IPCO 1997

The appellant, acting as the solicitor for the estate of a deceased assault victim, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of a coroner's report and police reports under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed the records contained personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation, making them exempt from disclosure.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information of the deceased and other identifiable individuals, and that the appellant did not establish a right to access the deceased's information as a personal representative.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, concluding that disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b) of the Act.

The requester sought access to tender documents submitted by a construction firm to the Ontario Clean Water Agency.

The Agency decided to disclose the records, and the construction firm appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the construction firm failed to establish a reasonable expectation of confidentiality under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as the tender documents did not contain explicit assurances of confidentiality and the Agency treated such information as accessible.

The construction firm's request for reconsideration was granted, but the original decision to uphold the Agency's disclosure was affirmed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Lottery Corporation (OLC) for the names of the winners of a specific LOTTO 6/49 draw, claiming a verbal agreement to share the prize with one of the winners.

The OLC denied access to the names of the Ontario winners under the invasion of privacy exemption and stated it did not have custody or control of the names of winners from other provinces.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the OLC's decision, finding that disclosure of the Ontario winners' names would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, and that the OLC did not have custody or control of the records from other provincial lottery corporations.

The Ministry of the Environment and Energy received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for environmental reports relating to a specific property.

The Ministry decided to disclose two reports, but a third party corporation objected and appealed, arguing the records were exempt under section 17(1)(b) as confidential scientific and technical information.

The Inquiry Officer dismissed the appeal, finding that while the reports contained confidential technical information, their disclosure could not reasonably be expected to result in similar information no longer being supplied, because the Ministry has statutory authority under the Environmental Protection Act to compel production of such reports.

The appellant, an unsuccessful bidder, submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Transportation for contracts related to the ServiceOntario Kiosk project.

The Ministry granted partial access but withheld portions of an agreement under the third party information exemption in section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing a public interest in disclosure.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the withheld information was supplied in confidence and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the affected party's competitive position.

The public interest override in section 23 did not apply as the interest in disclosure was private.

The appellant corporation sought access to a criminal investigation file regarding an affected person who had launched a wrongful dismissal suit against the appellant.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the records were exempt from disclosure under the invasion of privacy exemption, as they were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

However, a letter regarding a technical inspection was not exempt under solicitor-client privilege and was ordered disclosed.

The public interest override did not apply.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to deny access to property assessment impact studies under the Cabinet records exemption of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were exempt under section 12(1) as their disclosure would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

However, given the significant public interest and changed circumstances since the initial decision, the Officer ordered the Minister of Finance to seek Cabinet's consent for disclosure under section 12(2)(b).

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

The appellants appealed a decision by the Ministry of Community and Social Services denying access to records concerning a private adoption agency and its principals.

The records involved communications with foreign governments and the federal government regarding international adoptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were exempt under sections 15(a) and 15(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as their disclosure would reveal information received in confidence from other governments and could reasonably be expected to prejudice intergovernmental relations.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

A school board appealed a decision by the Management Board Secretariat denying access to a severance agreement of a senior management employee under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The institution claimed exemptions based on solicitor-client privilege, economic interests, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the executed severance agreement was not subject to solicitor-client privilege and its disclosure would not prejudice the government's economic interests.

While the agreement contained personal information, the public interest in scrutinizing the expenditure of public funds on senior employee severance packages outweighed the privacy interests, except for specific personal identifiers and presumed privacy invasions which were ordered severed.

The appellant, an archaeological researcher, submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation for access to archaeological reports prepared by a consultant.

The consultant objected to the disclosure, and the Ministry denied access under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (third party information).

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the reports contained scientific and technical information supplied in confidence.

The Officer concluded that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the consultant's competitive position and result in similar information no longer being supplied to the Ministry, satisfying the requirements for exemption under section 17(1).

The appellant requested access to two Ontario Labour Relations Board files relating to applications made during a strike.

The Board 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 section 65(6) did not apply to records maintained by the Board in its capacity as an impartial adjudicator, as it did not have an interest in the proceedings in the sense intended by the Act.

However, records originating with or sent to the Management Board of Cabinet (the employer) were excluded.

The Board was ordered to issue a new access decision for the non-excluded records.

The appellant requested access to records contained in two Ontario Labour Relations Board files concerning unfair labour practice complaints.

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

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the Board, acting as an impartial adjudicator, did not collect or maintain the records in relation to proceedings in which it had an interest as an employer.

Therefore, section 65(6) did not apply to the Board's own records.

However, records originating from or sent to Ontario Hydro (the employer) were excluded under section 65(6)1.

The Board was ordered to issue a new decision letter for the non-excluded records.

The appellant sought access to Ministry of Labour files relating to an occupational disease claim filed by a former university employee.

The Ministry denied access to certain correspondence under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The appellant argued that the employee had published details of her claim on an internet website, creating a public interest in disclosure.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the employee's personal information, including medical and highly sensitive information supplied in confidence.

Although the employee's public posting of some information favoured disclosure, it did not outweigh the privacy protection factors.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override did not apply, as the dispute was primarily private in nature.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services' decision to deny access to records relating to a named individual and a publication.

The Ministry claimed the records, which comprised 116 pages of information filed with the Intelligence Section of the Ontario Provincial Police, were exempt under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records qualified for exemption under section 14(1)(g) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal law enforcement intelligence information.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant sought access to records sent by the Ministry of the Attorney General to the Law Society of Upper Canada regarding his past criminal prosecution.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that any common law or statutory privilege attaching to the records was waived when the Ministry voluntarily disclosed them to the Law Society.

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

The appellant appealed the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to deny access to records relating to her human rights complaint.

The OHRC claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for advice or recommendations, law enforcement, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained only the appellant's personal information, dismissing the privacy exemption for third parties.

The advice and recommendations exemption was not upheld for the case officer's notes.

However, the law enforcement exemption was upheld for most records, as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing investigation.

The OHRC was ordered to disclose three records that did not qualify for the exemption.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for all documents in his Family Support Plan (FSP) file.

The Ministry denied access to several pages, citing exemptions for advice and recommendations, law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold records containing the personal information of an affected person (the appellant's former spouse) and records subject to solicitor-client privilege.

However, the Commissioner ordered the disclosure of certain FSP computer printouts, finding that they did not qualify for the law enforcement exemption under section 14(1) of the Act.

The appellant requested access to a tender for a highway repaving contract and the cost of spreading gravel on highway shoulders.

The Ministry provided a fee estimate of $270.80 and denied a fee waiver.

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

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

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the denial of the fee waiver, finding that the appellant did not establish financial hardship and that the dissemination of the records would not directly benefit public health or safety.

The appellant, a former employee of a non-profit housing corporation, sought access to OPP records regarding a fraud investigation into his activities.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access to portions of the records, citing various exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer determined that most of the records contained the personal information of other individuals and that their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b), as the information was compiled during an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of a few records that contained only the appellant's personal information or could be severed, while upholding the Ministry's decision to withhold the remainder.

The appellant, acting through the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to a Special Investigations Unit (SIU) investigation of a police shooting in which the appellant was severely injured.

The Ministry denied access to witness statements and photographs under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the SIU report and appendices were exempt under section 14(2)(a) as a report prepared in the course of law enforcement, and that the witness statements were exempt under section 21(3)(b) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.