IPCO 2000

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Health for province-wide statistics regarding the number of obstetricians/gynaecologists billing OHIP for therapeutic abortions and the total number of therapeutic abortions billed.

The Ministry denied access to the records, claiming exemptions under sections 14(1)(e), 14(1)(i), and 20 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing that disclosure could endanger the safety of abortion service providers and facilities.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the requested information consisted of general, non-identifying statistics that could not be linked to specific individuals or facilities.

The Commissioner concluded that the Ministry failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence of a reasonable expectation of harm, and ordered the disclosure of the records.

The requester appealed Ontario Hydro's decision to deny access to records produced by a consultant regarding options for its Nuclear Division.

Ontario Power Generation (OPG), acting on behalf of Hydro, claimed exemptions under sections 13(1) and 18(1)(c) and (d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained commercially sensitive financial information and advice regarding the divestiture of nuclear assets, qualifying for the claimed exemptions.

The Assistant Commissioner also determined that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as the records related to a commercial transaction rather than public safety or health.

The decision to withhold the records was upheld, though OPG agreed to disclose certain portions during the inquiry.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ontario Casino Corporation (OCC) seeking the average percentage payout of various categories of slot machines in Ontario casinos.

The OCC denied access, claiming the records were exempt under section 18(1)(c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the OCC's economic interests or competitive position.

The adjudicator upheld the OCC's decision, finding that disclosure could spark a price war among casinos, leading to lower revenues.

The adjudicator also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as the desire for patrons to become smarter players did not constitute a compelling public interest.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for records relating to applications made to the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal.

The Ministry disclosed 556 pages of records, and an additional five pages following a second search during mediation.

The appellant appealed, asserting that additional internal correspondence and memoranda must exist.

The adjudicator held an oral inquiry, which the appellant did not attend.

The adjudicator found that the Ministry provided sufficient evidence of a thorough and reasonable search by experienced staff in the appropriate areas, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants, two children whose parents were killed in a motor vehicle accident, appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to police records regarding the other driver.

The appellants sought the records to prove the other driver was uninsured for the purpose of a civil action against their parents' insurer.

The Adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained the personal information of other individuals compiled during a law enforcement investigation, which is presumed to be an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 21(3)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator also found that the appellants' representative did not qualify as a personal representative under section 66(a), and that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply because the interest in disclosure was primarily for private litigation.

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.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 12, 13, 18, 19, and 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found the Ministry's decision letter inadequate but required no further action.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered the disclosure of several records, finding they did not qualify for the claimed exemptions, while upholding the Ministry's decision to deny access to the remainder based on Cabinet records, solicitor-client privilege, advice or recommendations, and personal privacy exemptions.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for his deceased father's complete personnel file from the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Ministry denied access to certain records, citing the invasion of privacy exemption under 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 medical and employment history, the disclosure of which is presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under sections 21(3)(a) and (d) of the Act.

The adjudicator rejected the appellant's argument that applying the presumption would lead to an absurd result, as the appellant was not aware of the particular contents of the records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to Ontario Hydro for a copy of the 'Electricity Supply Adequacy Review' and related documents concerning the proposed restart of the Pickering A nuclear generating station.

Hydro denied access to portions of the records under section 18(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming they contained valuable government information.

The appellant appealed, arguing that a compelling public interest in nuclear safety and the economic justification for the restart warranted disclosure under section 23.

The Adjudicator upheld Hydro's decision, finding that the severed information was financial analysis with monetary value, and that the public interest in this financial and operational data did not clearly outweigh the purpose of the exemption.

The appellant requested corrections to a letter written by the Chair of the Assessment Review Board to the Ombudsman of Ontario regarding the appellant's assessment hearing.

The Board refused to make the corrections but offered to attach a statement of disagreement.

On appeal, the adjudicator found that the entire record contained the appellant's personal information.

The adjudicator ordered the Board to attach a memorandum correcting four specific factual inaccuracies in the record, and permitted the appellant to attach a statement of disagreement regarding the remaining items.

The complainant, the sole owner of a company, filed a privacy complaint after the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board issued a press release and posted it on its website detailing charges against him and his company under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The press release included his name, age, home address, and the charges.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were not excluded under the labour relations or public records exceptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

While disclosing the complainant's name and charges in a press release was a consistent purpose under section 42(c), disclosing his age and home address, as well as posting any of his personal information on the Internet, violated the Act.

The Family Responsibility Office (FRO) inadvertently mailed a Statement of Arrears containing the personal information of a support recipient and her payor-partner to an unrelated payor.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated the privacy breach.

The Commissioner found that the disclosed records contained personal information under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that the disclosure was not authorized under section 42.

The Commissioner commended FRO's prompt response and made recommendations to improve mailing procedures and privacy training.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated a complaint regarding the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' bulk disclosure of land registration records on microfilm to the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation (OPAC).

The Commissioner found that the information on the microfilm, including the Affidavit of Residence and Value of Consideration, constitutes personal information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner concluded that the bulk disclosure of the entire microfilm to OPAC was not in compliance with section 42 of the Act, as it was not for a consistent purpose nor required by statute.

However, the disclosure of the Affidavit alone to OPAC was found to comply with section 42(c).

The Ministry was ordered to discontinue the bulk disclosure of the microfilmed records.

A couple visiting a Legal Aid Ontario office discovered that scrap paper provided to them contained the personal information of other clients, including names, addresses, birth dates, and Social Insurance Numbers.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated and found that the information constituted 'personal information' under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that its disclosure contravened section 42 of the Act.

The Commissioner commended Legal Aid Ontario for its prompt remedial actions but recommended further steps, including revising privacy memoranda and establishing ongoing staff training on privacy protection.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated a privacy breach at the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) of the Ministry of the Attorney General.

During a mail-out of cost of living allowance (COLA) adjustments, notices containing personal information of support payors and recipients were improperly sent to multiple employers and disclosed to unauthorized individuals.

The Commissioner found that the information was 'personal information' under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and that its disclosure was not in compliance with section 42 of the Act.

The breach was attributed to the use of window envelopes, inadequate procedures, and lack of training for temporary mail room staff.

The Commissioner made six recommendations to prevent future breaches, including tracking mail-outs, revising forms, and implementing written policies and training.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated a privacy breach involving the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care's administration of the Ontario Hepatitis C Assistance Plan.

An applicant received copies of her hospital records from the Ministry, which inadvertently included the medical records of another individual with the same name.

The Commissioner found that the records contained personal information and that the disclosure violated section 42 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Furthermore, the Ministry failed to take reasonable measures regarding the security and destruction of the records, contrary to the regulations.

The Commissioner issued ten recommendations to improve the Ministry's privacy practices and training.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General's decision granting partial access to OPP detachment records relating to herself.

The Adjudicator found that the Ministry conducted a reasonable search for records.

The Adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold personal information of other individuals under section 49(b) and ten-codes under section 14(1)(l).

However, the Adjudicator ordered the disclosure of certain information, including doctors' names and opinions about the appellant, finding it was the appellant's personal information and its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy.

A journalist requested access to the expense records of the Chair of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO).

The LCBO disclosed most of the records but withheld the names of individuals who attended lunch or dinner meetings with the Chair, claiming it was personal information and its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that while some of the severed information constituted personal information, the public interest in subjecting the activities of the LCBO and its Chair to public scrutiny outweighed any privacy interests.

The LCBO was ordered to disclose the records in their entirety.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Correctional Services for records relating to his incarceration, including medical and detention centre records.

The Ministry denied access to several records, claiming they were excluded under the labour relations and employment provisions of section 65(6) due to an anticipated civil lawsuit by the appellant against the Crown.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were not excluded under section 65(6) because the anticipated proceedings did not arise in an employment or labour relations context.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the exemption of the Correctional Officers' names under section 49(b) to protect their personal privacy, but ordered the disclosure of the remaining portions of the records, finding that the Ministry failed to establish that disclosure would jeopardize the security of the detention centre under section 14(1)(k).

The Ministry's search for records was deemed reasonable.

A party requested reconsideration of an order that directed the disclosure of an entry in a Premier's Office employee's appointment calendar.

The Assistant Commissioner found that an accidental error was made in the original order by failing to recognize that the entry described a social event unrelated to employment responsibilities.

The entry was found to contain personal information, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The original order was rescinded in part, and the decision to deny access to the entry was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Chatham-Kent Police Services Board denying access to records concerning her complaint against members of the Amherstburg Police Service and the ensuing investigation.

The Police relied on numerous exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator rejected the application of exemptions relating to in camera deliberations, advice or recommendations, law enforcement, relations with governments, labour relations, and economic interests.

However, the Adjudicator upheld the application of the personal privacy exemption and solicitor-client privilege to certain records, while ordering the disclosure of others, including records containing the appellant's own personal information or information already known to her.