IPCO 1999

The appellants requested access to their adoption file, including information regarding anonymous complaints made about their suitability as adoptive parents.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services denied access to portions of the records under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected persons' privacy.

The adjudicator found that the records contained the personal information of both the appellants and the affected persons.

Balancing the factors under section 21(2), the adjudicator concluded that the affected persons' expectation of confidentiality significantly outweighed the appellants' interest in disclosure, upholding the exemption for most of the records but ordering the disclosure of one severable record.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to Ontario Hydro for records pertaining to its exemption from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Ontario Hydro denied access, stating no responsive records existed because it was still covered by the Act at the time.

During mediation, the appellant clarified the request included successor companies.

Ontario Hydro Services Company (OHSC) argued the request was specific to Ontario Hydro and no clarification was needed.

The Commissioner found that Ontario Hydro had an obligation under section 24(2) of the Act to seek clarification before narrowly interpreting the request.

The Commissioner ordered OHSC to issue a revised access decision encompassing records relating to the successor companies.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation denying access to correspondence regarding a museum closure.

The Ministry claimed the records contained personal information of affected persons and withheld them under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the records contained personal information of both the appellant and the affected persons.

Applying sections 21 and 49(b), the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of parts of two records where consent was provided, but upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the remaining records to protect the affected persons' privacy.

The appellants requested the name of a driver involved in a motor vehicle incident from the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services.

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

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the requested information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation into a possible violation of the Highway Traffic Act, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 21(3)(b).

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Board denying access to two pages of a complaint review file concerning a veterinarian.

The Board claimed the records were exempt under the law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the records contained highly sensitive personal information about professional misconduct complaints against various veterinarians, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator also found that the records could not reasonably be severed, and upheld the Board's decision to withhold the records in their entirety.

The appellant requested access to focus group and polling reports on education-related issues from the Ministry of Education and Training.

The Ministry denied access to several records, claiming they contained advice or recommendations under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the factual results and analysis of public opinion in the focus group reports did not constitute advice or recommendations and ordered their disclosure.

However, specific sections containing strategic conclusions and suggested courses of action were found to be exempt.

The appellant's claim that a compelling public interest under section 23 required full disclosure was dismissed, as the public interest was satisfied by the disclosure of the factual results.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to Ontario Hydro for records relating to the energy consumption and billing of a property she had purchased, following a dispute with the previous owners who reclaimed the property.

Hydro denied access to portions of the records under the personal privacy exemption.

The adjudicator found that the records contained the personal information of both the appellant and the previous owners.

However, because the previous owners had already provided the appellant with copies of some of the hydro bills in the context of their dispute, applying the privacy exemption to withhold those same records would lead to an 'absurd result'.

Hydro was ordered to disclose the portions of the records that related to the time period the appellant was in possession of the property.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Management Board of Cabinet for copies of all bids tendered for a specific project.

The institution granted partial access but withheld the names of proposed subcontractors under the third party information exemption in section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the denial of access.

The adjudicator found that while the subcontractor names constituted commercial information, they were not supplied in confidence and there was no detailed and convincing evidence of a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure.

The institution was ordered to disclose the subcontractor names to the appellant.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision regarding a freedom of information request for records related to the Physician Services Committee's recommendations on travel medicine immunizations.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the labour relations exclusion in section 65(6)3 did not apply because there is no employer-employee relationship between the Government and physicians.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's fee estimate and its application of solicitor-client privilege to several records.

However, the Ministry's claims for exemptions under Cabinet records, advice or recommendations, third party information, and economic interests were partially or fully rejected for various records.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose certain records and to conduct a further search for additional responsive records.

The appellant, a law firm representing the estate of a deceased individual, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to three witness statements related to a fatal motor vehicle accident.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under sections 21 and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 21(3)(b).

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for records relating to a church fire.

The Ministry denied access, citing law enforcement exemptions, as the Ontario Fire Marshal and Toronto Police Service were conducting an ongoing investigation into the fire, which was linked to a homicide.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records fell within the definition of 'law enforcement' and that their disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with the ongoing police investigation.

The appellant requested access to audit records from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The Ministry denied access to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board audit, claiming it was excluded under section 65(6)3 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as an employment-related matter in which the Board had a legal interest.

The adjudicator found that while the records related to employment matters, the Board failed to establish a reasonable prospect that its legal interest would be engaged, as the employee had resigned over two years prior and there was no ongoing dispute.

The records were found to be subject to the Act, and the Board was ordered to issue an access decision.

An heir tracer appealed the decision of the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee to deny access to a record indicating whether a specific escheated estate remained solvent or had been claimed.

The PGT claimed the personal privacy exemption under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the record contained personal information, its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, given the diminished privacy interest of the deceased and the public interest in assisting unknown heirs to recover funds.

The PGT was ordered to disclose the record, severed of the deceased's Social Insurance Number and any financial information.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to Ontario Hydro for copies of agreements relating to water rights over the Niagara River.

Ontario Hydro identified 18 responsive agreements and denied access to them under sections 17 and 18 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

During mediation and inquiry, objections to the disclosure of several records were withdrawn.

The adjudicator found that the remaining records qualified for exemption under section 18(1)(d) of the Act, as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the financial interests of the Government of Ontario, given the impending competitive electricity market and Ontario Hydro's required divestiture of generating assets.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester, representing the family of a deceased 17-year-old who drowned in the Niagara River, appealed the Niagara Parks Commission's decision to deny access to police investigation records under the personal privacy exemption of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumed unjustified invasion of privacy under section 21(3)(b).

The Assistant Commissioner also discussed the application of stare decisis to administrative tribunals regarding the Divisional Court's decision in John Doe, but ultimately concluded that even if the presumption were rebuttable, the factors favouring disclosure did not outweigh the privacy interests.

The Commission was ordered to disclose only the information originally provided by the deceased's sister, as withholding it would lead to an absurd result.

The appellant appealed the institution's decision to deny access to records relating to a search warrant execution and charges under the Liquor Licence Act.

The institution claimed the records were exempt under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (solicitor-client privilege).

The Adjudicator found that the records, which included communications between the institution and its legal counsel, lawyers' bills of account, and internal legal notes, were subject to common law solicitor-client privilege and litigation privilege.

The institution's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of Finance for a copy of the legal position used to authorize the destruction of an Impact Study.

The Ministry advised that no such records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing the search was inadequate.

The adjudicator found that the Ministry's search, supported by an affidavit from Senior Counsel explaining why no such legal provision existed, was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ministry of the Environment received a freedom of information request for records relating to contamination on a company's property.

The company appealed the Ministry's refusal to provide third-party notification for certain additional records.

Following an earlier interim order, the company consented to the full or partial disclosure of several records.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the Ministry to disclose the records in accordance with the company's consent, with the remaining records to be addressed in a subsequent order.

The appellant requested access to a report prepared by the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council regarding the regulation of naturopathy.

The Ministry of Health denied access, claiming exemptions under sections 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 18(1)(g) (economic interests) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that while the report contained advice or recommendations, it fell within the exception in section 13(2)(k) for reports of a body attached to an institution.

The adjudicator also found that section 18(1)(g) did not apply because no policy decision had yet been reached.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record in its entirety.

The appellant sought access to records relating to an OPP investigation of a public complaint made by her husband against two police officers.

The Ministry denied access under various exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the records contained personal information and were compiled during a law enforcement investigation, applying the exemptions to records originally provided by or to the appellant and her husband would lead to an absurd result.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the portions of the records that fell under the absurd result exception, with the disclosure stayed pending a related judicial review.