Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the City of Hamilton for a permit authorizing a construction company to work past 11:00 p.m.

The City responded that no such records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that police and an inspector had told him a permit was issued.

The adjudicator found that the City's search for the records was reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the Town of Renfrew's response to a freedom of information request regarding records related to flooding on his property.

The Town initially claimed solicitor-client privilege over some records but later disclosed its entire file.

The sole remaining issue was whether the Town conducted a reasonable search for survey studies requested by the appellant.

The adjudicator found that the Town's search of its files and its solicitor's files was reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to police occurrence reports and a public complaint file.

The Ministry claimed the public complaint file was excluded from the Act under section 65(6) as an employment-related matter.

The Assistant Commissioner found that section 65(6) did not apply because the investigation occurred six years prior and there was no ongoing legal interest or anticipated proceeding.

Regarding the occurrence reports, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the law enforcement exemption because the records were not 'reports'.

However, some personal information of other individuals was exempt under the invasion of privacy exemption, while information originally supplied by the appellant was ordered disclosed to avoid an absurd result.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to various records relating to the Ipperwash incident under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that some records were exempt under solicitor-client privilege, Cabinet records, advice or recommendations, relations with other governments, and personal privacy.

However, the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of several records, finding that the public interest override applied to the advice or recommendations exemption, and that the third party information and economic interests exemptions did not apply.

The Ministry was also ordered to conduct a further search for responsive records.

The appellant sought access to an intake form completed by his former spouse and filed with the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The Ministry denied access under sections 19, 21(1), 49(a), and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that certain factual information about the child and the appellant's own personal information must be disclosed, as disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy and the information was not subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The Ministry's decision to deny access to the remaining highly sensitive personal information of the former spouse was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Health.

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, nor did it request a time extension under section 27(1).

Consequently, the Ministry was in a deemed refusal situation pursuant to section 29(4).

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

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of the Attorney General denying access to a one-page letter from his former spouse's lawyer to the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The Ministry claimed the record was exempt under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the record contained only the personal information of the former spouse relating to her eligibility for social services or welfare benefits.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, concluding that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(c) of the Act.

A requester sought access to inspection reports for an overseas private school from the Ministry of Education and Training.

The Ministry decided to disclose the records, and the school appealed, arguing the records contained trade secrets, commercial, financial, and labour relations information supplied in confidence under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that the records did not contain such information, were not supplied in confidence, and their disclosure could not reasonably be expected to cause the harms specified in section 17(1).

The Ministry's decision to disclose the records was upheld.

The requester sought access to records relating to the award of contracts for the construction of schools by the Board, specifically point score sheets and lists of pre-qualified tenderers.

The Board denied access, claiming exemptions for third party information and economic interests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that the financial and commercial information in Section A of the records met the three-part test for the third party information exemption and was exempt from disclosure.

However, the scores and comments in Section B, as well as the lists of contractors, did not qualify as trade secrets or commercial, financial, or technical information.

The Adjudicator also rejected the Board's claim that disclosure of this remaining information would prejudice its economic interests.

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

The appellant appealed GO Transit's decision to deny access to portions of a response to a Request for Quotation for translation services.

The affected party and GO Transit claimed the records were exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that the undisclosed information, which included pricing, marketing methods, and service delivery details, qualified as commercial and technical information supplied in confidence.

The Adjudicator concluded that disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the affected party's competitive position, and upheld the decision to deny access.

The appellant, daughter of the victim in a murder-suicide, appealed the Elliot Lake Police Services Board's decision to deny her request for access to police investigation records concerning her mother's death.

The adjudicator upheld the police's decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation.

Disclosure was presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator also found no compelling public interest to override the privacy exemption.

The appellant, through an agent, requested access to a Sudden Death Report prepared by the Toronto Police Services Board regarding her daughter's death.

The Police disclosed portions of the records but denied access to the remainder under the invasion of privacy exemptions in sections 14(1) and 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, finding that the undisclosed information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation and its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy.

Furthermore, the adjudicator found that the appellant and her agent did not provide sufficient documentation to establish themselves as the 'personal representative' of the deceased under section 54(a) of the Act.

The appellant mailed an appeal of a freedom of information decision to the Information and Privacy Commissioner within the 30-day statutory period, but it was delayed in the mail and received after the period expired.

The institution argued the appeal was out of time.

The Adjudicator held that the effective date for making an appeal under section 50(2) of the Act is the date of mailing, not the date of receipt.

The institution's objection to timeliness was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Management Board Secretariat for copies of two property management contracts between the Ontario Realty Corporation and a third-party company.

The company objected to disclosure, and the institution denied access under the third-party information exemptions in sections 17(1)(a) and (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the contracts contained commercial and financial information supplied in confidence, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the company's competitive position.

The adjudicator upheld the decision to withhold the bulk of the records, but ordered the disclosure of the Request for Proposals portion, which did not meet the exemption criteria.

The appellant requested access to records from the Waterloo Region District School Board relating to disputes involving a teacher, trespass charges, and civil litigation.

The Board denied access to 80 records under various exemptions.

The Adjudicator found that most records were excluded from the Act under section 52(3) as they related to employment matters in which the Board had an interest.

For the remaining records, the Adjudicator upheld exemptions based on unjustified invasion of personal privacy and solicitor-client privilege, but ordered the disclosure of two records that were factual and administrative in nature.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Education and Training's decision to deny access to records relating to the approval of a registered massage therapy program at a private vocational school.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under section 17(1) (third party information) and section 21(1) (invasion of privacy).

The adjudicator found that certain records contained the personal information of consultants and were exempt under section 21(1).

The adjudicator also found that portions of the records constituted trade secrets of the school and were exempt under section 17(1), as they were supplied in confidence and their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the school's competitive position.

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

The appellant appealed the Ministry's search for records relating to the Emergency Planning for Aboriginal Issues Interministerial Committee and Ipperwash Provincial Park.

In an interim order, the adjudicator found the initial search unreasonable and ordered the Ministry to conduct further searches and provide affidavits detailing the search efforts and record management practices.

The Ministry provided the affidavits and located additional responsive records.

The adjudicator found the Ministry's subsequent search efforts and explanations regarding electronic records satisfactory, but determined the Ministry took an overly restrictive approach by excluding 23 records dated within the requested timeframe simply because the named individual's name did not appear on the face of the record.

The Ministry was ordered to issue an access decision for those 23 records.

The appellant sought access to records maintained by the Ministry of Community and Social Services relating to three agencies operating group homes.

The Ministry and the affected agencies claimed exemptions under sections 17(1) (third party information) and 21(1) (personal information) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that certain records contained personal information requiring severance.

Applying the three-part test for section 17(1), the adjudicator determined that some records contained labour relations information supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice ongoing negotiations, and were thus exempt under section 17(1)(a).

The remaining records did not meet the test and were ordered disclosed.

The adjudicator also found the Ministry's search for records to be reasonable.

The requester appealed the Ontario Insurance Commission's decision to deny access to records relating to an investigation of an insurance agent.

The adjudicator refused to allow the OIC to raise a late discretionary exemption.

The adjudicator found that some records were exempt as law enforcement reports under section 14(2)(a) and others were protected by solicitor-client privilege under section 19.

However, the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of several records that did not meet the requirements for the law enforcement exemptions claimed.

The adjudicator also upheld the OIC's decision to withhold personal information of third parties under section 21(1).

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Toronto for agreements relating to the processing of materials under the blue box program.

The City withheld one agreement under the closed meeting exemption in section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the agreement was the subject of deliberations at an in camera meeting of the Management Committee, and its disclosure would reveal the substance of those deliberations.

The adjudicator also noted that the public interest override in section 16 does not apply to section 6.

The City's decision to withhold the record was upheld.