IPCO 1998

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Education and Training's deemed refusal to provide access to records relating to a school capital grant request.

The Ministry failed to issue a decision within the 30-day period prescribed by section 26 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and did not request a time extension.

The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to issue a decision letter to the appellant by a specified date without recourse to a time extension.

The appellant requested access to police investigation records relating to the murder of her brother by an individual who subsequently committed suicide.

The Ministry denied access to medical and psychological assessment records of the perpetrator under the personal privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the records contained highly sensitive medical information compiled during a criminal investigation, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator also held that the appellant's desire to use the records for a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons did not constitute a compelling public interest under section 23.

The Ministry's decision was upheld, save for five pages containing no personal information.

The appellant, a member of the media, appealed the Ontario Casino Corporation's decision to deny access to a settlement agreement regarding a cancelled teletheatre at the Windsor Casino.

The Corporation claimed exemptions under section 18(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing disclosure would prejudice its economic interests and competitive position in ongoing negotiations for a third casino complex.

The adjudicator upheld the Corporation's decision, finding that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice its economic interests and that the appellant failed to establish a compelling public interest under section 23 that would override the exemption.

A requester sought access to correspondence and submissions from a named tourist organization to the Ministry of Natural Resources.

The Ministry granted partial access, and the third party appealed, arguing the records were exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that only a portion of one record contained commercial information supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to result in similar information no longer being supplied.

The Ministry was ordered to withhold that portion and disclose the remaining records.

The appellant requested bulk access to a database containing information on all physicians in Ontario from the Ministry of Health.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records contained personal information and disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that while individual physician information is publicly available through the College of Physicians and Surgeons, bulk disclosure by the Ministry raises different privacy concerns and would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The appellant's claim of a compelling public interest under section 23 was also dismissed.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to the Inter-ministerial Committee for Aboriginal Emergencies and the Ipperwash Provincial Park occupation.

The sole remaining issue was whether two pages of draft statements to be read in court were exempt under section 19 of the Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that litigation privilege had expired because the injunction application was withdrawn in 1995 and current litigation did not arise from the same subject matter.

Furthermore, the records did not qualify for solicitor-client communication privilege as they were read in court and did not constitute legal advice.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to the Interministerial Committee for Aboriginal Emergencies and the Core Working Group.

The Assistant Commissioner considered whether the records were exempt under the litigation privilege and solicitor-client communication privilege in section 19, and the personal privacy exemption in section 21(1).

The Assistant Commissioner found that litigation privilege did not apply as the specific litigation had terminated and ongoing litigation did not arise from the same subject matter.

However, some records qualified for solicitor-client communication privilege.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that certain information qualified as personal information and was exempt under section 21(1).

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

The appellant sought access to records relating to the Emergency Planning for Aboriginal Issues Interministerial Committee and Ipperwash Provincial Park.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to certain records, claiming solicitor-client and litigation privilege under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that litigation privilege no longer applied because the specific litigation (an injunction application) had been terminated and ongoing litigation did not arise from the same subject matter.

However, the Commissioner upheld the application of solicitor-client communication privilege for certain legal opinions and advice, while ordering the disclosure of draft court documents and factual information that did not reveal confidential communications.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Natural Resources for records relating to the settlement of litigation involving a named individual, the Village of Grand Bend, and the province.

The Ministry denied access to numerous records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, solicitor-client privilege, third party information, and personal privacy.

The adjudicator refused to allow the Ministry to raise a late discretionary exemption claim.

Upon reviewing the records, the adjudicator upheld the application of the exemptions to some records but ordered the disclosure of others, finding that the public interest override did not apply.

The appellant, an OPP officer, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to certain pages of a brief prepared during an investigation into his activities.

The adjudicator found that the remaining pages at issue did not contain the appellant's personal information, but rather the personal information of other identifiable individuals.

The adjudicator concluded that the records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of records relating to provincial involvement in a federal investment in a cancer vaccine project.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13, 15, and 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that some severed portions were not responsive to the request.

Most of the remaining records qualified for exemption under section 17(1) as third party commercial or financial information supplied in confidence, or under section 15(b) as information received in confidence from another government.

However, the Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of certain records and portions of records that did not meet the exemption criteria.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $745 issued by the Ministry of Education and Training for processing a freedom of information request related to the provincial funding formula for public education.

The adjudicator found that the fee estimate for preparation, photocopying, and shipping was calculated in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and its regulations.

The adjudicator also noted that the issue of a fee waiver was premature as the appellant had not yet requested one from the Ministry.

The fee estimate was upheld.

The appellant, an unsuccessful candidate for a Legal Counsel position, requested access to job competition records, including interview questions, model answers, and interviewers' notes.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6)3 as employment-related matters in which the Ministry had an interest.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the records related to an employment matter, the Ministry no longer had a legal interest in the completed competition that could affect its legal rights or obligations.

The records were therefore subject to the Act.

The Ministry was ordered to issue an access decision and conduct a further search for additional responsive records.

The requester sought access to records related to an application for a permit under the Aggregate Resources Act to operate a pit.

The Ministry of Natural Resources decided to grant partial access, withholding identifying information of community members under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The applicant's owner appealed, objecting to the disclosure of the records under sections 17(1) and 21(1).

The Adjudicator found that the records did not contain personal information of the appellant and did not meet the three-part test for the third party information exemption under section 17(1).

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

The appellant appealed the Liquor Control Board of Ontario's decision to deny access to a letter written by the owner of a rural liquor agency regarding the appellant.

The LCBO denied access under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the record contained personal information of both the appellant and affected persons, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 49(b).

The adjudicator upheld the LCBO's decision to deny access.

The appellant requested access to an Eligibility Review Officer's file regarding an investigation into her entitlement to family benefits assistance.

The Ministry denied access under the law enforcement exemption.

The Adjudicator found that while the investigation qualified as law enforcement, it was completed, and the Ministry failed to show how disclosure would interfere with it.

However, the records contained personal information of other individuals, and their disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Adjudicator ordered the disclosure of only those records containing information originally supplied by the appellant, applying the 'absurd result' principle, and upheld the exemption for the remaining records.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Management Board of Cabinet to deny access to records relating to the privatization of services provided by the Ontario Realty Corporation.

The Board claimed the records were exempt under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as cabinet records.

The Adjudicator restated the test for section 12(1)(c) and found that all the records at issue qualified for exemption under sections 12(1)(a), (b), (c), or the introductory wording of section 12(1).

The decision of the Board was upheld.

A Board of Education appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to the criminal investigation and trial of a former teacher convicted of sexual assault.

The Board sought the records to defend itself in civil actions arising from the assaults.

The Adjudicator found that the records contained personal information and that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the teacher and the victims under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as the Board's interest in the records was purely private.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose three press releases, but its decision to withhold the remaining records was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to various records relating to the Ipperwash incident under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that some records were exempt under solicitor-client privilege, Cabinet records, advice or recommendations, relations with other governments, and personal privacy.

However, the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of several records, finding that the public interest override applied to the advice or recommendations exemption, and that the third party information and economic interests exemptions did not apply.

The Ministry was also ordered to conduct a further search for responsive records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to police occurrence reports and a public complaint file.

The Ministry claimed the public complaint file was excluded from the Act under section 65(6) as an employment-related matter.

The Assistant Commissioner found that section 65(6) did not apply because the investigation occurred six years prior and there was no ongoing legal interest or anticipated proceeding.

Regarding the occurrence reports, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the law enforcement exemption because the records were not 'reports'.

However, some personal information of other individuals was exempt under the invasion of privacy exemption, while information originally supplied by the appellant was ordered disclosed to avoid an absurd result.