IPCO 2000

A journalist requested information regarding all properties sold by the Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) since 1995.

The ORC denied access to the names, locations, and purchase prices of individual purchasers under the personal privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the compelling public interest in the disclosure of the records, given the ongoing public debate and investigations into ORC land dealings, clearly outweighed the purpose of the section 21 exemption.

The ORC was ordered to disclose the withheld information.

The Ministry of the Environment received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a draft environmental inspection report prepared by a consulting firm.

The Ministry decided to disclose the record.

The company that commissioned the report appealed, arguing the record was exempt under sections 17(1)(a), (b), and (c) as third party information supplied in confidence.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the report contained technical information supplied in confidence, the appellant failed to establish a reasonable expectation of probable harm from disclosure.

The appeal was dismissed and the Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant requested budget information for service provider agencies receiving funding from the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.

The Ministry denied access under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the records contained third party commercial information.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the records contained commercial and financial information, it was not supplied in confidence, and there was no detailed and convincing evidence that disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause harm.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the requested information.

The appellant sought access to her personal information held by the Ministry of the Attorney General's Family Responsibility Office.

The Ministry denied access to certain records, claiming they contained the personal information of her former spouse and that disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Adjudicator found that some records contained only the former spouse's personal information and were outside the scope of the request.

However, several court documents contained the personal information of both parties.

Because these documents were publicly available in court files, their disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Adjudicator ordered the disclosure of these records and upheld the reasonableness of the Ministry's search.

The appellant appealed the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board's decision to deny access to certain records and its search for additional records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator upheld the Board's decision to withhold one record under the advice or recommendations exemption and found that the Board had conducted a reasonable search for the remaining requested records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation for a computer printout listing a specified lottery ticket purchased at a variety store.

The OLGC denied access to the transaction report under sections 18(1)(c) and (d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would prejudice its economic interests and be injurious to the financial interests of the Government of Ontario.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the OLGC failed to establish the requirements for exemption under section 18(1)(c).

However, the Commissioner upheld the exemption under section 18(1)(d) for the serial and offset numbers, as their disclosure could compromise security procedures and require significant financial investment to remedy.

The OLGC was ordered to disclose the remainder of the record.

The appellant requested records regarding an internal review of an Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) investigation into his son's death.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under the labour relations and employment-related exclusions in sections 65(6)1 and 3.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that because the OPP and OCCPS reviews of the appellant's complaints had been completed more than a year prior, there were no ongoing or anticipated proceedings, and the Ministry had no continuing legal interest in the matter.

The records were therefore subject to the Act, and the Ministry was ordered to issue an access decision.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General for records relating to an OPP investigation into an altercation with her former common-law spouse, and her subsequent complaints about the investigating officers.

The Ministry denied access to several records, claiming various exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that records relating to the internal investigation of the officers fell outside the Act under section 65(6)3 as employment-related matters.

The adjudicator also found that while some records contained personal information of the affected person and were exempt, withholding information the appellant was already aware of would lead to an absurd result.

The adjudicator rejected the Ministry's claim that occurrence reports were exempt as law enforcement reports, but upheld the application of solicitor-client privilege to communications with the Crown Attorney.

Finally, the adjudicator found the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General for an OPP report regarding a criminal investigation into the conduct of RCMP and Windsor Police officers.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the report, citing the personal privacy exemption.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the withheld information constituted personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and its disclosure would result in a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b) of the Act.

The Ministry of Natural Resources received a freedom of information request for records relating to a tender for water craft bikes.

The successful bidder objected to the disclosure of its financial and commercial information, arguing it would prejudice its competitive position.

The Ministry decided to grant access, and the successful bidder appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The Senior Adjudicator found that while the records contained commercial and financial information, there was no evidence it was supplied in confidence or that disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause competitive harm.

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

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Human Rights Commission regarding an access to information request for his human rights complaint file.

The appellant alleged that certain records were missing from the file and questioned the reasonableness of the Commission's search.

The Adjudicator found that the Commission had made reasonable efforts to identify and locate the requested records, noting that the file had been searched multiple times by a knowledgeable employee.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Management Board Secretariat for a contract relating to paper shredding and recycling services.

The institution disclosed the contract but severed unit and total pricing information, claiming exemptions under sections 17(1)(a), (b), and (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that while the pricing was commercial information supplied in confidence, the institution failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence that disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause the harms specified in section 17(1).

The adjudicator ordered the complete contract to be disclosed.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) requested a reconsideration of Order PO-1736, which ordered the disclosure of certain information about estates administered by the PGT to an heir tracer.

The PGT argued that disclosure would cause pecuniary harm to potential heirs who might be charged substantial fees by heir tracers, and that the adjudicator gave too much weight to the 'benefit to unknown heirs' factor.

The Senior Adjudicator agreed to reconsider the order to account for the interests of affected persons but ultimately confirmed the original decision.

The adjudicator found that the PGT failed to establish a serious risk of pecuniary harm and that the benefit of having additional resources directed towards locating heirs remained a significant factor favouring disclosure.

Counsel for the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund requested a copy of a Coroner's Investigation Statement regarding a deceased uninsured driver from the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

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

The appellant argued that section 8 of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act gave the Fund the right to access the deceased's personal information to defend a civil action.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the MVACA does not provide a right of access under the FOI Act and that the record contains medical information whose disclosure is presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General's decision to deny access to records relating to a 1993 shooting incident at Camp Ipperwash.

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

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ontario Provincial Police investigation into the incident remained active and ongoing, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with the investigation.

The Ministry's decision to deny access under section 14(1)(b) was upheld.

The appellant requested the name and contact information of an anonymous lawyer who submitted a statement on behalf of a respondent in a human rights complaint.

The OHRC denied access.

The Adjudicator found that the lawyer's name and professional contact information did not qualify as 'personal information' under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, considering representations from the affected lawyer regarding the appellant's past aggressive behaviour, the Adjudicator applied the discretionary exemption under section 14(1)(e) (health and safety), finding a reasonable basis to believe disclosure could endanger the lawyer's physical safety.

The OHRC was ordered to exercise its discretion under section 14(1)(e).

A journalist requested information from the Ontario Realty Corporation regarding all properties sold since 1995, specifically seeking the purchaser's name, address, and purchase price.

The ORC denied access to information about individual purchasers under the personal privacy exemption and to some business purchasers under the third-party commercial information exemption.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the business purchaser information did not meet the test for exemption under section 17(1) and ordered its disclosure.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the individual purchaser information was exempt under section 21(1), except where consent was provided, but deferred the final decision to seek representations on whether the compelling public interest override in section 23 applied.

The appellant requested a correction of personal information contained in two letters sent to him by the Ministry of Finance regarding his property assessment and an access request.

The Ministry denied the request, arguing that some of the information was not personal information and that the rest was accurate.

The Assistant Commissioner found that all the information at issue was the appellant's personal information.

However, the Assistant Commissioner concluded that the appellant failed to establish that the information was inexact, incomplete, or ambiguous, and dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant's right to file a statement of disagreement.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) for a 1999 Anderson Consulting report on its supply chain operations.

The LCBO denied access, claiming the record was exempt under sections 12(1)(e) and 18(1)(f) and (g) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the adjudicator found that the report was prepared to brief the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations on matters currently before the Executive Council.

Consequently, the record was held to be exempt from disclosure as a Cabinet record under section 12(1)(e), and the LCBO's decision was upheld.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to allegations he made about a Ministry employee.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded from the Act under sections 65(6)1 and 65(6)3, arguing they related to labour relations or employment matters.

The Adjudicator found that while the records were connected to an employment-related investigation, there was no reasonable prospect of proceedings, nor did the Ministry establish a legal interest capable of being engaged.

The records were therefore subject to the Act, and the Ministry was ordered to issue an access decision.