Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the City of London for a contract between a taxicab company and a university students' council regarding discounted flat rates.

The City denied access under the third party information exemption in section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that while the information was commercial, the flat rates were already publicly available to students and the disclosure of the contract would not reasonably be expected to cause the harms specified in section 10(1).

The City was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Hamilton for records relating to a feasibility study review.

The City withheld portions of several e-mails, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that some severed paragraphs were confidential communications directly related to seeking or formulating legal advice and were therefore exempt.

However, other paragraphs did not meet this test and were ordered disclosed.

The adjudicator also found that the City's search for responsive records was reasonable.

The appellant, who was found by the courts to have a 50% interest in a winning lottery ticket, requested to view the original ticket under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ontario Lottery Corporation denied the request, citing security concerns and the privacy of the other 50% owner whose personal information was on the ticket.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered the OLC to allow the appellant to view the original ticket, finding that the privacy exemption did not apply because the appellant already knew the information, and that viewing the original ticket was reasonably practicable with appropriate security measures.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority for documents regarding development at Snow Valley.

The NVCA granted partial access, claiming exemptions for personal privacy, third party information, and economic interests.

The adjudicator found that most of the severed information was not personal information, except for a residential telephone number which was exempt.

The adjudicator also found that the NVCA failed to establish a reasonable expectation of harm for the third party information exemption, and that the economic interests exemption did not apply because the records did not belong to an institution.

The NVCA was ordered to disclose the remainder of the records.

The appellant requested records relating to the Report of the Ontario Justice of the Peace Remuneration Commission.

The Ministry denied access to the records, claiming exemptions for Cabinet records, advice or recommendations, and solicitor-client privilege.

The Assistant Commissioner found that most of the records were exempt under the claimed provisions.

The Assistant Commissioner also determined that the public interest override did not apply to the records exempt under the advice or recommendations provision, and that the constitutional requirement to ensure judicial independence under section 11(d) of the Charter did not mandate disclosure of the records under the Act.

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

The appellant requested records relating to the Report of the Ontario Justice of the Peace Remuneration Commission.

The Management Board Secretariat denied access to the records, claiming exemptions under sections 12(1) and 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that most of the records were exempt under section 12(1) as their disclosure would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

Portions of other records were found exempt under section 13(1) as advice or recommendations.

The Assistant Commissioner rejected the appellant's arguments that the public interest override in section 23 applied, and that section 11(d) of the Charter required disclosure to ensure judicial independence.

The institution was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the records, subject to a stay pending a judicial review on a jurisdictional issue.

An insurance company appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to the names and personal information of individuals listed in a fire report.

The appellant sought the information to pursue subrogation rights against third parties.

The Adjudicator found that the information was highly sensitive and that the appellant had alternative means to commence a civil action without the names.

The Adjudicator concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and upheld the City's decision.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to a shareholders' agreement of a forest management company under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The agreement was submitted to the Ministry to obtain a Sustainable Forest Licence under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the agreement contained commercial and financial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the competitive position or interfere with the contractual negotiations of the affected party.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Environment's decision to deny access to records relating to the Red Tape Commission under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 12(1) as Cabinet records.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Red Tape Commission performs an integral role in the Cabinet decision-making process and that disclosure of the records would reveal the substance of deliberations of Cabinet or its committees.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant sought access to records from the Cabinet Office regarding the Red Tape Commission's communications with the Ministry of the Environment.

The Cabinet Office denied access to several records, claiming exemptions under sections 12(1) and 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Red Tape Commission plays an integral role in the Cabinet decision-making process.

Consequently, the records qualify for exemption under the introductory wording of section 12(1), as their disclosure would reveal the substance of deliberations of the Executive Council or its committees.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Township's decision regarding a freedom of information request for a petition concerning a property standards complaint.

The Township initially disclosed the text and signatures but withheld addresses and telephone numbers without notifying the affected individuals.

The Township later denied access to the entire record.

The Adjudicator found that the record contained personal information and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as it was compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

The Adjudicator also found the Township breached procedural fairness by failing to notify the affected individuals before its initial disclosure.

The Township's second decision to deny access to the entire record was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's deemed refusal to issue a decision regarding a request for the amount of legal fees incurred by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan.

The Ministry failed to issue a decision within the 30-day period prescribed by section 26 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and did not request a time extension.

The Adjudicator ordered the Ministry to issue a decision letter to the requester without recourse to a time extension.

The appellant sought access to two records (an e-mail and a covering letter) submitted to the Ministry of Community and Social Services by independent adoption facilitators.

The Ministry denied access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing exemptions for danger to health or safety and personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the records contained personal information but that disclosure would not threaten anyone's safety.

The adjudicator also found that, with the exception of small portions of highly sensitive information, disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records with the highly sensitive portions severed.

The appellant requested access to a Ministry of Labour investigation report regarding a fatal industrial accident.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the report, witness statements, and investigator notes under the personal information 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 records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, triggering the presumption against disclosure in section 21(3)(b).

The adjudicator also found that the appellant's regulatory mandate did not establish a compelling public interest under section 23 that would outweigh the privacy exemption.

The requester appealed a deemed refusal by the Ministry of Health to provide access to records regarding claims for out-of-province gamma knife procedures.

The Ministry failed to issue a decision letter within the 30-day period prescribed by section 26 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and did not request a time extension.

The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to issue a decision letter to the requester without recourse to a time extension.

An insurance claims adjuster appealed a decision by the Durham Regional Police Services Board to deny access to records relating to an alleged criminal incident at a Youth Home.

The Police denied access under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and that disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under sections 14(3)(a), (b), and (h).

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Hamilton for Fire Department records relating to three properties.

The City provided a fee estimate of $1057.50 for search, preparation, and photocopying.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate, arguing it was excessive and requesting a fee waiver.

The adjudicator upheld the fee estimate, finding that the City's calculations for search time, preparation time, and photocopying were reasonable and in accordance with the Act and Regulation.

The adjudicator also found that it was not reasonably practicable to allow the appellant to view the original non-severed records prior to photocopying, but ordered the City to allow viewing of any records that did not require severing.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $416 provided by the City of Hamilton for processing a freedom of information request for Fire Department records.

The adjudicator reviewed the City's calculations for search time, preparation time, and photocopying costs.

The adjudicator found the search time estimate reasonable but slightly adjusted the preparation time calculation.

The adjudicator also ordered the City to allow the appellant to view any records that do not require severing before charging for photocopies.

The fee estimate was reduced to $404.90.

The appellant requested records relating to the drafting of two City of Toronto by-laws.

The City denied access to certain records, claiming exemptions for draft by-laws and solicitor-client privilege.

The adjudicator found that most of the draft by-laws were exempt under section 6(1)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as they had not been considered in a public meeting.

The adjudicator also found that the remaining records, consisting of communications among the City's drafting team, were subject to solicitor-client communication privilege under section 12.

However, the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of one draft by-law that had been considered in a public meeting, finding that the City had expressly waived privilege over it.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for access to his personal information and complaints made against him by a named individual.

The Ministry denied access, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the requested police reports contained the personal information of both the appellant and the affected person.

The Adjudicator concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's privacy, as the records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption under section 21(3)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.