Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to certain records relating to funding for a flood control project.

The Ministry claimed exemptions for Cabinet records and advice or recommendations.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry could not raise a new discretionary exemption late in the appeals process.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of the Cabinet records exemption to documents prepared in 1988, but ordered the disclosure of briefing notes prepared in 1995, finding they were not presently before Cabinet.

The Assistant Commissioner also found the Ministry's search for records was reasonable and that the Commissioner's office lacks the authority to award costs.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to deny access to 40 pages of records regarding their company's registration with the Small Business Development Corporation.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under law enforcement and personal privacy provisions.

The Inquiry Officer refused to allow the Ministry to raise a new discretionary exemption late in the appeals process.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the withheld records were properly exempt under the law enforcement exemptions (confidential source and law enforcement report) and the personal privacy exemption, but ordered the disclosure of three records that did not qualify for exemption.

The appellant, representing a driver involved in a motor vehicle accident, appealed the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board's decision to deny access to portions of police records relating to the accident.

The Police withheld personal information of the second driver and a pedestrian under the personal privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumption against disclosure under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, as there was no compelling public interest in disclosure for the purpose of a civil suit.

The decision of the Police was upheld.

The appellant made a 13-part request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Lanark County Board of Education for various financial and personnel records.

The Board issued a fee estimate of $180, which the appellant appealed, arguing that each of the 13 items should be treated as a separate request entitled to two hours of free search time.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appropriate calculation of chargeable search time is based on the actual activity of searching for records, not the wording of the request.

The Board's fee estimate was upheld as reasonable.

The appellant, the Guelph Mercury, appealed the City of Guelph's decision to deny access to a Fire Station Location Study prepared by the Office of the Fire Marshal.

On reconsideration, the City claimed the record was excluded under section 52(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act because it related to labour negotiations, and exempt under section 9(1)(b) as information received in confidence from the provincial government.

The Inquiry Officer found that the report was not sufficiently connected to labour negotiations to be excluded under section 52(3).

Furthermore, the Ministry confirmed there was no expectation of confidentiality regarding the report, meaning section 9(1)(b) did not apply.

The City was ordered to disclose the record.

The appellant submitted multiple freedom of information requests to the City of Mississauga, including one for records pertaining to the City's Active and Inactive Indexing Record System (ARIS/IRIS) regarding a specific property.

The City denied access, claiming it was only required under section 25 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to maintain and provide a Classes of Records Directory.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the Directory was not responsive to the request.

The Commissioner identified a specific one-page listing of ARIS/IRIS file holdings as the responsive record and ordered the City to issue a proper access decision regarding that document under section 19 of the Act.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Finance for records relating to his property tax assessment.

The Ministry refused access, claiming the request was frivolous or vexatious as part of a pattern of conduct amounting to an abuse of the right of access or made in bad faith.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry failed to establish reasonable grounds that the request was part of a pattern of conduct or made in bad faith.

The Ministry was ordered to make an access decision.

The appellant made requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to the Township's General Accounts.

The Township disclosed the accounts with some information severed, later claiming the invasion of privacy exemption.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found the appeal was timely because the initial disclosure did not include a proper decision letter.

The Inquiry Officer declined to consider new discretionary exemptions raised late by the Township.

Ultimately, the Inquiry Officer upheld the severance of names of individuals but ordered the disclosure of the remaining information, including pension fund contributions and legal services details.

The appellant submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of the Attorney General for a transcript of a cross-examination of a named individual.

The Ministry denied access under section 21, citing an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Inquiry Officer found that the record contained personal information of individuals other than the appellant and that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply, as there was no compelling public interest sufficient to outweigh the purpose of the exemption.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to a named individual and a publication investigated as potential hate literature.

The Ministry denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, solicitor-client privilege, danger to safety or health, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer refused to consider late-raised discretionary exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the records were exempt under Branch 2 of the solicitor-client privilege exemption, as they were prepared by or for Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice.

Four records were found not to qualify for this exemption and were ordered disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the Ministry's application of the personal privacy exemption to certain records and concluded that the Ministry had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records.

The appellant submitted a multi-part freedom of information request to Le Conseil des ecoles francais de la communaute urbaine de Toronto under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The institution identified numerous records but subsequently argued that some were not responsive to the request.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the disputed records individually to determine if they were reasonably related to the request.

The Inquiry Officer found that only four of the disputed records were responsive, while the remainder fell outside the scope of the request and would not be considered in the final order.

The appellant appealed the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's decision that it could not locate a letter sent to its Social Services Division by the appellant's landlord.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner reviewed the affidavit provided by the Municipality detailing the searches undertaken.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Municipality had taken all reasonable steps to locate the requested record and dismissed the appeal.

A parent complained about a school board's collection of personal information (names and telephone numbers) on a survey regarding year-round education.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information collected was 'personal information' under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The collection was not expressly authorized by statute nor necessary to the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity, violating section 28(2).

Furthermore, the board failed to provide the required notice of collection under section 29(2).

The board was recommended to collect personal information only when necessary and to ensure future compliance.

The appellant appealed the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's decision to deny access to portions of his personnel and Workers' Compensation Board files under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Municipality's decision, finding that portions of the records were properly withheld under section 38(b) as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy regarding employment history.

The Inquiry Officer also found that other portions were properly withheld under section 38(a) in conjunction with section 12, as they contained quoted legal advice subject to common law solicitor-client privilege.

The appellant requested access to a complete police file, including police officers' notes and witness statements, relating to a specific incident.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access to parts of the notes and the witness statements under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the personal information in the records 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 appeal was dismissed and the Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Environment and Energy's decision to grant only partial access to records relating to an Environmental Technologies Program grant awarded to a third party company.

The Ministry and the company claimed the withheld information was exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third party commercial information.

The Inquiry Officer found that some of the information did not meet the harms test under section 17(1) and ordered it disclosed, but upheld the exemption for the remaining information.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for all records relating to him, specifically mentioning police investigative notes.

The Ministry asked for clarification, which the appellant did not provide.

The Ministry searched its occurrence database using the appellant's name but found no records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the request lacked sufficient specificity to allow a broader search and that the Ministry had reasonably fulfilled its duty to assist the appellant in reformulating the request.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant submitted a broad request to the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board for all records containing his name.

The Police closed the file after the appellant refused to clarify his request.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while the request was not specific enough to locate all potentially responsive records in non-computerized systems, it was sufficiently specific to require the Police to search their current computerized records.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Police had reasonably fulfilled their duty to assist the appellant in reformulating his request.

The Police were ordered to conduct a computerized search and issue an access decision.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Environment and Energy's decision to deny access to portions of two internal electronic mail messages regarding the Keele Valley landfill site.

The Ministry claimed the severed information was exempt under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as advice or recommendations.

The Inquiry Officer found that the severed information did not contain a suggested course of action and was not sufficiently connected to the deliberative process of government decision-making.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Ministry to disclose the records to the appellant.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Natural Resources for correspondence relating to two property lots.

The Ministry granted partial access but withheld certain records under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant appealed, arguing the records were relevant to concerns about property values.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information of affected third parties and were unrelated to the appellant's concerns.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.