IPCO 1998

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to handwritten notes regarding the occupation of Ipperwash Provincial Park.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under various sections, including section 19 (solicitor-client privilege).

The Assistant Commissioner first determined that most of the disputed records were responsive to the request, rejecting the Ministry's narrow interpretation.

However, the Assistant Commissioner found that the records, prepared by a Crown lawyer acting as Assistant Secretary, were prepared for use in giving legal advice.

Therefore, the records qualified for exemption under Branch 2 of section 19.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Community and Social Services for records showing the legal expenses of the Barrie & District Association for People with Special Needs.

The Ministry provided some records, but the appellant appealed, arguing that further responsive records, such as legal accounts and budgets, should exist.

The Adjudicator found that the Ministry's search of its Capital Projects Unit, Legal Services Branch, and Barrie Area Office was reasonable, noting that the Ministry does not typically require invoices from service providers unless there is a specific reason.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested access to transcripts of an interview conducted by a Ministry investigator with her son, who subsequently committed suicide.

The interview was part of an investigation into allegations of abuse by employees at a provincial school for the deaf.

The Ministry denied access, and the appellant appealed.

The adjudicator found that the records were collected in relation to an employment-related matter in which the Ministry has an interest, and therefore fall within the exclusion in section 65(6)3 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant, an employee of the Ministry of the Attorney General, requested access to notes made by evaluators during her performance appraisal.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(6)3 as employment-related matters in which the Ministry had an interest.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry did not have a legal interest capable of affecting its rights or obligations, as the time to grieve the appraisal had expired.

The Assistant Commissioner also found the Ministry's search for records unreasonable because it failed to look for recreated notes after the originals were improperly destroyed, and ordered a further search.

The appellant appealed Ontario Hydro's response to a freedom of information request for records relating to a report on metal discharges from a nuclear generating station.

The issues included the scope of the request, whether the identity of a reference facility was exempt as third-party commercial information, whether notes of Expert Panel members were in Hydro's custody or control, and the reasonableness of Hydro's search for records.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of the reference facility's identity, finding it did not meet the test for exemption under section 17(1).

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the Expert Panel members' notes were not in Hydro's custody or control and that Hydro's search for responsive records was reasonable.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to draft guidelines for tourism services in provincial parks under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that while some portions of the draft guidelines contained advice, recommendations, and options exempt under section 13(1), the remaining background, factual, and administrative information did not qualify for the exemption.

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

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for bulk access to the data elements of the ONBIS database.

The Ministry denied access, arguing that producing the record would require new computer programs and unreasonably interfere with its operations.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that extracting the data elements would require hardware, software, and technical expertise not normally used by the Ministry, and would cause significant service interruptions.

Consequently, the requested bulk data did not meet the definition of a 'record' under section 2 of the Act and section 2 of Regulation 460.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Environment's decision to deny access to certain records relating to a company's recycling operations, claiming exemption under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (solicitor-client privilege).

During the inquiry, the Ministry withdrew its exemption claim for several records.

The adjudicator found that the remaining withheld records were prepared by or for Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice, and therefore qualified for exemption under Branch 2 of section 19.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records for which the exemption claim was withdrawn, and its decision to deny access to the remaining records was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to various records relating to the drafting and approval of regulations for pharmacy advertising.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 12(1) (Cabinet records), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 17(1) (third party information), and 19 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator reviewed the records and upheld the application of the exemptions to many of the records, particularly draft regulations, Cabinet submissions, and confidential legal communications.

However, the Adjudicator ordered the disclosure of several records that did not meet the criteria for the claimed exemptions, including correspondence with the Ontario College of Pharmacists that did not qualify as commercial information or privileged communications.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for testimonials and magazine articles provided by a hair care centre proprietor during a consumer complaint investigation.

The Ministry denied access to the testimonials under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the adjudicator found that the records contained the personal information of the proprietor and that their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(g) of the Act.

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

The Ministry of Health requested a reconsideration of Order P-1568, which ordered the disclosure of a Ministry Auditor's notes (Record C-14) from an interview with a CMHA representative.

The Ministry argued that the record contained the personal information of the CMHA representative, a Ministry official, and unnamed consumer/survivors, and that these individuals were not notified of the appeal.

The Adjudicator found a fundamental defect in the adjudication process due to the lack of notice and proceeded to reconsider the order.

Upon reconsideration, the Adjudicator concluded that the information in Record C-14 was provided in a professional capacity and did not constitute personal information under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator affirmed the original decision and ordered the disclosure of the record.

The appellant sought access to videotapes from an investigation into alleged non-payment of royalties on Crown timber.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records contained personal information and that disclosure would reveal law enforcement investigative techniques.

The Adjudicator found that the videotape images were too fuzzy to identify any individuals, meaning they did not contain personal information.

Furthermore, the Adjudicator held that videotape surveillance is a commonly known investigative technique, and the Ministry failed to demonstrate how disclosure would hinder its effective utilization.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

An employee appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services' decision to deny access to a grievance report and duty roster sheets.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under the labour relations exclusion.

The adjudicator found that the records were collected, maintained, and used by the Ministry in relation to proceedings before the Grievance Settlement Board, which relate to labour relations.

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

The appellant submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ontario Human Rights Commission for records relating to her complaint file.

After viewing the records, the appellant claimed that certain records were missing.

The Adjudicator found that the Commission's search for responsive records was reasonable and that clerical errors explained the discrepancies in the record index.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Federation of Justices of the Peace Associations appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's refusal to disclose records relating to the 1995 Report of the Ontario Justice of the Peace Remuneration Commission.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6)3 as they related to employment-related matters.

The Assistant Commissioner found that because justices of the peace are independent judicial officers and not employees of the Crown, the employment-related exclusion did not apply.

The Ministry was ordered to issue a new access decision.

The appellant, the Ontario Federation of Justices of the Peace Associations, appealed a decision by the Management Board Secretariat denying access to records relating to the Report of the Ontario Justice of the Peace Remuneration Commission.

The Secretariat claimed the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6)3 as they related to employment-related matters.

The Assistant Commissioner found that because justices of the peace are independent judicial officers and not employees of the Crown, the employer/employee relationship required to trigger section 65(6)3 did not exist.

The Secretariat was ordered to issue a new decision letter processing the request under the Act.

An insurance company appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to the death of an insured individual.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) and section 21 (invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that only a small portion of the records qualified for litigation privilege under section 19, as the litigation had terminated and the rationale for the privilege no longer existed for most records.

However, the Adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to records containing personal information under section 21, finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board denying access to records relating to the appellant's employment with the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board.

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

The Adjudicator found that records sent by or to the municipal employer were excluded from the Act, extending the definition of 'institution' in section 65(6) to include municipal institutions to avoid an absurd result.

The OLRB was ordered to issue an access decision for the remaining records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for a legal opinion obtained by the Ministry of Natural Resources regarding its authority to charge anchoring fees in a provincial park.

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

The appellant argued the Ministry waived privilege by referencing the opinion in correspondence.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the record was subject to common law solicitor-client privilege and that the Ministry's minimal references to the opinion outside of a litigation context did not constitute an implied waiver.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Police Complaints Commissioner denying access to two pages of records relating to an investigation into a complaint against a police officer.

The institution claimed exemptions under sections 14(1)(a) and 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the law enforcement exemptions did not apply, as there was no evidence of expected harm and the records were not 'reports'.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the records to the appellant, subject to the severance of identifying information of other individuals to protect their personal privacy under section 49(b).