IPCO 1998

The appellant sought access to an intake form completed by his former spouse and filed with the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The Ministry denied access under sections 19, 21(1), 49(a), and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that certain factual information about the child and the appellant's own personal information must be disclosed, as disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy and the information was not subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The Ministry's decision to deny access to the remaining highly sensitive personal information of the former spouse was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Health.

The Ministry failed to issue a decision letter within the 30-day period prescribed by section 26 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, nor did it request a time extension under section 27(1).

Consequently, the Ministry was in a deemed refusal situation pursuant to section 29(4).

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

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of the Attorney General denying access to a one-page letter from his former spouse's lawyer to the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The Ministry claimed the record was exempt under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the record contained only the personal information of the former spouse relating to her eligibility for social services or welfare benefits.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, concluding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(c) of the Act.

A requester sought access to inspection reports for an overseas private school from the Ministry of Education and Training.

The Ministry decided to disclose the records, and the school appealed, arguing the records contained trade secrets, commercial, financial, and labour relations information supplied in confidence under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that the records did not contain such information, were not supplied in confidence, and their disclosure could not reasonably be expected to cause the harms specified in section 17(1).

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

The appellant appealed GO Transit's decision to deny access to portions of a response to a Request for Quotation for translation services.

The affected party and GO Transit claimed the records were exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that the undisclosed information, which included pricing, marketing methods, and service delivery details, qualified as commercial and technical information supplied in confidence.

The Adjudicator concluded that disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the affected party's competitive position, and upheld the decision to deny access.

The appellant mailed an appeal of a freedom of information decision to the Information and Privacy Commissioner within the 30-day statutory period, but it was delayed in the mail and received after the period expired.

The institution argued the appeal was out of time.

The Adjudicator held that the effective date for making an appeal under section 50(2) of the Act is the date of mailing, not the date of receipt.

The institution's objection to timeliness was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Management Board Secretariat for copies of two property management contracts between the Ontario Realty Corporation and a third-party company.

The company objected to disclosure, and the institution denied access under the third-party information exemptions in sections 17(1)(a) and (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the contracts contained commercial and financial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the company's competitive position.

The adjudicator upheld the decision to withhold the bulk of the records, but ordered the disclosure of the Request for Proposals portion, which did not meet the exemption criteria.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Education and Training's decision to deny access to records relating to the approval of a registered massage therapy program at a private vocational school.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under section 17(1) (third party information) and section 21(1) (invasion of privacy).

The adjudicator found that certain records contained the personal information of consultants and were exempt under section 21(1).

The adjudicator also found that portions of the records constituted trade secrets of the school and were exempt under section 17(1), as they were supplied in confidence and their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the school's competitive position.

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

The affected party requested a reconsideration of Order P-1609, arguing that Record 21 fell outside the timeframe of the original freedom of information request and was therefore not responsive.

The Adjudicator found that failing to address the responsiveness of Record 21 in the original order constituted a jurisdictional defect, warranting reconsideration.

Upon reconsideration, the Adjudicator determined that Record 21 was attached to correspondence within the requested timeframe and was therefore responsive.

The Adjudicator also found no error in the original decision that Record 21 was not exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and ordered its disclosure.

The appellant sought access to records maintained by the Ministry of Community and Social Services relating to three agencies operating group homes.

The Ministry and the affected agencies claimed exemptions under sections 17(1) (third party information) and 21(1) (personal information) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that certain records contained personal information requiring severance.

Applying the three-part test for section 17(1), the adjudicator determined that some records contained labour relations information supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice ongoing negotiations, and were thus exempt under section 17(1)(a).

The remaining records did not meet the test and were ordered disclosed.

The adjudicator also found the Ministry's search for records to be reasonable.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's search for records relating to the Emergency Planning for Aboriginal Issues Interministerial Committee and Ipperwash Provincial Park.

In an interim order, the adjudicator found the initial search unreasonable and ordered the Ministry to conduct further searches and provide affidavits detailing the search efforts and record management practices.

The Ministry provided the affidavits and located additional responsive records.

The adjudicator found the Ministry's subsequent search efforts and explanations regarding electronic records satisfactory, but determined the Ministry took an overly restrictive approach by excluding 23 records dated within the requested timeframe simply because the named individual's name did not appear on the face of the record.

The Ministry was ordered to issue an access decision for those 23 records.

The requester appealed the Ontario Insurance Commission's decision to deny access to records relating to an investigation of an insurance agent.

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

The adjudicator found that some records were exempt as law enforcement reports under section 14(2)(a) and others were protected by solicitor-client privilege under section 19.

However, the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of several records that did not meet the requirements for the law enforcement exemptions claimed.

The adjudicator also upheld the OIC's decision to withhold personal information of third parties under section 21(1).

The appellant requested access to letters sent to the Ministry of Education and Training by the former Chair of Le College des Grands Lacs regarding alleged financial irregularities.

The Ministry denied access under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Adjudicator found that while the records contained highly sensitive personal information supplied in confidence, fairness demanded that the individuals complained against be given disclosure of the substance of the allegations to respond to them.

The Adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to Mohawk College for records relating to grievance and arbitration costs.

The College issued a revised fee estimate of $341 for search time, based on the $55 hourly rate charged by its external law firm whose articling students conducted the search.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate.

The Adjudicator upheld the fee estimate, finding that the College was permitted to recoup costs specified in an invoice from the law firm, and ordered the College to issue an access decision on the remaining items for which fees were waived.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' response to a Freedom of Information request for his entire family benefits file, arguing that additional notes to file should exist.

The adjudicator found that the Ministry had conducted a reasonable search for the requested records, supported by declarations from employees and the social worker.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, an individual against whom allegations of abuse were made, requested access to compensation applications filed by victims of abuse at the St. John's Training School.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Adjudicator upheld the denial for records containing personal information, finding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the victims' personal privacy.

However, the Adjudicator ordered the disclosure of certain application form pages that did not contain personal information, as the law enforcement exemption no longer applied.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee for records relating to his wife's life, health care, and property, acting as her attorney for property and personal care.

The Trustee denied access to 16 pages, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, solicitor-client privilege, and danger to health.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of most records, finding that administrative checklists do not constitute advice, external correspondence is not covered by solicitor-client or litigation privilege, and there was insufficient evidence that disclosing a financial statement would prejudice anyone's health.

However, internal communications between the Trustee's staff and legal counsel were found to be exempt under solicitor-client communication privilege.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of the Environment regarding a freedom of information request, arguing that additional responsive records should exist.

The adjudicator reviewed the Ministry's search efforts, which included multiple searches of district files and consultations with relevant staff.

The adjudicator concluded that the Ministry had made a reasonable effort to identify and locate records responsive to the request and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Environment for records relating to environmental concerns at a specific property.

The Ministry disclosed approximately 300 pages but withheld four pages under section 19 of the Act, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The appellant appealed, alleging that the Ministry failed to conduct an adequate search and had tampered with the records.

The adjudicator found the Ministry's search was reasonable and dismissed that portion of the appeal.

Regarding the withheld records, the adjudicator upheld the section 19 exemption for two records containing legal advice and communications for litigation, but ordered the disclosure of the remaining two records, finding them to be purely informational.

A non-profit environmental coalition appealed the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation's decision to deny access to two archaeological assessment reports related to timber management planning.

The Ministry and affected third parties claimed the records were exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as scientific and technical information supplied in confidence.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records met the three-part test for exemption under section 17(1)(b), as disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in similar information no longer being supplied to the Ministry.

The appellant failed to establish a compelling public interest in disclosure under section 23.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.