Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

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 appealed a decision by the Peel Regional Police Services Board denying access to a report titled 'Operation Gun Runner' under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the report did not contain the appellant's personal information.

Furthermore, the adjudicator determined that the report met the three-part test for exemption under section 8(2)(a) as a report prepared in the course of law enforcement, upholding the police's decision to deny access.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Cornwall Police Services Board denying access to police notebook entries relating to an incident involving the appellant's apprehension under the Mental Health Act.

The adjudicator found that the records contained the personal information of both the appellant and another identifiable individual.

Applying the presumption in section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the adjudicator concluded that the information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The decision to deny access under section 38(b) was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board denying access to records relating to the death of his daughter and the alleged theft of her property.

The appellant sought access as the personal representative of his daughter's estate under section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the appellant was the personal representative, only the records relating to the alleged theft related to the administration of the estate.

However, all records were found to be exempt from disclosure under sections 14(1) and 38(b) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, given they were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The appellant, a local teachers union president, appealed the Halton Catholic District School Board's decision regarding multiple freedom of information requests for senior staff employment contracts, retirement gratuities, and other financial records.

The adjudicator found that the exact salary information contained in the superintendents' employment contracts constituted personal information and its disclosure would be a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(f) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, information relating to employment responsibilities and benefits fell within the exception in section 14(4)(a) and was ordered disclosed.

The adjudicator also found that the Board had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records.

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.

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, an employee of the City of Toronto, requested access to his examination papers and the marking key from a promotional job competition.

The City denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)3 as employment-related matters in which the City had an interest.

The adjudicator upheld the City's decision, finding that the records were prepared in relation to meetings about an employment-related matter and that the City had a reasonable prospect of its legal interests being engaged due to the possibility of a grievance.

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 appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the school board for the severance agreements of two former Directors of Education.

The board denied the request, claiming it was frivolous and vexatious, and alternatively relied on several exemptions including the closed meeting exemption.

The adjudicator found that the request was not frivolous or vexatious, as it did not constitute a pattern of conduct or demonstrate bad faith.

However, the adjudicator upheld the board's decision to deny access, finding that the records were exempt under section 6(1)(b) because their disclosure would reveal the substance of deliberations of an authorized in camera board meeting.

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.

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 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.