IPCO 2000

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General for records relating to the movements of a named individual at Camp Ipperwash.

The Ministry refused to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records pursuant to section 21(5) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that disclosing the mere existence or non-existence of the records would reveal personal information about the named individual's involvement in law enforcement activities, constituting an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

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

The appellant sought access to records relating to his adoption application, including notes of conversations and unsolicited letters from three named individuals.

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

The adjudicator ordered the disclosure of pages containing only the personal information of the appellant and his consenting wife, as well as information the appellant himself had supplied.

However, the adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to the remaining records, finding that the highly sensitive nature of the information and the affected persons' expectation of confidentiality outweighed the appellant's interest in responding to the allegations against him.

The appellants appealed the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care's decision to deny access to records relating to the regulation of osteopathic practitioners.

In an interim order, the Assistant Commissioner deferred consideration of certain records pending notification of affected persons.

The affected persons consented to disclosure.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the remaining records did not qualify for exemption under sections 13(1), 18(1)(g), 19, or 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, except for one portion containing personal information of an unidentified individual.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records with that single severance.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities for records relating to Superbuild funding applications.

The Ministry notified a third party and extended the time to respond, but failed to issue a decision by the extended deadline.

The appellant appealed the deemed refusal.

The adjudicator found that the Ministry failed to comply with the statutory time limits under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and ordered the Ministry to issue a decision letter to the appellant without further time extensions.

The appellants sought the identity of an individual who called the OPP to report a fire on their property, which resulted in a false alarm and a bill from the fire department.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General denied access to the caller's name 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 appellants failed to establish that disclosure was relevant to a fair determination of rights under section 21(2)(d) or that any other factors weighed in favour of disclosure.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Lottery Corporation for the names and salary ranges of all employees at its main office.

The OLC denied access to the names associated with the salary ranges, claiming exemptions for personal privacy and economic interests.

The adjudicator found that section 21(4)(a) of the Act applied, meaning disclosure of salary ranges of employees does not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator also rejected the OLC's claims under section 18(1)(a) and (c), finding the information did not belong to the OLC in a proprietary sense and its disclosure could not reasonably be expected to prejudice the OLC's competitive position.

The OLC was ordered to disclose the requested information.

The appellant sought access to police records relating to a motor vehicle accident in which his son died.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General denied access to certain records, including a witness statement and police officers' notes, citing the personal privacy exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On reconsideration of Order PO-1757, the Adjudicator found that the appellant was aware of the witness's identity, meaning the witness's personal information could not be severed.

The Adjudicator concluded that the records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b).

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) denying access to financial statements of a company wholly owned by a deceased individual's estate.

The PGT withheld the records under the personal privacy exemption in section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the corporate financial statements qualified as the deceased's personal information due to her status as sole shareholder.

The adjudicator further held that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy and that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as the PGT's involvement in the estate's passing of accounts had already served the public interest.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested records relating to a job competition for a Legal Counsel position with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act pursuant to section 65(6)3.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the records related to an employment-related matter, the Ministry did not have a sufficient legal interest in the records to bring them within the ambit of section 65(6)3, as all possible avenues to challenge the outcome of the competition had been exhausted.

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

The appellant submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for access to a Crown Attorney's file relating to a criminal matter in which she was the complainant.

The Ministry denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for solicitor-client privilege and unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

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

The adjudicator ordered the disclosure of certain records, including police notes containing information originally provided by the appellant, and post-litigation records not subject to privilege.

The Ministry's decision to withhold the remaining records, including opinion work product and sensitive medical information of the affected person, was upheld.

The appellant submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for financial records of a day care operator from 1994 to 1998.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services provided wage subsidy statements but stated no other financial records existed, as the day care was not required to submit annual audited financial statements.

The appellant appealed, arguing that further records should exist under the Day Nurseries Act and other funding arrangements.

The adjudicator found that the Ministry had made reasonable efforts to search for responsive records and provided sufficient explanations for why additional records did not exist.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General for police records relating to the motor vehicle accident in which his son died.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, citing the personal privacy exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that while the records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, applying the privacy exemption to the body of a witness statement would lead to an absurd result because the appellant was already aware of the information.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the body of the witness statement, but the remaining personal information was properly withheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Community and Social Services for records relating to false abuse allegations made against him during an adoption application.

The Ministry denied access to 74 pages of records, citing the invasion of privacy exemptions under sections 21 and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that while some records contained highly sensitive information provided in confidence by third parties and were therefore exempt from disclosure, other records contained only the appellant's personal information or information that would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy to disclose.

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

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for a copy of a complaint filed against him by an OPP officer.

The Ministry provided partial access to an incident report but withheld portions under the law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions.

The Adjudicator found that the withheld information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation into a possible violation of the Criminal Code.

Consequently, disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellants appealed the Ministry of Transportation's decision to deny access to the amount of compensation paid to an affected person for expropriated land.

The Ministry claimed the information was exempt under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the requested information constituted personal information relating to financial transactions.

The adjudicator concluded that the presumption in section 21(3)(f) applied, as the information described the affected person's finances, and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Environment's decision to deny access to portions of a successful proposal for the Drive Clean Program.

The Ministry and the affected third party company claimed the records contained trade secrets and commercial information supplied in confidence.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records met the three-part test for exemption under section 17(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the competitive position of the company.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO) for historical liquor licence applications and floor plans for a specific establishment.

The AGCO located some records but the appellant appealed, arguing more records should exist.

Following an oral inquiry and evidence from the AGCO regarding its search efforts, including searches of its computer database, physical files, and the government's central storage facility, the adjudicator found that the AGCO had conducted a reasonable search for the missing records.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General for all files concerning himself.

The Ministry claimed the only record was the request itself.

The appellant appealed, arguing more records should exist, specifically a 28-page letter he had sent to the OPP Commissioner.

During mediation, the appellant provided a copy of the letter to the Ministry, which agreed to investigate his concerns.

The adjudicator dismissed the appeal, finding that since the appellant already possessed the record and had provided it to the Ministry, ordering a search would serve no useful purpose.

The appellant, a lawyer representing a manufacturing firm, appealed the Ministry of the Environment's decision to deny access to information identifying several complainants who reported environmental concerns.

The Ministry claimed the information was exempt under 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, as the information was highly sensitive and supplied in confidence.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to an OPP officer's vacation schedule for April and May 1997.

The adjudicator found that the record was not excluded from the Act under the employment-related matters exclusion in section 65(6)3, as the Ministry failed to establish a legal interest.

However, the adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access under section 21(1), finding that the record contained personal information and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the officer's personal privacy.