IPCO 1998

The appellant, a non-profit organization, requested access to records regarding municipal and industrial air and water dischargers in non-compliance with environmental limits.

The Ministry of the Environment provided a fee estimate and denied the appellant's request for a fee waiver.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the issues surrounding non-complying discharges are of public interest and relate directly to public health and safety.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Ministry to waive the search and preparation charges, but upheld the decision not to waive photocopying and shipping costs.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for technical scientific manuals.

After the Ministry was ordered to disclose the manuals, it assessed a fee of $69.80 for photocopying.

The appellant appealed the fee and requested a fee waiver, arguing that disclosure would benefit public health and safety.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the fee estimate and denied the fee waiver, finding that the dissemination of highly technical scientific manuals would not yield a public benefit or contribute to the understanding of an important public health issue.

The appellant, a former employee, requested access to all of her personnel and grievance-related records from the Ministry of Community and Social Services dating back to 1981.

The Ministry 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 records were collected, maintained, and used by the Ministry in relation to proceedings before the Grievance Settlement Board and the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which relate to labour relations.

Consequently, the records were excluded from the scope of the Act under section 65(6)1, and the Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Liquor Control Board of Ontario's decision to deny access to portions of records relating to a Request for Proposals for carrier services.

The LCBO claimed the third party information exemption under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the scoring sheets were generated by the LCBO and did not reveal information supplied by the third parties, ordering their disclosure.

However, the pricing summaries were found to reveal confidential commercial information supplied by the third parties, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice their competitive position, and were held to be exempt.

The appellant, representing the Nuclear Awareness Group, appealed the Ministry of the Environment's decision to deny access to records relating to radioactive waste stored at the Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for Cabinet records and intergovernmental relations.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had custody of the records and upheld the application of the exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer also determined that while there is a compelling public interest in nuclear safety, it did not clearly outweigh the purpose of protecting the free flow of confidential information from federal agencies to the Ministry.

The appellants submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for police investigation records relating to a criminal proceeding in which they were the complainants.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, claiming exemptions for law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records did not qualify for solicitor-client or litigation privilege under section 19, as the litigation had terminated.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold certain records under sections 21(1) and 49(b) on the basis that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellants' argument that the public interest override in section 23 applied was rejected, as the interest in obtaining disclosure for a civil lawsuit was private rather than public.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Natural Resources for records relating to his work-related back injury, Workers' Compensation Board claim, and re-employment.

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

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records were collected or prepared in relation to employment-related matters in which the Ministry had an interest, and none of the exceptions in section 65(7) applied.

Ontario Hydro requested a reconsideration of an order requiring it to disclose a contract with a named individual.

Hydro argued there were jurisdictional defects in the interpretation of sections 65(6), 65(7), 18(1)(c), 14(1)(e), and 17(1) of the Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found no jurisdictional errors, noting that Hydro's arguments related to findings of fact and the weighing of evidence.

The request for reconsideration was denied, but a temporary stay of the order was granted pending settlement discussions regarding a judicial review application.

The adjudicator reconsidered Order P-1538 regarding a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The affected person argued that their name and title in correspondence constituted personal information and that disclosure posed a threat to their safety.

The adjudicator held that information identifying individuals in their professional or official capacity is not personal information under section 2(1) of the Act.

Furthermore, the adjudicator found insufficient evidence to establish a clear and direct linkage between disclosure and a serious threat to health or safety under section 20.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records concerning himself and an associated organization.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, invasion of privacy, and danger to safety or health.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records did not contain personal information and ordered their disclosure.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the remaining records, finding they were exempt under the law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, and danger to safety or health exemptions, particularly noting that some records contained hate propaganda whose disclosure could threaten the safety of targeted groups.

The appellant requested access to records detailing the number and species of animals used by Ontario research facilities from 1990 to 1997.

The Ministry denied access under several exemptions, including section 14(1)(i) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing that disclosure could endanger the security of the facilities by making them targets for animal rights extremists.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision for the majority of the records, finding that the information could be used to identify specific facilities and endanger their security.

Records pertaining to ten facilities that consented to disclosure were ordered to be released with identifying information severed.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decisions regarding multiple freedom of information requests for records relating to the requester.

The Inquiry Officer found that court records were not in the Ministry's custody or control and thus not subject to the Act.

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

Regarding specific exemptions, the Officer ordered the disclosure of certain records that did not qualify as advice or recommendations or solicitor-client privilege, while upholding the Ministry's decision to withhold other records under exemptions for solicitor-client privilege and unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) for all records relating to him, including those not in the public files.

The OMB denied the request, claiming it was frivolous and vexatious under section 10(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the OMB failed to establish that the request was part of a pattern of conduct amounting to an abuse of the right of access or that it was made in bad faith.

The OMB was ordered to make an access decision in response to the request.

The appellant requested access to a list of accounts valued over $10,000 transferred to the Consolidated Revenue Fund in 1989, including the dates of payment into court.

The Ministry denied access to the dates, claiming they constituted personal information under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and charged a significant fee for the search.

The Inquiry Officer found that the dates of payment did not constitute personal information and ordered their disclosure.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Ministry provided insufficient evidence to justify the fee estimate and the reasonableness of its search, ordering the Ministry to provide detailed descriptions of the search and time spent.

The appellant sought access to records relating to a waste disposal site, including handwritten notes of Ministry employees.

The Ministry disclosed some records but claimed it did not have custody or control over a personal daily journal maintained by the District Manager at his home.

Applying the 10-factor test from Order 120, the Inquiry Officer found that the journal was created for personal use, kept at the employee's home, not integrated with Ministry records, and not subject to Ministry regulation.

The Inquiry Officer concluded the record was not in the custody or under the control of the Ministry and upheld the decision denying access.

The appellant requested access to witness statements written on her behalf during an OPP investigation into her complaint of childhood sexual abuse.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access to eight statements under the invasion of privacy exemptions in sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

During the appeal, two witnesses consented to disclosure, and the Ministry was ordered to release their statements.

For the remaining statements, the Inquiry Officer found that the personal information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 21(3)(b).

As no exceptions applied, the Ministry's decision to withhold the remaining records was upheld.

The appellant, a former employee, appealed the Ministry of the Environment's decision to deny access to records regarding the status of various positions and vacancies within the Standards Development Branch.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(6)3.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records, which included organizational charts used for downsizing and program planning, were collected, prepared, maintained, or used in relation to meetings, consultations, discussions, or communications about labour relations or employment-related matters in which the Ministry had an interest.

The appeal was dismissed as the records fell outside the scope of the Act.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to records relating to a complaint filed against him as an employee of the Emergency Health Services.

The Ministry claimed the records fell outside 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 had an interest.

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

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records concerning an OPP investigation into allegations of criminal wrongdoing by the appellant.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption in section 21(3)(b).

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

The appellant, representing the widow of a worker killed in an industrial accident, appealed the Ministry of Labour's decision to deny access to a fatal accident investigation report under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed the report was exempt under the law enforcement exemption as charges had been laid under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and a trial was pending.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record met the three-part test for a report prepared in the course of law enforcement under section 14(2)(a) and upheld the Ministry's exercise of discretion to withhold the record.