Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The appellant appealed Ontario Hydro's decision denying access to records relating to its exemption from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Ontario Hydro claimed the records were exempt under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege).

The Adjudicator found that Ontario Hydro conducted a reasonable search for records.

However, the Adjudicator determined that Ontario Hydro was not an agent of the Crown and did not share a solicitor-client relationship with the Ministry.

Furthermore, any privilege that might have existed was waived when the records were provided to the Ministry.

The Adjudicator ordered the disclosure of the records.

The appellant sought access to records compiled by the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) regarding the death of her sister while in police custody.

The Ministry of the Attorney General denied access to most records under the personal privacy and law enforcement exemptions.

The appellant claimed a right of access as the deceased's personal representative under section 66(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found the appellant failed to establish she was the personal representative and that the records did not relate to the administration of the estate.

The Adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding the records were exempt under the personal privacy exemption as they were compiled during a law enforcement investigation, and the public interest override did not apply.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Transportation's decision to deny access to records relating to the Ministry's purchase of a specific property for a proposed highway expansion.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they contained personal information of the vendors.

The Adjudicator found that some records did not contain personal information and ordered their disclosure with severances.

For the remaining records, the Adjudicator found they contained personal information relating to the vendors' financial affairs, their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, and there was no compelling public interest in disclosure that outweighed the exemption.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Energy, Science and Technology for records pertaining to the exemption of Ontario Hydro's successor companies from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

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

The adjudicator upheld the application of the solicitor-client privilege exemption for several e-mails and notes, and the cabinet records exemption for briefing documents and slides.

The adjudicator found that some records claimed under the advice or recommendations exemption were merely suggested responses for public queries and ordered their disclosure, while upholding the exemption for a meeting note.

The adjudicator also determined that the public interest override did not apply to the exempt records.

The appellant requested copies of photographs of herself taken by the police.

The police allowed her to view the photographs but refused to provide copies, citing the law enforcement exemption under sections 38(a) and 8(1)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as the photographs were documentary evidence for an upcoming criminal trial.

The adjudicator found that the police failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with the ongoing trial, especially since the appellant had already viewed them.

The police were ordered to disclose the records.

A requester sought a list of field names contained in two databases (RICI and CIPS) operated by the Toronto Police Services Board.

The Police denied access, claiming exemptions for third party information and economic interests.

The Assistant Commissioner found that a mere listing of field names, without additional database design information, does not constitute a trade secret or proprietary information.

The exemptions under sections 10(1) and 11 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act were not established.

The Police were ordered to disclose the list of field names.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Township of Middlesex Centre for records relating to a water and sewage project.

The Township granted partial access, withheld certain tender documents under the third-party information exemption, and charged a fee of $2,973.20.

On appeal, the adjudicator found the Township's search and method of access were reasonable, but significantly reduced the allowable fees, ordering a refund of $2,493.20.

The adjudicator also ordered the disclosure of most of the withheld tender documents, finding that the affected third parties failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence that disclosure would cause competitive harm.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated a complaint regarding the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' bulk disclosure of land registration records on microfilm to the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation (OPAC).

The Commissioner found that the information on the microfilm, including the Affidavit of Residence and Value of Consideration, constitutes personal information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner concluded that the bulk disclosure of the entire microfilm to OPAC was not in compliance with section 42 of the Act, as it was not for a consistent purpose nor required by statute.

However, the disclosure of the Affidavit alone to OPAC was found to comply with section 42(c).

The Ministry was ordered to discontinue the bulk disclosure of the microfilmed records.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General's decision granting partial access to OPP detachment records relating to herself.

The Adjudicator found that the Ministry conducted a reasonable search for records.

The Adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold personal information of other individuals under section 49(b) and ten-codes under section 14(1)(l).

However, the Adjudicator ordered the disclosure of certain information, including doctors' names and opinions about the appellant, finding it was the appellant's personal information and its disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy.

The complainant alleged the police breached the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by improperly disclosing her personal information in two occurrence reports to her estranged spouse.

The estranged spouse had submitted an access request with written consents from the complainant's former boyfriend and former husband.

The police disclosed the reports without notifying the complainant.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained the complainant's personal information and that the police failed to comply with the mandatory notification provisions under section 21 of the Act.

The disclosure was therefore not in accordance with section 32 of the Act.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board for all records pertaining to her son.

The Board disclosed some records but withheld others, claiming exemptions for closed meetings, law enforcement, third party information, solicitor-client privilege, and invasion of privacy.

The adjudicator found that the Board failed to establish the application of the closed meeting, law enforcement, and third party information exemptions.

The adjudicator upheld the application of the personal privacy exemption to certain records but found that withholding others would result in an absurdity.

Finally, the adjudicator determined that the Board's search for responsive records was unreasonable and ordered a new search.

An environmental advocacy organization requested access to agreements between the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Fur Trappers Association of Ontario.

The Ministry clarified the request and identified agreements with the Ontario Fur Managers Federation as responsive.

The Federation appealed the Ministry's decision to disclose the records, arguing they were not responsive and contained confidential third-party information.

The Adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the Ministry properly assisted in reformulating the request under section 24(2) of the Act, and that the records did not contain confidential information exempt under section 17(1).

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of the Solicitor General denying access to portions of an OPP occurrence report and police notebook entries regarding a verbal order directing him to stay away from a township.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold non-responsive information, personal information of other individuals compiled during a law enforcement investigation, and OPP ten-codes.

However, the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of two portions containing only the appellant's personal information and the professional information of school officials.

A couple visiting a Legal Aid Ontario office discovered that scrap paper provided to them contained the personal information of other clients, including names, addresses, birth dates, and Social Insurance Numbers.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated and found that the information constituted 'personal information' under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that its disclosure contravened section 42 of the Act.

The Commissioner commended Legal Aid Ontario for its prompt remedial actions but recommended further steps, including revising privacy memoranda and establishing ongoing staff training on privacy protection.

The appellant appealed a decision by the York Regional Police Service denying access to photographs and negatives of two individuals taken during a law enforcement investigation.

The Police claimed the records were exempt under the personal privacy exemption of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the photographs constituted personal information and that the presumption of an unjustified invasion of personal privacy applied because they were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

The decision of the Police to withhold the records was upheld.

The appellant requested access to a May 1999 environmental monitoring report regarding a waste disposal site.

The Township denied access, claiming the request was frivolous or vexatious under section 4(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing the report contained errors, was superseded, and the request was made in bad faith to embarrass the Township.

The adjudicator found the Township failed to establish bad faith or that the request was for a purpose other than to obtain access, noting the appellant had a legitimate interest in comparing the original report to subsequent versions.

The Township was ordered to issue an access decision.

The appellant sought access to OPP records relating to a fire board inquiry.

The Ministry denied access to 31 pages under the personal privacy and solicitor-client privilege exemptions, later dropping the privilege claim.

The adjudicator found that the records contained personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, which is presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(b) of the Act.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records with the exempt personal information severed.

The appellant submitted six freedom of information requests to the Ministry of the Environment.

The Ministry failed to issue decision letters within the 30-day time-frame prescribed by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, placing itself in a deemed refusal situation.

The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to provide the appellant with written notice of its access decisions by a specified date.

The appellant, an investigator for a life insurance company, submitted a freedom of information request to the Niagara Regional Police Service for a police report concerning the sudden death of a woman.

The Police denied access under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The appellant argued he had authorization from the deceased's sister, acting as administrator of the estate.

The Adjudicator found that the sister did not qualify as a 'personal representative' under section 54(a) of the Act because she had not been formally appointed as an executor or administrator.

Furthermore, the records were compiled during an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b).

The Police's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Toronto Police Services Board for records related to a 1996 criminal charge against him.

After an initial order granting access to certain records, the appellant requested a reconsideration, arguing that the adjudicator failed to address whether the Police conducted a reasonable search for a specific statement from the complainant.

The adjudicator reconsidered the matter and found that the Police's explanation for the absence of an initial signed statement was reasonable and plausible.

The adjudicator upheld the Police's decision, concluding that a reasonable search had been conducted.