Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Finance to deny access to records relating to the Pension Benefits Act.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under section 17(1) (third party information) and section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the third party information exemption did not apply to the remaining portions of Record 13 and ordered them disclosed.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to Records 1 through 12 and other portions of Record 13, finding they were prepared by Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice and were exempt under section 19.

The public interest override in section 23 was found not to apply to section 19 exemptions.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's fee estimate of $1,746 and its refusal to waive the fee for a freedom of information request.

The request sought copies of non-court imposed settlements pertaining to breach of confidence or invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the search time estimate as reasonable based on the Ministry's detailed evidence.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the refusal to waive the fee, finding no evidence of financial hardship and concluding that dissemination of the records would not benefit public health or safety.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations relating to a proposal to refuse her registration as a real estate broker.

The Ministry denied access to various records, claiming exemptions for advice to government, solicitor-client privilege, law enforcement, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the records and upheld the Ministry's decision for certain records under the law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy exemptions.

However, the Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of other records where the exemptions did not apply or where the Ministry failed to provide representations.

The appellant, a non-profit organization representing a community group, appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny a fee waiver for a freedom of information request regarding the High Falls Dam Project.

The appellant claimed financial hardship and that dissemination of the records would benefit public health and safety.

The Inquiry Officer found insufficient evidence that dissemination would benefit public health and safety.

Although accepting that payment would cause financial hardship, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the Ministry's decision to deny the fee waiver was fair and equitable, given the large volume of records, previous concessions made by the Ministry, and the appellant's failure to narrow the request.

The appellant requested access to Ministry of Labour correspondence regarding the interpretation of section 42 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Ministry provided some records and issued a fee estimate for searching 200 additional letters, without making a decision on whether access would be granted to those letters.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to fulfill its obligations under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by issuing a fee estimate without a corresponding access decision.

The Ministry was ordered to issue a final access decision.

The Inquiry Officer also disallowed the Ministry's estimated search and preparation fees due to a lack of supporting evidence, but allowed standard photocopying charges.

In a final order following an interim decision, the Inquiry Officer considered whether the mandatory exemption under section 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applied to certain records containing financial and commercial information.

Notices of inquiry sent to the affected third-party companies were returned as undeliverable.

In the absence of submissions from the companies, the Inquiry Officer found that the third part of the section 17 test—reasonable expectation of harm—was not satisfied.

The Ontario Securities Commission was ordered to disclose the records to the appellant.

The appellant requested copies of two termination agreements between the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk and two former employees under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Municipality denied access, relying on the closed meeting exemption under section 6(1)(b) and the invasion of privacy exemption under section 14.

The Inquiry Officer applied the three-part test for section 6(1)(b) and found that the meetings were held in camera, authorized by the Municipal Act, and that disclosure of the agreements would reveal the substance of the deliberations.

The Municipality's decision to deny access was upheld.

The complainant alleged that the Management Board Secretariat (MBS) breached the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act during the course of workplace harassment investigations.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether MBS improperly disclosed the complainant's personal information, failed to retain records, or failed to ensure the accuracy of the information used in the investigation reports.

The Assistant Commissioner concluded that the disclosures made to various MBS officials were necessary and proper in the discharge of the institution's functions under section 42(d) of the Act.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that MBS had retained the records in accordance with section 40(1) and had taken reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of the information under section 40(2).

However, the investigation revealed that MBS had breached certain terms of its indirect collection authorization, and recommendations were made to address these procedural issues.

The appellant requested access to records concerning renovations made to a specific residential property.

The City of York denied access, citing the personal information exemption under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the names, addresses, and telephone numbers on the building permits and applications constituted personal information and were exempt from disclosure as their release would be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

However, the remaining technical information and drawings did not qualify as personal information and were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant requested access to his personnel file and documentation related to a specific issue from the Nipissing Board of Education under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board granted partial access but denied access to 12 records, claiming exemptions for solicitor-client privilege and protection of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were exempt under solicitor-client privilege, while others were exempt because their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other individuals.

The Board was ordered to disclose two records that did not fall under these exemptions and to make a decision regarding an additional grievance file.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board for information relating to police computer systems, radio frequencies, and equipment inventories.

The Police refused to confirm or deny the existence of records relating to an alleged computer system transmission failure under section 8(3), and denied access to the remaining items under section 8(1).

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that confirming the existence of the transmission failure records would communicate exempt information, and that disclosure of the radio frequency and computer service information could reasonably be expected to facilitate the commission of an unlawful act or hamper the control of crime.

The requester appealed the Nipissing Board of Education's decision to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of additional records responsive to a request for his personnel file and related documentation.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board improperly relied on section 14(5) to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of the records, as confirming their existence would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer confirmed the existence of 33 additional records and reviewed the Board's alternative exemption claims.

Several records were found to be exempt under solicitor-client privilege (section 12) and the personal privacy exemption (section 38(b)), while others were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant requested access to all information relating to the involvement of a company for which he was acting, which led the Workers' Compensation Board to seek a search and seizure order for the company's employment records.

The Board initially responded that no records existed, but later disclosed several files after the appellant provided additional information.

The appellant appealed, arguing the Board failed to provide all records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board had conducted a reasonable search and disclosed all records relating specifically to the appellant's client, upholding the Board's decision.

The appellant requested a list of businesses that received bulk waste removal services from the City of Etobicoke.

The City denied access under sections 11(a) and (c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing the list had potential monetary value and its disclosure could prejudice the City's economic interests.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City failed to establish that the information had monetary value or that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged harm.

The City was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to Ontario Hydro for materials relating to a job interview, including the interview questions.

Hydro withheld the questions under the section 18(1)(g) exemption for proposed plans, arguing disclosure would give the appellant an undue financial benefit in future competitions.

The Assistant Commissioner held that a list of interview questions is not a 'plan' (a detailed method, scheme, or design) and, having already been used, is not 'proposed'.

The exemption did not apply, and Hydro was ordered to disclose the records.

The Ministry of Natural Resources received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a workplace harassment investigation report concerning the requester.

The Ministry denied access, citing exemptions for advice or recommendations and personal privacy.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the report did not contain advice or recommendations under section 13(1).

However, the report contained personal information of the complainant and witnesses.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of information essential to the fair resolution of the complaint, but upheld the exemption under section 49(b) for the remaining personal information of other individuals to protect their privacy.

The appellant sought access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to records relating to a sexual harassment complaint made against her, including witness interview notes and correspondence from the complainant's solicitor.

The Ministry denied access to these specific records under section 49(b), citing the protection of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the witness statements were highly sensitive and supplied in confidence, and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the other individuals involved.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to a meeting held in 1989 or 1990.

The Police denied access on the basis that no responsive records exist.

The appellant appealed, arguing that records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed affidavits from the Police detailing their search efforts and their records retention schedule, which indicated that relevant daily duty sheets from that period would have been destroyed after one year.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the Police had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records and upheld the decision.

The requester appealed the fee charged by the Frontenac County Board of Education for processing a freedom of information request and the Board's claim that no additional records existed.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's fee calculation of $63.60 for search time and photocopies, finding it reasonable and in accordance with the Act.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Board's search for responsive records was reasonable, given the evidence of multiple searches conducted across various files and locations.

The Inquiry Officer issued a Final Order following Interim Order M-310, which had directed the Belleville Police Services Board to reconsider its exercise of discretion under section 38(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

After reviewing the Board's written representations regarding the factors it considered, the Inquiry Officer found nothing improper in the exercise of discretion and upheld the Board's decision.