IPCO 1999

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for information regarding the ranks and educational levels of former municipal Chiefs of Police who joined the Ontario Provincial Police following police service amalgamations.

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.

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner found that while the records related to an employment-related matter, the Ministry failed to establish a sufficient legal interest, as there was no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable dispute that had the capacity to affect the Ministry's legal rights or obligations.

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

The appellant appealed a decision by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying full access to records relating to an affected person's application for compensation arising from an alleged sexual assault.

The adjudicator found that the records contained highly sensitive personal information of both the appellant and the affected person.

The adjudicator upheld the Board's decision to withhold most of the information under the personal privacy exemption, but ordered the disclosure of one letter granting a time extension, excluding the affected person's address.

The adjudicator also found that the Board erred by failing to notify the affected person before disclosing portions of the records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for records held by the Ontario Provincial Police, specifically referencing the Criminal Investigation Department, Biker Squad, and Investigation Support Bureau.

The Ministry refused to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records pursuant to section 14(3) of the Act.

On appeal, the adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records, if they existed, would qualify for exemption under the law enforcement provisions, and that disclosing the mere existence of such records would convey information that could compromise the effectiveness of a law enforcement activity.

The appellant submitted a multi-part request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of Finance for records relating to property assessment complaints and compliance with various orders.

The Ministry denied access to certain sales data under section 22(a) on the basis that it was publicly available for purchase, and stated no further records existed for other parts of the request.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that certain parts of the request were questions rather than requests for records, the Ministry's search for records was reasonable, and the sales data was exempt under section 22(a) as it was available through a regularized system of access.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to police records relating to sexual assault allegations against her deceased husband.

The appellant argued she was entitled to the records as the executrix of his estate under section 66(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the request did not relate to the administration of the estate, as the records contained no financial information.

The adjudicator further held that the records contained the personal information of the alleged victims and witnesses, and their disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b) because they were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Environment and Energy's decision to deny access to a document entitled 'Operations Division - Delivery Strategy'.

The Ministry claimed the record was exempt under the law enforcement exemption in section 14(1)(c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that the record contained detailed methodologies for investigators and enforcement staff, the disclosure of which would reveal investigative techniques and hinder the Ministry's ability to enforce environmental laws.

The Adjudicator also found that the public interest override in section 23 does not apply to section 14(1)(c).

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to deny access to records relating to pay equity funding and redistribution.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, primarily arguing the records would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations (section 12(1)).

The Assistant Commissioner refused to allow the Ministry to raise a new discretionary exemption late in the process.

Most of the records were found to be exempt under section 12(1) as they were Cabinet submissions, drafts, or contained information that would reveal Cabinet deliberations.

However, one record and several fax transmittal sheets were ordered disclosed as they did not qualify for the exemption.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to the 1992 fire bombing of an abortion clinic.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the law enforcement provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that the records related to an ongoing law enforcement investigation and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with the investigation.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Education and Training for records relating to a specific job competition.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Act under section 65(6)3.

The adjudicator found that the records were collected in relation to an employment-related matter in which the Ministry had an ongoing legal interest, as the appellant had expressed continued dissatisfaction, had an outstanding grievance, and might pursue a human rights complaint.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, concluding the records were excluded from the Act.

The complainant, a teacher on medical leave, filed a privacy complaint after the College's Human Resources Manager accessed his medical file under threat of termination.

The College argued the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6)1 because they were maintained in relation to ongoing and anticipated proceedings, including grievances and a human rights complaint.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were collected, maintained, and used in relation to labour relations and employment-related proceedings.

Consequently, the records fell within the section 65(6)1 exclusion and were outside the Commissioner's jurisdiction.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) for records relating to himself and six corporations.

The OSC denied access to certain records, citing various exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) and the Securities Act.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Adjudicator determined that the attachments at issue were obtained pursuant to an investigation order under section 11 of the Securities Act.

As a result, section 16 of the Securities Act applied, which prevails over the Act pursuant to section 67(2).

The Adjudicator upheld the OSC's decision to withhold the attachments and ordered the OSC to issue a formal decision letter regarding the remaining attachments.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) denying access to records relating to himself and six corporations compiled during OSC investigations.

The OSC claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for advice or recommendations, law enforcement, relations with other governments, and invasion of privacy.

The adjudicator ordered the OSC to produce certain withheld attachments to determine if they fell outside the Act's jurisdiction due to the Securities Act.

The adjudicator also found that some records were exempt as personal information or law enforcement reports, while ordering the disclosure of other records that did not meet the exemption criteria.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Education and Training for records relating to Great Lakes College.

The Ministry claimed it only had custody or control of some records, provided a fee estimate of $416, and denied a fee waiver.

The adjudicator found the Ministry did not have custody or control of the remaining records but ordered the Ministry to transfer those portions of the request to the College.

The adjudicator upheld the fee estimate and the denial of the fee waiver, finding the appellant did not demonstrate financial hardship sufficient to make a waiver fair and equitable.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to La Cité Collégiale for records relating to the classification of a job position.

The College denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(6)3.

The adjudicator found that the records were collected, prepared, and used in relation to communications about employment-related matters in which the College has a legal interest, specifically a grievance filed by the appellant.

The adjudicator upheld the College's decision and found the records fell outside the jurisdiction of the Act.

The appellant sought access to two records (an e-mail and a covering letter) submitted to the Ministry of Community and Social Services by independent adoption facilitators.

The Ministry denied access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing exemptions for danger to health or safety and personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the records contained personal information but that disclosure would not threaten anyone's safety.

The adjudicator also found that, with the exception of small portions of highly sensitive information, disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records with the highly sensitive portions severed.

The Ministry requested a reconsideration of Order P-1575, which had ordered a further search for records relating to the appellant's performance appraisal.

The Ministry argued that the appellant's subsequent filing of a grievance constituted new evidence that brought the records under the employment-related exclusion in section 65(6)3 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner denied the reconsideration request, finding that he was functus officio as there was no jurisdictional defect or accidental error in the original decision.

Furthermore, the reconsideration was moot because the Ministry had already fully complied with the original order.

The appellant, an insurance company, sought access to records from the Ministry of the Attorney General relating to the circumstances of an insured's death to defend a civil action.

The Ministry denied access citing solicitor-client privilege and invasion of privacy.

On reconsideration, the Adjudicator found that while many records contained personal information and were exempt under section 21, certain photographs of the accident scene and correspondence did not contain personal information.

The Adjudicator also held that litigation privilege under section 19 had expired for the police photographs since the related criminal litigation had terminated.

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

The requester sought access to the electronic appointment schedule of a senior employee in the Premier's Office.

Cabinet Office denied access to portions of the records, claiming they were not in the institution's custody or control, or were exempt under various provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records, which were maintained on a government database, were in the lawful custody of the Premier's Office.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of the Cabinet records exemption (s. 12(1)) for entries reflecting the Premier's priority-setting functions, and the personal privacy exemption (s. 21(1)) for entries relating to the employee's personal and partisan activities, as well as the personal information of third parties.

However, entries relating to the employee's professional activities were ordered disclosed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records regarding complaints about OPP response times.

The records included an internal OPP memorandum, correspondence between the Deputy Mayor and the Premier, and an agreement for police services.

The Assistant Commissioner found that information relating to the Deputy Mayor in his official capacity did not constitute personal information.

However, information relating to a third-party affected person, who was the victim of a break-in, qualified as personal information and was exempt from disclosure under section 21(1) of the Act, as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

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