IPCO 1999

A member of the media made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Environment for records relating to abatement efforts concerning a company's coke oven emissions.

The Ministry decided to grant partial access.

The company appealed, arguing that certain records were exempt under the third party information exemption in section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that a portion of one record was not responsive to the request.

Applying the three-part test for section 17(1), the adjudicator determined that four records contained technical or commercial information supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the company's competitive position or contractual negotiations.

These records were ordered withheld.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision to disclose the remaining records, finding they did not meet the requirements for exemption.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Environment for records relating to a complaint that his company was pumping water in contravention of the Ontario Water Resources Act.

The Ministry withheld the complainant's name under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the non-disclosure violated his section 7 Charter rights to know his accuser.

The Adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the complainant's name was personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Adjudicator also held that the right to disclosure under section 7 of the Charter does not apply to freedom of information requests, and that informer privilege protects the complainant's identity.

Ontario Hydro received a freedom of information request for records pertaining to a named individual and his corporate entities.

Following Hydro's restructuring into Ontario Power Generation Company (OPGC), the Information and Privacy Commissioner determined it retained jurisdiction over the ongoing request pursuant to a Transfer Order.

The Assistant Commissioner found that a draft communication strategy was exempt under section 18(1)(c) (economic interests).

Portions of invoices and correspondence containing the names, billing rates, and billed times of the third party and his employees were found to be exempt personal information under section 21(1).

However, the remaining corporate and financial information did not qualify for exemption under section 17(1) (third party information) because it was not supplied in confidence and no reasonable expectation of harm was established.

The public interest override in section 23 did not apply to the exempt information.

OPGC was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the records.

The appellant, an inmate in a maximum secure institution, requested information from the Ministry of Health regarding payments to lawyers.

The Ministry assessed a fee of $405.

The appellant requested a fee waiver based on financial hardship but refused to provide detailed financial records.

The Ministry denied the fee waiver.

The Adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the appellant failed to provide adequate evidence of his total financial position to discharge the burden of proof for financial hardship, and that dissemination of the records would not benefit public health or safety.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's fee estimate of $985 for responding to a freedom of information request regarding the Canadian Blood Information System.

The Ministry's estimate included search, preparation, and photocopying costs for records located in the Negotiations Secretariat and the Public Health Branch.

The adjudicator found the Ministry's search time estimate for the Negotiations Secretariat to be excessive and reduced it, while upholding the remaining estimates.

The total fee estimate was revised to $940.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to records relating to his complaint about a doctor fraudulently over-billing OHIP.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 14(1)(d) (law enforcement) and 21 (invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The adjudicator also held that applying the law enforcement and privacy exemptions to the appellant's own complaint would lead to an absurd result, ordering its disclosure along with a general Ministry bulletin.

The remaining records were found to be exempt under section 21 as they were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Health Insurance Act.

The appellant appealed a 10-month time extension claimed by Ontario Hydro to respond to a freedom of information request regarding nuclear operations.

Hydro argued the extension was necessary due to a large number of records and a heavy workload for the responsible staff member.

The adjudicator found that while the request involved a large number of records, meeting the 30-day time limit would not unreasonably interfere with Hydro's operations, as the estimated processing time was only 28 hours.

The time extension was deemed unreasonable, and Hydro was ordered to issue an access decision by a specified date.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to portions of records relating to a land use permit for a cottage on a road allowance.

The Ministry severed names, signatures, and other identifying information under the personal privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the severed information constituted personal information and that its disclosure would result in an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant appealed a decision by Ontario Hydro to disclose records relating to a contract for financial advisory services.

The appellant claimed the records, including a transaction fee schedule and a purchase order, were exempt from disclosure under sections 17(1)(a) and (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third party commercial and financial information.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the purchase order was responsive to the request.

Furthermore, the Assistant Commissioner determined that the financial information in the records was the result of negotiations between the parties and was not 'supplied' in confidence.

As the second part of the section 17(1) test was not met, the records did not qualify for the exemption and were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Natural Resources for records relating to a tender for the construction of an amphitheatre.

The Ministry denied access to the successful bidder's bid submissions and deposits, claiming the third party information exemption under section 17(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the adjudicator found that the records did not meet the three-part test for exemption, as there was no reasonable expectation of confidentiality for the publicly read bid prices, and no evidence that disclosure would prejudice the third party's competitive position.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Health seeking documentation regarding the spending of government money on the lease of a named independent health facility.

The Ministry denied access to five responsive financial records under the third party information exemption in section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner found that while the detailed breakdown of funding arrangements and specific operating costs qualified for exemption under sections 17(1)(a) and (c) due to potential competitive harm and security concerns, the overall funding levels did not.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the overall funding levels.

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

The Ministry provided third party notice to the company for 17 records but refused to provide notice for additional records it intended to disclose.

The company appealed the refusal to provide notice.

The Assistant Commissioner held that the refusal to provide notice is an appealable decision under the Act.

The Assistant Commissioner further found that the Ministry had reason to believe the additional records might contain exempt third party information and therefore failed to fulfil its notification obligations under section 28(1)(a).

The Ministry was ordered to disclose records not requiring notice, while a supplementary notice of inquiry was issued for the remaining records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Community and Social Services for records relating to a job competition, including interview questions, answers, and seniority dates.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(6)3 as employment-related matters in which the Ministry had an interest.

The adjudicator found that while the records related to an employment matter, the Ministry failed to establish a reasonable prospect that its legal interests would be engaged, as there were no active human rights complaints or relevant grievances.

The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to issue an access decision under the Act.

The appellant appealed the LCBO's decision to deny access to records relating to a named winery's application to relocate its retail store.

The LCBO claimed exemptions under sections 13(1), 17(1), and 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that several records were exempt under solicitor-client privilege and the third-party commercial information exemption.

However, the Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of certain records that did not qualify as advice or recommendations or confidential third-party information.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for OPP investigation records relating to a fatal motor vehicle accident involving his son.

The Ministry denied access to several witness statements and police notes, citing personal privacy exemptions, and withheld police 'ten-codes' under the law enforcement exemption.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the personal information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and its disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b) of the Act.

The Commissioner also upheld the exemption of the ten-codes under section 14(1)(l), as their release could compromise police communications and officer safety.

The appellant requested records relating to a job competition for a Legal Counsel position with the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The Ministry 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 because the job competition was completed and all dispute resolution avenues were exhausted, the Ministry no longer had a legal interest in the records.

The records were found to be within the scope of the Act and ordered disclosed.

The requester appealed a deemed refusal by the Ministry of Health to provide a decision on an access request for an audit report.

The Ministry failed to issue a decision within the statutory 30-day period and missed a subsequent agreed-upon deadline.

During mediation, the Ministry initiated third-party notification, further delaying the process.

Given the lengthy delays, the adjudicator ordered the Ministry to issue a final decision on access by June 23, 1999, without recourse to further time extensions.

The appellant appealed a deemed refusal by the Ministry of Health to provide access to records relating to the withdrawal of doctors' services.

The Ministry failed to issue a final decision within the 30-day statutory time limit and did not request a time extension.

The Ministry subsequently initiated third-party notification for 14 remaining records 16 months late.

Given the extreme delay, the adjudicator ordered the Ministry to issue a final decision on access to the remaining 14 records by June 11, 1999, without recourse to a time extension.

The appellant requested access to various manuals used by the Centre for Forensic Sciences.

The Ministry granted partial access and charged search and photocopying fees.

The appellant argued the manuals should be available in a public reading room under sections 33 and 35 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, precluding search fees.

The Assistant Commissioner found the manuals met the criteria for public availability and ordered them placed in a reading room, ruling that search and preparation fees cannot be charged for such records.

The Ministry's exemption claims under sections 14(1)(l) and 14(1)(i) were largely rejected, though specific explosives testing procedures and personal information were exempted.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to records relating to a birth registration under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 19 (solicitor-client privilege) and 49(b) (invasion of privacy).

The Adjudicator found that while most records were protected by solicitor-client privilege, the Ministry had waived privilege over certain correspondence by disclosing it to outside parties.

The Adjudicator also found that disclosure of some records would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy, while others would not.

The appellant's request for continuing access under section 24(3) was denied because the records were not of a type produced in a series.

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