Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to his criminal prosecution.

The Ministry denied access to most records, claiming exemptions including solicitor-client privilege and unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

On appeal, the adjudicator allowed the Ministry to raise a late discretionary exemption claim.

The adjudicator found that while 'opinion' work product in the Crown brief remained privileged after the termination of the litigation, 'ordinary' work product did not.

The adjudicator ordered the disclosure of the non-privileged records, subject to the severance of the personal information of other individuals to protect their privacy.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ministry of the Solicitor General regarding a freedom of information request for records kept by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCOPS).

The appellant sought minutes of meetings concerning her complaint about police conduct.

The Ministry disclosed some records but claimed no minutes existed for the case review meetings.

The adjudicator found that the Ministry's search was reasonable, accepting evidence that OCCOPS case review meetings are conducted without taking minutes, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed a decision by the Ministry of Natural Resources denying access to two pages of handwritten notes taken by a conservation officer investigating damage to their trapline.

The Ministry relied on the law enforcement exemption under section 14(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the records contained personal information and related to an ongoing investigation under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act.

The adjudicator concluded that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Amherstburg Police Services Board seeking the dollar amounts of legal fees incurred in various matters.

The Police granted partial access but withheld portions of legal accounts and reporting letters, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator upheld the decision, finding that legal bills and reporting letters are confidential communications protected by common law solicitor-client communication privilege, and that partial disclosure did not amount to a waiver of privilege.

The appellant made a broad request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Port Colborne for records relating to the farming operations and proposed subdivision of property owned by several affected persons.

The City denied access to numerous records, claiming exemptions for economic interests, solicitor-client privilege, closed meetings, personal privacy, and third-party information.

The adjudicator found that the City waived solicitor-client privilege by disclosing the records during an Ontario Municipal Board proceeding.

The adjudicator upheld the personal privacy exemption for records containing highly sensitive personal information and tax collection data, but ordered the disclosure of the remaining records, finding that the City and affected persons failed to establish the requirements for the other claimed exemptions.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to his payment of alimony and support, and any reporting by the Ministry to credit agencies.

The Ministry granted partial access, and the appellant appealed, arguing that additional records reflecting communications with credit bureaus should exist.

The Adjudicator found that while the Ministry's initial search was inadequate, the records sought no longer exist due to a one-year retention period, and the search undertaken during mediation was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board for records relating to the sudden death of her son.

The Police denied access to the records, citing the personal privacy exemption under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the records contained personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.

Consequently, the presumption of an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) applied and could not be rebutted by the factors in section 14(2).

The appellant requested access to school bus tender information from the Rainbow District School Board.

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 Assistant Commissioner found that while the information was commercial and supplied in confidence, the Board and affected parties failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence of a reasonable expectation of harm.

The exemptions under sections 10(1) and 11 were not established, and the Board was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant requested access to a contract between the Toronto Transit Commission and a third party retailer.

The TTC denied access to portions of the contract, claiming the third party information exemption under sections 10(1)(a) and (c) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information in the disputed clause was not a trade secret, was not supplied in confidence as it was a negotiated contract term, and its disclosure could not reasonably be expected to cause the harms alleged.

The TTC was ordered to disclose the disputed clause.

The appellant made freedom of information requests to the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board for records relating to the use of Georgian Polished Wire glass in schools and accident reports concerning her son's injury.

The Board provided a fee estimate for searching work orders and denied access to certain witness statements.

The Adjudicator found that the Board's fee estimate was reasonable in calculation but required a sample manual review to provide a proper interim decision.

The Adjudicator also ordered the Board to conduct further searches for incident reports and student files, and ordered the disclosure of two witness statements with personal identifying information severed.

The appellant requested an electronic list of donors who contributed to candidates in the 1997 municipal election.

The City of Toronto denied access, arguing the information was already publicly available in hard copy and that disclosing the electronic database would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that while the information was not exempt under section 15(a) because the electronic format contained more data and was in bulk form, it was exempt under section 14(1) as an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Commissioner held that the bulk disclosure of personal information in electronic format, which could be easily manipulated and widely disseminated, outweighed the public interest in disclosure, which was already served by the paper-based access provided under the Municipal Elections Act.

The City's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care's decision to deny access to the names of individuals contracted to review drug submissions, while granting access to the amounts paid to them.

The Ministry claimed the names were exempt under the personal privacy exemption.

The adjudicator found that the names constituted personal information and that their disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of privacy, as the information was highly sensitive and could expose the reviewers to lobbying or harassment.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the names but ordered a reduction in the fee charged for search time.

The appellant, acting on behalf of her deceased husband's estate, appealed the Halton Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to a Sudden Death Occurrence Report and related police notebook entries.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence (such as a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee) to prove she was the personal representative under section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Furthermore, the records contained personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation, and their disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of privacy under sections 14(1) and 38(b).

The Police's decision to deny access was upheld.

A requester sought access to information regarding a 1999 tender award for utility restoration and pavement repairs from the City of Windsor.

The company awarded the tender objected to the disclosure of the tender purchase order and the cost of the contract, arguing it would prejudice its competitive position under section 10(1)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that while the information was commercial and financial, the company failed to establish that it was supplied in confidence or that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in competitive harm.

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

The appellant sought access to a police occurrence report regarding an alleged sexual assault involving her young son.

The Toronto Police Services Board denied access to portions of the report, citing the invasion of privacy exemption.

The adjudicator found that the withheld portions contained personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption of an unjustified invasion of privacy.

While one affected person consented to the disclosure of her statement, the adjudicator upheld the police's decision to withhold the remaining information, finding no compelling public interest that outweighed the privacy exemption.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Sarnia Police Service for records relating to an incident leading to his arrest.

The Police denied access to several records, citing exemptions for law enforcement and unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

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

However, the Adjudicator ordered the disclosure of severable portions of certain records that contained the appellant's personal information without unjustifiably invading the privacy of others, while upholding the decision to withhold the remaining records.

The appellant insurer made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General for records held by the Office of the Fire Marshal relating to an arson investigation.

The Ministry denied access, claiming exemptions for law enforcement, solicitor-client privilege, and personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that the law enforcement and privilege exemptions did not apply, as the OFM's investigation was not for the purpose of enforcing a law or for litigation.

However, the adjudicator upheld the exemption for personal information contained in the records, ordering the disclosure of the records with the personal information severed.

The appellant sought access to records relating to the taxation of Gold Loans, hedging transactions, and the calculation of profit under the Mining Tax Act.

The Ministry of Finance denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, intergovernmental relations, third party information, tax return information, and solicitor-client privilege.

The Adjudicator refused to allow the Ministry to raise additional discretionary exemptions late in the process.

Applying the dominant purpose test for litigation privilege, the Adjudicator found that some records were exempt while others were not.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose portions of the records that did not qualify for the claimed exemptions.

The Ontario Liquor Board Employees Union appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to the 'LCBO Modernization Report' under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry claimed the report was exempt from disclosure as it would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the policy options in the report were submitted to Cabinet, thus triggering the mandatory exemption under section 12(1).

The adjudicator also found that the Minister appropriately exercised discretion under section 12(2)(b) in deciding not to seek Cabinet consent for disclosure.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of the Environment regarding a request for records relating to a Drive Clean complaint file.

The appellant argued that additional records should exist in the possession of a named company contracted by the Ministry.

The adjudicator found that the Ministry had custody of the records and that its search for responsive records was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.