Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The appellant, a genealogist, appealed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' decision to deny access to portions of a statement of death, a marriage record, and a birth record under the personal privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some of the withheld information did not qualify as personal information and ordered its disclosure.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold the remaining personal information, finding that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and that the public interest override in section 23 did not apply.

The appellant requested access to correspondence between Ontario Hydro and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited regarding an environmental impact statement on nuclear fuel waste disposal.

Ontario Hydro denied access to a three-page appendix, claiming exemptions for third party information and economic interests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that while the appendix contained scientific and technical information supplied in confidence, Ontario Hydro failed to establish that disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in the specified harms.

The Commissioner also found that the economic interests exemptions did not apply, as the impact statement was already finalized and the requirements of the provisions were not met.

Ontario Hydro was ordered to disclose the appendix.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board denying access to notes, minutes, or transcripts of a Board hearing.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's search for records was reasonable, as no transcripts or minutes are taken at hearings and the Labour Relations Officer's notes had been discarded.

The Inquiry Officer also determined that any notes taken by Board members during the hearing were not in the custody or under the control of the Board, and therefore not accessible under the Act.

The Board's decision was upheld.

The Inquiry Officer reconsidered Order P-792, which had ordered the Ministry of the Attorney General to disclose a memorandum.

Following two Divisional Court decisions that found the previous interpretation of section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to be patently unreasonable, the Inquiry Officer determined she had jurisdiction to reconsider the order.

Upon reconsideration, the Inquiry Officer found that the memorandum was prepared by Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice and was therefore exempt from disclosure under Branch 2 of section 19.

The previous order provisions requiring disclosure were rescinded.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for 'all evaluation documents' pertaining to two tender requests.

The Ministry provided evaluation tables and scores but the appellant appealed, arguing the request should have included the actual tender documents submitted by other bidders.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's interpretation of the request was reasonable and that it had fulfilled its obligations under section 24 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as the request did not indicate the appellant was seeking the actual tender documents.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services requested a reconsideration of Order P-1044, which had ordered the disclosure of certain police investigation records relating to a motor vehicle accident.

The Inquiry Officer found a jurisdictional defect in the original order's failure to consider the section 14(1)(a) law enforcement exemption independently from other subsections.

Upon reconsideration, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure of the records prior to the related Highway Traffic Act trial could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter.

The records were therefore found to be exempt under sections 14(1)(a) and 49(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant, a former student, appealed the College's response to a freedom of information request, claiming that further responsive records should exist, specifically notes of meetings and professors' notes regarding grades.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the College's search efforts, including an affidavit detailing record-keeping practices and steps taken to locate records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the College's search for records was reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services relating to an OPP investigation into complaints that a paper released by the appellant violated the hate sections of the Criminal Code.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records under various exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that most of the records contained the personal information of other individuals compiled during a law enforcement investigation, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, two pages containing only the appellant's personal information did not qualify for exemption under section 13(1) as advice or recommendations, and were ordered to be disclosed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to portions of records relating to his stay at a psychiatric facility in 1976 and 1977.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 21, 49(b), and 49(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that section 49(d) did not apply, but upheld the application of section 49(b) to most of the undisclosed information, as it contained highly sensitive personal information of the appellant's family members.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of portions of the records that pertained only to the appellant and found that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The appellant appealed the City of Stoney Creek's decision that no records existed responsive to a request for communications between the Mayor and named individuals.

During mediation, one draft letter was located in outside counsel's files, which the City withheld under various exemptions.

The appellant subsequently produced a responsive letter that the City had not located.

The Assistant Commissioner found the City's search efforts insufficient and ordered the City to conduct further searches, including in the Mayor's office and outside counsel's files, and to provide sworn affidavits detailing the searches.

The appellant sought access to the severance agreement between the City of Orillia and its former fire chief.

The City denied access, claiming the closed meeting exemption under section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that disclosure of the agreement would reveal the actual substance of the deliberations of an in-camera meeting.

The public interest override in section 16 was found inapplicable to section 6 exemptions.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs' decision to deny access to a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Investigation Report.

The Ministry claimed the report was excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the report was prepared in relation to anticipated proceedings before the Grievance Settlement Board relating to labour relations.

Therefore, the record fell within the parameters of section 65(6)1 and was excluded from the scope of the Act.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, a teacher, submitted an access request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for lists of the Board's probationary staff appointments.

The Board disclosed the records but severed the teachers' names under the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the recent amendments to the Act under Bill 7 did not apply retrospectively to the request.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Board's decision, finding that the disclosure of the names would reveal employment history, constituting a presumed unjustified invasion of privacy.

The public interest override did not apply as the appellant's interest was essentially private.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to records concerning his complaint about police conduct during a search of his property.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the police officers' personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the presumption against disclosure did not apply because the records contained information provided by the appellant himself.

Balancing the privacy interests, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure would not result in an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and ordered the Ministry to disclose the records.

The appellant, an unsuccessful candidate for Chief of Police, requested access to records related to the selection process from the Cornwall Police Services Board.

The Board denied access to meeting notes and consultant materials, claiming exemptions for closed meetings, advice and recommendations, and third-party information.

The Inquiry Officer found that none of the claimed exemptions applied and ordered the disclosure of the records, subject to severing the personal information of other individuals.

The Officer also found that the Board's search for responsive records was unreasonable and ordered a further search.

The appellant requested reconsideration of Order M-666, which upheld the Municipality's decision to withhold the identity of a farmer who shot the appellant's dogs.

The Inquiry Officer granted the reconsideration, finding a significant defect in the initial inquiry because the Municipality failed to disclose a relevant page of its Animal Control manual.

Upon reconsideration, the Inquiry Officer determined that the Animal Control Officer was not conducting a law enforcement investigation, meaning the presumptions under sections 14(3)(b) and 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act did not apply.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the farmer's name, as it was relevant to a fair determination of the appellant's rights to pursue a civil suit, but upheld the withholding of the farmer's address and telephone number.

The appellant, a teacher, submitted access requests to the Board of Education for the City of Hamilton for the credentials of several other teachers to support a complaint before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board denied access on the basis that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information relating to employment and educational history, and that disclosure was presumed to be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer also held that the public interest override did not apply, as the appellant's interest was primarily private.

The Board's decisions were upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to disclose records to a requester.

In an interim order, the Inquiry Officer directed the Ministry to provide representations on the factors it considered in exercising its discretion to disclose the records under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

After reviewing the Ministry's representations, the Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry exercised its discretion in accordance with established legal principles and upheld the decision to disclose the records.

The appellant requested records from the City of Windsor relating to the construction of an addition to a building and any related by-law variance applications.

The City denied access to numerous records, claiming exemptions for solicitor-client privilege, advice or recommendations, closed meetings, and law enforcement.

The Inquiry Officer found that most records were exempt under solicitor-client privilege as they were prepared in contemplation of litigation following the revocation of a building permit.

Some records were exempt as advice or recommendations, while others were ordered disclosed because they did not meet the criteria for the claimed exemptions.

The appellant, a former employee of the Management Board Secretariat, appealed the Secretariat's decision to deny access to three pages of handwritten notes regarding a workplace complaint made against him.

The Secretariat claimed the records were exempt under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information in the record was "highly sensitive" under section 21(2)(f) and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other individuals.

The Secretariat's decision to deny access was upheld.