IPCO 2000

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General for records relating to his unsuccessful application to the Ontario Provincial Police.

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

The Adjudicator found that while the records related to an employment matter, the Ministry failed to establish a legal interest that was reasonably capable of being engaged, as there was no evidence of a human rights or other complaint.

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

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care regarding a freedom of information request.

During the inquiry, the Ministry and the affected party submitted representations and requested that they be withheld from the appellant.

The Adjudicator found that large portions of the Ministry's representations and the entirety of the affected party's representations did not meet the confidentiality criteria and ordered them to be shared with the appellant.

In an appeal regarding a freedom of information request for environmental compliance records, the Ministry of the Environment and an affected party objected to sharing their representations with the appellant.

The Adjudicator ruled that most of the representations did not meet the confidentiality criteria and must be shared with the appellant.

However, specific portions that would reveal the substance of the records claimed to be exempt were ordered to be withheld.

The appellant appealed the PGT's denial of access to records pertaining to his father's estate.

During the inquiry, the PGT submitted representations, including a 'Confidential Facts and Evidence' document, and requested that it be withheld from the appellant.

The Adjudicator found that the PGT's generalized claim of confidentiality was insufficient and ordered that the non-highlighted portions of the document be shared with the appellant, as they did not reveal the substance of the exempt records or qualify for confidentiality.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General for police records relating to the death of her mother.

The Ministry withheld portions of the records as non-responsive, and denied access to the remainder under various exemptions including invasion of privacy and law enforcement.

The adjudicator found that the appellant failed to establish she was the personal representative of her mother's estate.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold most of the records under the invasion of privacy exemptions (sections 21(1) and 49(b)) and the law enforcement exemption for police ten-codes (section 14(1)(l)).

However, the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of a witness signature on an authorization form signed by the appellant, applying the 'absurd result' principle.

The Ministry of the Attorney General sought reconsideration of an order directing the disclosure of certain records.

Following a Court of Appeal decision clarifying the test for the section 20 exemption under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the adjudicator reconsidered the matter.

Applying the new test, the adjudicator found that the affected person's concerns about health and safety were not groundless or exaggerated, given the violent history of the organization associated with the appellant.

The adjudicator concluded that the records fell within the section 20 exemption and rescinded the previous order for disclosure.

The appellant, who has a visual impairment, requested access to his personal information from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal in an audiotape format.

The Tribunal agreed to provide the audiotapes but issued a fee estimate.

The appellant appealed, arguing he should receive the audiotapes at no charge as an accommodation for his disability.

The adjudicator found that the Tribunal complied with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by offering the requested format upon payment of the mandatory fee.

The adjudicator declined to rule on the human rights accommodation issue, deferring to an ongoing proceeding before the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The appellant submitted eight broad Freedom of Information requests to Ontario Hydro regarding nuclear safety, waste management, and related issues.

Ontario Hydro issued fee estimates totalling $22,087.12 and denied the appellant's request for a fee waiver.

The appellant appealed the fee estimates and the denial of the fee waiver.

The Adjudicator upheld the fee estimates as reasonable given the voluminous records and extensive search required.

The Adjudicator also upheld the denial of the fee waiver, finding that while the records related to a public health and safety concern, it would not be fair and equitable to waive the fees due to the extremely broad scope of the requests and the appellant's lack of cooperation in narrowing them.

The appellant sought access to a medical report submitted to the Ministry of Transportation under section 203(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, which resulted in the suspension of their driver's licence.

The Ministry denied access under section 49(a) in conjunction with section 20 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing disclosure could threaten the safety or health of the reporting physician.

The adjudicator found that the record contained only the appellant's personal information and that the Ministry failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence of a reasonable expectation of harm.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the record.