested records relating to his civil and criminal cases involving the LCBO.

The LCBO 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 LCBO conducted a reasonable search for records.

The Inquiry Officer determined that the settlement agreements ending the civil proceedings fell within the exception in section 65(7) and were subject to the Act, ordering the LCBO to issue an access decision for those records.

The remaining records were found to be excluded from the Act under section 65(6) as they related to employment matters in which the LCBO had an interest.

The appellant, a newspaper reporter, appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to financial records of a publicly-funded health centre under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry and the health centre claimed the records were exempt as third-party financial information supplied in confidence.

The Inquiry Officer found that the financial statements and schedules were exempt under section 17(1)(a) as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the centre's competitive position or contractual negotiations.

However, the covering letters did not contain financial information and were ordered disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer also held that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as disclosure would not serve the purpose of informing the citizenry about government activities.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for records relating to the Ministry's reorganization process.

The Ministry provided a fee estimate of $157.56, denied a fee waiver, and withheld one record under the labour relations exclusion in section 65(6) of the Act.

The appellant appealed the fee, the denial of the fee waiver, the adequacy of the search, and the application of section 65(6).

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decisions, finding that the search was reasonable, the fee was properly calculated, financial hardship was not established for a fee waiver, and the withheld record was excluded from the Act as it related to employment-related matters in which the Ministry had an interest.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) seeking access to monthly progress reports regarding cost reductions, including future reports.

The LCBO denied access to a specific Status Report, claiming it was exempt as a Cabinet record under section 12(1)(e) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and refused continuing access to future reports.

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the LCBO's decision, finding that the Status Report was prepared to brief a minister regarding matters proposed to be brought before a committee of the Executive Council.

The Commissioner also held that continuing access under section 24(3) did not apply because the reports were not produced in a regular series and the original request for access was denied.