IPCO 1998

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Insurance Commission for copies of rate filings made by 13 insurance companies and whether those companies claimed confidentiality under section 17 of the Act.

The OIC denied access to the records under section 17(1) and did not respond to the second part of the request.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the OIC's decision that the rate filings were exempt as third party commercial information and trade secrets supplied in confidence.

However, the Inquiry Officer found that the OIC failed to respond to the second part of the request and ordered it to issue a decision on that issue.

The appellant, representing the City of Kingston, requested access to records relating to a waste disposal site, including handwritten notes of Ministry employees.

The Ministry initially denied access to some notes under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act but later disclosed them.

The appellant argued that additional notes existed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search for the records was reasonable and dismissed that part of the appeal, while remaining seized of the issue regarding custody and control of a personal journal kept by a District Manager at his home.

The appellant, representing a non-profit housing co-operative board, appealed the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's decision to deny access to portions of a letter sent by an MPP to the Minister.

The Ministry claimed the severed portions contained personal information and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the severed information on page one constituted the personal information of two board members and was exempt from disclosure absent their consent.

However, the severed information on page two did not contain personal information and was ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant sought access to correspondence addressed to the Ministry regarding complaints about an organization she represents.

The Ministry denied access under sections 17(1) and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third party information exemption under section 17(1) did not apply, as the records did not contain financial or labour relations information.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the personal privacy exemption under section 21(1) for certain records containing employment history and personal information supplied in confidence, while ordering the disclosure of records written in a professional capacity.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to an OPP investigation into a complaint of someone impersonating a police officer.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 14(2)(a), 49(a), 21, and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

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

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

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Labour's decision to deny access to records concerning an employment standards claim filed against the appellant.

The Ministry claimed the invasion of privacy exemption under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

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

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Insurance Commission (OIC) for his registration file as a life insurance agent.

The OIC granted partial access but withheld other records under exemptions for law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, and unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that certain records were exempt as they were compiled during a law enforcement investigation into the appellant's business practices, contained privileged communications with legal counsel, or constituted formal investigation reports.

However, the OIC failed to establish exemptions for several other records, which were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Labour's decision to deny access to certain records relating to a specified property and business under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b).

The public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, representing a bargaining agent, requested access to lists containing the classifications of all Ministry of the Attorney General employees by compensation group.

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 or prepared in relation to labour relations and employment-related matters in which the Ministry has a legal interest, specifically regarding its obligations under the Public Service Act and in the context of collective bargaining.

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

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to records containing personal information.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under several sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including section 49(b) (unjustified invasion of personal privacy).

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, related to eligibility for social service benefits, and described individuals' finances.

As the appellant's personal information was inextricably intertwined with that of other individuals, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services requested a reconsideration of an order that directed the disclosure of a record.

The Ministry argued that the Inquiry Officer failed to consider the application of the section 18(1)(e) exemption to the record.

The Inquiry Officer found that the failure to address the claimed exemption constituted a fundamental defect in the adjudication process, warranting reconsideration.

Upon reviewing the record, the Inquiry Officer determined that it contained the Ministry's position on items subject to negotiation with an affected party, satisfying the three-part test for exemption under section 18(1)(e).

The order was amended to deny access to the record.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to records relating to a consulting contract.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 17(1), 18(1)(f), 18(1)(g), and 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as well as the labour relations exclusion under section 65(6).

The Inquiry Officer found that certain records were excluded under section 65(6)3 as they related to labour relations matters in which the Ministry had an interest.

The Officer also upheld the application of the third-party information exemption under section 17(1) for most of the remaining records, finding they contained trade secrets and commercial information supplied in confidence.

One record was ordered disclosed as it did not meet the criteria for any claimed exemption.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Management Board Secretariat for a report investigating her management style.

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

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the records were prepared in relation to employment-related matters in which the institution had an interest, specifically its obligation to provide a safe workplace and address performance issues.

The decision to deny access was upheld as the records fell outside the scope of the Act.

The appellant, a member of the Ontario Provincial Police, requested access to his personnel records, Professional Standards Bureau records, Workers' Compensation Board records, and Long Term Disability records.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under sections 65(6)1 and 3.

The Inquiry Officer found that the WCB and disciplinary records were excluded under section 65(6)1 as they related to proceedings.

However, the personnel and LTD records were not excluded under either section 65(6)1 or 3, as they were not maintained in relation to proceedings or meetings in which the Ministry had a legal interest.

The Ministry was ordered to issue an access decision for the personnel and LTD records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Environment's decision that no responsive records existed regarding downsizing criteria, restructuring plans, and individual work plans.

The Ministry argued the records, if they existed, would be excluded under section 65(6) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as employment-related matters.

The Inquiry Officer found insufficient evidence to apply the exclusion but concluded that the Ministry's search for the records was reasonable.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant requested access to information concerning the volume of wood cut under a Ministry of Natural Resources license.

The Ministry denied access under the third party exemption in section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while the information was commercial and supplied in confidence, there was no evidence from the affected third party to establish a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to deny access to records regarding the collection of Retail Sales Tax on beverage alcohol.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 19 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that a legal opinion and portions of other records revealing its contents were exempt under section 19.

Most of the remaining records were found not to contain advice or recommendations and were ordered disclosed.

The public interest override under section 23 was found not to apply.

The appellant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of Labour for his entire file retained by the Office of the Worker Adviser.

The Ministry granted partial access, withholding three records under exemptions for advice or recommendations, law enforcement, danger to safety or health, and invasion of privacy.

The appellant appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search was reasonable.

However, the Officer determined that the records did not contain personal information of anyone other than the appellant, and that the exemptions claimed by the Ministry did not apply.

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

The appellant requested a reconsideration of Order P-1505, arguing that the records did not contain personal information, an agreement permitted disclosure, and the record was in the public domain.

The Inquiry Officer declined the request, finding that it did not fit within any of the grounds for reconsideration set out in the IPC's policy, such as a fundamental defect in the adjudication process, a jurisdictional defect, or a clerical error.

The successful bidder requested a reconsideration of Order P-1503, arguing that the Inquiry Officer erred by not considering the financial harm that would result from releasing reference checks to a competitor under section 17(1).

The Inquiry Officer declined the request, noting that the records failed the second part of the three-part test (supplied in confidence), making it unnecessary to consider the harms portion of the test.

The request did not meet any of the grounds for reconsideration set out in the IPC's policy.