Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Education and Training for records relating to a specific job competition.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Act under section 65(6)3.

The adjudicator found that the records were collected in relation to an employment-related matter in which the Ministry had an ongoing legal interest, as the appellant had expressed continued dissatisfaction, had an outstanding grievance, and might pursue a human rights complaint.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, concluding the records were excluded from the Act.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to the 1992 fire bombing of an abortion clinic.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the law enforcement provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that the records related to an ongoing law enforcement investigation and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with the investigation.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to police records relating to a specific street address where a restaurant was located.

The Brantford Police Services Board granted partial access but withheld portions of the records under the law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

On appeal, the adjudicator found that the withheld information contained the personal information of identifiable individuals compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The adjudicator upheld the police's decision to withhold the information under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant requested bulk access to a database containing information on all physicians in Ontario from the Ministry of Health.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records contained personal information and disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that while individual physician information is publicly available through the College of Physicians and Surgeons, bulk disclosure by the Ministry raises different privacy concerns and would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The appellant's claim of a compelling public interest under section 23 was also dismissed.

A newspaper reporter appealed the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk's decision to deny access to records regarding the restructuring of police services.

The Region claimed exemptions under sections 7(1) (advice or recommendations), 12 (solicitor-client privilege), and 14 (personal privacy) of the applicable freedom of information legislation.

The adjudicator found that portions of the records were exempt under section 7(1) as they contained advice or recommendations, and that several records were exempt under section 12 as they were subject to solicitor-client communication privilege.

The adjudicator also found that certain records contained personal information exempt under section 14.

The adjudicator considered the public interest override under section 16 but concluded that the public interest in disclosure did not clearly outweigh the purpose of the exemptions.

The Region was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the records.

The Ministry of the Attorney General received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to hate crimes and hate propaganda.

The Ministry denied access to several records, citing exemptions for personal information and danger to health or safety.

On reconsideration, the Adjudicator found that while some information related to individuals in their professional capacity, other information qualified as personal information.

The Adjudicator also held that disclosure of records containing hate propaganda could reasonably be expected to seriously threaten the health or safety of minority groups, and thus upheld the application of the section 20 exemption to those records.

The appellant appealed the Township of West Lincoln's decision to deny access to a letter sent by Township staff to the Township solicitor requesting a legal opinion.

The appellant claimed the Township had waived solicitor-client privilege by reading a portion of the opinion at a meeting.

The adjudicator found that the Township did not waive privilege, as it only provided a minimal degree of public disclosure regarding the 'bottom line' of the advice.

The adjudicator also found the Township's search for records was generally reasonable, but ordered the Township to issue a decision regarding one specific statement or meeting minutes identified during the appeal.

The appellant appealed the London Police Services Board's decision to deny access to a videotape containing his young daughter's evidence regarding alleged inappropriate behaviour by the appellant.

The Adjudicator found that the videotape contained the personal information of the appellant, his daughter, and the custodial parent.

The Adjudicator concluded that the information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption of an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

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

A member of the media requested access to the attendance records of the Chief of the Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Police Service.

The Municipality denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3)3.

The adjudicator found that the records were collected and used in relation to discussions about the Chief's compensation and termination agreement, which are employment-related matters in which the Police Services Board has a legal interest.

Therefore, the records were excluded from the Act's jurisdiction, and the Municipality's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant, representing the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (O.P.S.E.U.), appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to position specifications for essential service positions during a 1996 strike.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records were currently being used by the Ministry in relation to ongoing labour relations negotiations.

Consequently, the records fell within the scope of section 65(6)2 and were excluded from the Act.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $97.90 issued by the Ministry of Finance for processing a freedom of information request.

The adjudicator found that the request involved both personal information and general records.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's calculation of $90.00 for three hours of search time and $0.40 for photocopying, but disallowed the $7.50 charge for preparation time as the Ministry provided no representations to justify it.

The total allowable fee was reduced to $90.40.

The Ministry of Health requested a reconsideration of Order P-1568, which ordered the disclosure of a Ministry Auditor's notes (Record C-14) from an interview with a CMHA representative.

The Ministry argued that the record contained the personal information of the CMHA representative, a Ministry official, and unnamed consumer/survivors, and that these individuals were not notified of the appeal.

The Adjudicator found a fundamental defect in the adjudication process due to the lack of notice and proceeded to reconsider the order.

Upon reconsideration, the Adjudicator concluded that the information in Record C-14 was provided in a professional capacity and did not constitute personal information under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator affirmed the original decision and ordered the disclosure of the record.

A municipal councillor requested access to information regarding the past performance of a construction company that was recommended for a contract despite not being the lowest bidder.

The Township disclosed some information but withheld the names, employers, addresses, and telephone numbers of two individuals who provided references, claiming exemptions for third party information and personal information.

The adjudicator found that the withheld information was neither technical information under section 10(1) nor personal information under section 2(1), as it related to the individuals in their professional capacities.

The adjudicator ordered the disclosure of the withheld information and found the Township's search for records to be reasonable.

The adjudicator reconsidered Order P-1538 regarding a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The affected person argued that their name and title in correspondence constituted personal information and that disclosure posed a threat to their safety.

The adjudicator held that information identifying individuals in their professional or official capacity is not personal information under section 2(1) of the Act.

Furthermore, the adjudicator found insufficient evidence to establish a clear and direct linkage between disclosure and a serious threat to health or safety under section 20.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The complainant alleged that the Ministry of Health improperly disclosed his personal information to a university for a health survey without his consent.

The Ministry challenged the Commissioner's jurisdiction to investigate the complaint.

The Commissioner found she had jurisdiction under her general supervisory and reporting mandate.

On the merits, the Commissioner concluded that the disclosure of the complainant's name, address, and other details met the requirements for the research purpose exception under section 21(1)(e) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and therefore complied with section 42.

The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records relating to the Inter-ministerial Committee for Aboriginal Emergencies and the Ipperwash Provincial Park occupation.

The sole remaining issue was whether two pages of draft statements to be read in court were exempt under section 19 of the Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that litigation privilege had expired because the injunction application was withdrawn in 1995 and current litigation did not arise from the same subject matter.

Furthermore, the records did not qualify for solicitor-client communication privilege as they were read in court and did not constitute legal advice.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant sought access to records relating to the Emergency Planning for Aboriginal Issues Interministerial Committee and Ipperwash Provincial Park.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to certain records, claiming solicitor-client and litigation privilege under section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that litigation privilege no longer applied because the specific litigation (an injunction application) had been terminated and ongoing litigation did not arise from the same subject matter.

However, the Commissioner upheld the application of solicitor-client communication privilege for certain legal opinions and advice, while ordering the disclosure of draft court documents and factual information that did not reveal confidential communications.

A requester sought access to contracts between Ontario Hydro and a consulting firm.

Hydro decided to disclose the records.

The consulting firm appealed, claiming the records contained personal information and third party commercial information exempt under sections 21(1) and 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained corporate, not personal, information, and that the consulting firm failed to establish that the commercial information was supplied in confidence or that its disclosure would cause harm.

The appeal was dismissed and Hydro was ordered to disclose the records.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to the Interministerial Committee for Aboriginal Emergencies and the Core Working Group.

The Assistant Commissioner considered whether the records were exempt under the litigation privilege and solicitor-client communication privilege in section 19, and the personal privacy exemption in section 21(1).

The Assistant Commissioner found that litigation privilege did not apply as the specific litigation had terminated and ongoing litigation did not arise from the same subject matter.

However, some records qualified for solicitor-client communication privilege.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that certain information qualified as personal information and was exempt under section 21(1).

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

The appellant, a former civilian employee of the Waterloo Regional Police Service, requested access to all information relating to her in the possession of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

The Municipality denied access to some records, claiming they were excluded under section 52(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, or exempt under sections 12 and 14.

The Adjudicator found that section 52(3) did not apply because the related legal proceedings had been settled 14 years prior.

However, the Adjudicator upheld the application of solicitor-client privilege and personal privacy exemptions to several records, ordering the disclosure of the remaining records.

The Adjudicator also found the Municipality's search for an alleged audio tape to be reasonable.