Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The appellant, who had been convicted of sexual assaults, submitted a freedom of information request to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board for records relating to contacts the police had with other agencies concerning him.

The police denied access to 41 pages of records under various exemptions, including invasion of privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the police's decision, finding that the records contained personal information of the appellant and other individuals, and that disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant filed an appeal of a freedom of information decision seven months after the decision was issued.

The City argued the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction due to the 30-day time limit in section 39(2) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Although the City's decision letter failed to advise the appellant of the 30-day time limit, the Inquiry Officer found the seven-month delay was substantial and the appellant would not be prejudiced by strict adherence to the time limit, as he could file a new request.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for records relating to a disturbance at a youth centre and subsequent allegations of abuse by staff.

The Ministry denied access, claiming various exemptions and that the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(6) as employment-related matters.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected, prepared, maintained, or used in relation to meetings, discussions, or communications about an employment-related matter in which the Ministry had an interest.

The records were therefore excluded from the scope of the Act under section 65(6)3.

The appellant, a home care provider, sought access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the name and telephone number of an individual who complained to the Ministry of Community and Social Services about her compliance with the Day Nurseries Act.

The Ministry denied access, citing danger to safety and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding 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 21(3)(b).

The Officer also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as the appellant's interest was essentially private.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Health for records relating to the funding of defibrillators in Ontario.

The Ministry issued a revised fee estimate of $1785.80 and denied the appellant's request for a fee waiver.

The appellant appealed the fee estimate and the denial of the fee waiver.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the fee estimate, finding it was calculated in accordance with the Act.

The Commissioner also upheld the denial of the fee waiver, as the appellant failed to provide evidence of financial hardship and did not establish that dissemination of the records would benefit public health or safety.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to inspection reports concerning the use of animals in research facilities.

The appellant sought access to the numbers and species of animals used, and the nature of the research performed.

The Ministry and affected parties argued that disclosure would endanger the security of the facilities and the safety of researchers, and that the records contained confidential third-party information.

The Inquiry Officer found that the number and species of animals used were already publicly available through the Canadian Council on Animal Care and ordered their disclosure.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption for information relating to the nature of the research performed, finding that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger life, safety, or security, except for two facilities that consented to disclosure.

The complainant, a sewage treatment plant manager, alleged that the Ministry of Environment and Energy improperly disclosed his personal information to a third party acting on behalf of a village mayor.

The Ministry had provided the third party with a copy of a letter sent to the complainant regarding his operator's license, which included his home address and employment history.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that while disclosing the status of the license was for a consistent purpose under section 42(c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, disclosing the letter itself containing additional personal information was not in compliance with the Act.

The appellant sought access to his fingerprint records from the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Police agreed to release the records but required the appellant to attend in person to verify his identity through fingerprint analysis.

The Inquiry Officer found that since the Police had already verified the appellant's identity to their satisfaction before releasing other personal information, the additional requirement of personal attendance for fingerprint analysis was unnecessary and unreasonable.

The Police were ordered to send a copy of the fingerprints to the appellant.

A newspaper reporter appealed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services' decision to deny access to incident reports regarding physical assaults at a detention centre.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 14(2)(d) (correctional record) and 21(1) (invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while portions of the records contained personal information and were exempt, the remaining information did not constitute personal information and did not qualify for the correctional record exemption.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the severed records.

Two journalists requested access to dockets listing the names of police officers charged under the Police Services Act.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board denied access, claiming the records fell under the labour relations and employment exclusion in section 52(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the dockets were prepared as part of the Police's tribunal function to facilitate open hearings, not in their capacity as an employer.

Therefore, the records did not fall within the section 52(3) exclusion and the Police were ordered to issue a new access decision.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to the billing amounts of the ten highest billing general practitioners in Metropolitan Toronto.

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

The Inquiry Officer found that because the appellant narrowed the request to only the dollar amounts, without names or identifiers, the record did not contain 'personal information' about an identifiable individual under section 2(1).

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the billing figures.

The Ministry of Finance requested a reconsideration of Order P-1351, which ordered the Ministry to seek the Executive Council's consent to disclose certain impact studies under section 12(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the previous order provisions exceeded the Commissioner's jurisdiction by effectively substituting the Inquiry Officer's discretion for that of the head and impinging on the Premier's conventional powers.

The provisions were rescinded.

However, the Inquiry Officer found that the head's original decision not to refer the matter to the Executive Council was a reviewable exercise of discretion that failed to consider relevant factors.

The head was ordered to reconsider the decision.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Woodstock Police Services Board regarding a freedom of information request for records related to an investigation into allegations of perjury.

The appellant argued that the police's search for records was not sufficiently thorough, particularly regarding contact with another police agency.

The Inquiry Officer found that the police failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate a reasonable effort to identify and locate responsive records, relying solely on the former Chief's statements without detailing actual searches of record holdings.

The police were ordered to conduct a further search.

The appellants, acting as Estate Trustees Without a Will for their deceased father, requested police records relating to the boating accident that resulted in his death.

The Halton Regional Police Services Board denied access, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions, and disputed the father's death.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellants qualified as personal representatives under section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and required the records to administer the estate.

The law enforcement exemption was rejected because the records were mere observations, not formal reports.

The privacy exemptions were upheld only for information relating to other identifiable individuals, while information relating to the deceased, the appellants, and a consenting affected person was ordered disclosed.

The requester appealed the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board's decision to deny access to portions of records relating to an assault incident.

The Police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for invasion of privacy and facilitating the commission of a crime.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that the personal information was exempt under section 38(b) as its disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy, and that the CPIC access codes were exempt under section 8(1)(l) as their disclosure could facilitate unauthorized access to the CPIC system.

The appellant submitted two freedom of information requests to the Ministry of Finance for records relating to the assessment of his property for municipal realty tax purposes.

The Ministry claimed that no further responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the Ministry's search was inadequate.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search was reasonable for the second request and for the specific 'Notice of Valuation' document in the first request.

However, the Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry interpreted the first request too narrowly by failing to search a database for 'any other shred of evidence' proving the appellant was notified of the original assessment.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct a further search.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Management Board Secretariat for electronic versions of the Revised Statutes of Ontario and Revised Regulations of Ontario.

The institution denied access under section 22(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the information was publicly available.

The Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the statutes and regulations were available for purchase on CD-ROM and accessible for free on the Internet.

The Commissioner also dismissed the appellant's Charter arguments, noting that section 22(a) directs requesters to alternative sources rather than denying access.

The appellant, a licensed meat plant operator, submitted 55 freedom of information requests to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs for records relating to the meat inspection program and activities during an OPSEU strike.

The Ministry denied access to numerous records, claiming they were excluded from the Act under the labour relations provisions of section 65(6), or exempt under various provisions including solicitor-client privilege, law enforcement, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision for the majority of the records, finding they were properly excluded or exempt, but ordered the disclosure of a small number of records that did not meet the exemption criteria.

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

The appellant, a historian barred from entering Canada due to accusations of inciting hatred, submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for all documents concerning him.

The Ministry disclosed some records but withheld a handwritten note and a two-page memorandum under the solicitor-client privilege exemption.

The appellant appealed the denial and argued more records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding the withheld records were exempt under sections 19 and 49(a) of the Act, and concluded the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The appellant requested access to her deceased husband's OHIP Claims Reference File to determine the cost of his medical treatment and make donations to the hospitals involved.

The Ministry of Health denied access under the personal privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing she had a right of access as the executrix of his estate under section 66(a).

The Inquiry Officer found that section 66(a) did not apply because the request related to the appellant's personal affairs, not the administration of the estate.

The records were found to contain medical history, triggering the presumption against disclosure in section 21(3)(a), and the Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.