IPCO 1999

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Health for records relating to a proposed regulation.

The Ministry failed to issue a decision letter within the 30-day statutory timeframe, placing itself in a deemed refusal situation.

Despite assurances during the inquiry process, the Ministry still did not issue a decision.

The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to provide the appellant with a decision on access to the records by a specified date.

The appellant, who was found by the courts to have a 50% interest in a winning lottery ticket, requested to view the original ticket under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ontario Lottery Corporation denied the request, citing security concerns and the privacy of the other 50% owner whose personal information was on the ticket.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered the OLC to allow the appellant to view the original ticket, finding that the privacy exemption did not apply because the appellant already knew the information, and that viewing the original ticket was reasonably practicable with appropriate security measures.

The appellant requested records relating to the Report of the Ontario Justice of the Peace Remuneration Commission.

The Management Board Secretariat denied access to the records, claiming exemptions under sections 12(1) and 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that most of the records were exempt under section 12(1) as their disclosure would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

Portions of other records were found exempt under section 13(1) as advice or recommendations.

The Assistant Commissioner rejected the appellant's arguments that the public interest override in section 23 applied, and that section 11(d) of the Charter required disclosure to ensure judicial independence.

The institution was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the records, subject to a stay pending a judicial review on a jurisdictional issue.

The appellant requested records relating to the Report of the Ontario Justice of the Peace Remuneration Commission.

The Ministry denied access to the records, claiming exemptions for Cabinet records, advice or recommendations, and solicitor-client privilege.

The Assistant Commissioner found that most of the records were exempt under the claimed provisions.

The Assistant Commissioner also determined that the public interest override did not apply to the records exempt under the advice or recommendations provision, and that the constitutional requirement to ensure judicial independence under section 11(d) of the Charter did not mandate disclosure of the records under the Act.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records, subject to a stay pending judicial review.

The appellant requested access to performance appraisal notes and forms under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

In a previous order, the Commissioner found that section 65(6)3 did not apply because there was no ongoing grievance, and ordered a further search.

The Ministry subsequently denied access, claiming the records did not exist.

After the appellant filed a grievance, the Ministry argued the records were now excluded under section 65(6)3.

The Commissioner rejected the appellant's argument that issue estoppel prevented reconsideration of the jurisdictional issue, finding that the new grievance constituted a special circumstance.

The Commissioner concluded that the records, if they exist, relate to an employment-related matter in which the Ministry has an interest due to the ongoing grievance, and are therefore excluded from the Act's jurisdiction.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to a shareholders' agreement of a forest management company under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The agreement was submitted to the Ministry to obtain a Sustainable Forest Licence under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the agreement contained commercial and financial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the competitive position or interfere with the contractual negotiations of the affected party.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Environment's decision to deny access to records relating to the Red Tape Commission under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 12(1) as Cabinet records.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Red Tape Commission performs an integral role in the Cabinet decision-making process and that disclosure of the records would reveal the substance of deliberations of Cabinet or its committees.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant sought access to records from the Cabinet Office regarding the Red Tape Commission's communications with the Ministry of the Environment.

The Cabinet Office denied access to several records, claiming exemptions under sections 12(1) and 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Red Tape Commission plays an integral role in the Cabinet decision-making process.

Consequently, the records qualify for exemption under the introductory wording of section 12(1), as their disclosure would reveal the substance of deliberations of the Executive Council or its committees.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed a deemed refusal by the Ministry of Health to provide access to records regarding claims for out-of-province gamma knife procedures.

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 and did not request a time extension.

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

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's deemed refusal to issue a decision regarding a request for the amount of legal fees incurred by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan.

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 requester without recourse to a time extension.

The appellant requested access to a Ministry of Labour investigation report regarding a fatal industrial accident.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the report, witness statements, and investigator notes under the personal information exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, triggering the presumption against disclosure in section 21(3)(b).

The adjudicator also found that the appellant's regulatory mandate did not establish a compelling public interest under section 23 that would outweigh the privacy exemption.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for access to his personal information and complaints made against him by a named individual.

The Ministry denied access, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the requested police reports contained the personal information of both the appellant and the affected person.

The Adjudicator concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's privacy, as the records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption under section 21(3)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for records relating to an investigation of a housing authority tenant.

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

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained highly sensitive financial and employment information of the tenant and his spouse, the disclosure of which would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

A requester sought access to site evaluation reports and Certificates of Approval for various sites from the Ministry of the Environment.

The Ministry decided to disclose the records, but a third-party engineering company appealed, arguing the records contained trade secrets and technical information supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which would prejudice its competitive position under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that while the records contained technical information supplied in confidence, the company failed to establish a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure, noting that much of the information was already publicly available or routinely disclosed.

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

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to criminal charges against him, including the Crown brief, witness statements, and police notes.

The Adjudicator found that certain records containing the personal information of the victim and other individuals were exempt from disclosure as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under sections 21 and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, the Adjudicator rejected the Ministry's claim that the remaining records were exempt under the solicitor-client and litigation privilege in section 19, finding that the privilege had expired with the termination of the litigation, did not apply to communications with opposing parties, or had been waived.

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

The appellant appealed a decision of the Pension Commission of Ontario regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to the drafting of an amendment to Regulation 909 under the Pension Benefits Act, and records identifying individuals who accessed a specific pension plan.

The adjudicator upheld the Commission's fee estimate and found that several records were exempt under solicitor-client communication privilege, as they were confidential communications made for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice.

Portions of other records were found exempt under the cabinet records exemption because they revealed the content of draft regulations.

However, the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of the name and organization of a union representative on a plan viewing form, finding that this information related to the individual's representative capacity and did not qualify as personal information.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate and a 'no responsive records' decision issued by the Ontario Human Rights Commission in response to a request for statistical and policy information regarding the Commission's use of section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The adjudicator found that the Commission's fee estimate for preparing records for disclosure was too high, reducing the time estimate from two minutes to one minute per page, and ordered a revised fee estimate.

The adjudicator upheld the Commission's decision that it had conducted a reasonable search for the requested policy records.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Finance for records relating to a company's compliance with the Corporations Tax Act and the discontinuation of a Business Corporations Act proceeding.

The Ministry denied access to certain computer printouts under the tax information exemption in section 17(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator upheld the exemption, finding the records contained information obtained on a tax return or gathered to determine tax liability.

The adjudicator also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply and that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation received a freedom of information request for records relating to funding provided to the Eelam Thamil Information Centre (ETHIC).

The Ministry decided to grant partial access to the records.

ETHIC appealed the decision, arguing the records contained confidential financial information.

The adjudicator found that ETHIC failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence to satisfy the three-part test under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, specifically failing to prove the information was supplied in confidence or that disclosure would cause a reasonable expectation of harm.

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

The appellant, a Correctional Officer, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to a workplace investigation into allegations against him.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 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 factors favouring privacy protection, including the highly sensitive nature of the information and the expectation of confidentiality, outweighed the factors favouring disclosure.

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

The appeal was dismissed.