Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The requester sought access to all their personal information held by the City of Hamilton across various departments.

The City issued a fee estimate of $1,059.30 for search time and denied the requester's application for a fee waiver, arguing the request was exceptional and non-routine.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that section 45(2) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act strictly prohibits an institution from charging a fee for access to an individual's own personal information.

The City was ordered to complete its search and issue an access decision without charging fees.

The appellant requested ongoing access to copies of the Ministry's business names registration microfilm under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry denied access, claiming exemptions under sections 22(a) (information available to the public) and 18(1) (valuable government information and economic interests).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the alternative record-by-record search system did not provide the requested bulk information, and that the raw registration data was neither commercial information nor the property of the Government of Ontario.

The Ministry also failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of prejudice to its economic interests.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the microfilm and provide a schedule for continuing access.

The complainant filed a privacy complaint alleging that a school board improperly disclosed his personal information, including details of his human rights complaint against the board and associated legal fees, in response to access requests and at public board meetings.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information was personal information and that the public record exclusion in section 27 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act did not apply.

The Assistant Commissioner concluded that the board's disclosures in response to the access requests and at public meetings were not in compliance with section 32 of the Act, as the board failed to notify the complainant before disclosure.

The Assistant Commissioner recommended that the board take precautions to ensure future compliance.

The appellant requested records relating to a Fire Marshal's investigation of a fire that destroyed their residential property.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services denied access to most of the records, citing the invasion of privacy exemption under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

During mediation, the appellant clarified they did not seek the personal information of other individuals, such as firefighters.

The Inquiry Officer found that once the personal information of other individuals was severed from the records, the remaining information could not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the severed records to the appellant.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to correspondence between a reporter and the Office of the Public Trustee regarding a deceased individual's estate.

The Ministry initially claimed exemptions under sections 14(1)(a) and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, but later withdrew the section 14(1)(a) claim.

The Inquiry Officer found that the reporter corresponded in a professional capacity, so the records did not contain his personal information.

Information regarding the deceased's estate was ordered disclosed as it had received wide media attention, meaning disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the section 21(1) exemption for portions of the records containing employment and financial information of other identifiable individuals, finding its disclosure would be a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Orillia for municipal water testing results.

The City provided a fee estimate of $196.40 and denied a fee waiver, stating it was not their policy to waive fees.

The appellant appealed the denial of the fee waiver.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the records related to a public health issue, it would not be fair and equitable to waive the fee because the requested information was available free of charge from the Ministry of Environment and Energy.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant appealed the County of Wellington's decision to deny access to portions of his General Welfare Assistance file under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant also claimed that additional records should exist and that the copies provided were incomplete.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption for a two-page letter and portions of a narrative sheet, finding their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The search for records was deemed reasonable, but the County was ordered to allow the appellant to review the original file to identify any missing pages from the copies provided.

The requester sought access to records relating to dock work completed by the appellant.

The Ministry of Natural Resources granted partial access, withholding some personal information under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant objected to the disclosure of the remaining records, arguing they were exempt under section 17(1) (third party information).

The Inquiry Officer found that the information was not supplied in confidence and did not meet the test for exemption under section 17(1).

However, the Inquiry Officer found that some of the records contained personal information whose disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 21(1), and ordered those portions withheld.

The Ministry's decision to disclose the remaining records was upheld.

The requester made 36 separate access requests to the Town of Penetanguishene under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Town claimed a 213-day time extension for each request, arguing that the volume of requests would unreasonably interfere with its operations, and further alleged that the requester's actions constituted an abuse of process.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the requester's conduct did not amount to an abuse of process.

The Commissioner also held that section 20(1)(a) of the Act requires each request to be considered separately, and that the Town could not rely on the cumulative effect of multiple requests to justify a time extension.

The Town was ordered to issue access decisions within 30 days.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Transportation for records relating to an explicit analysis of a new freeway corridor.

The Ministry initially denied access to a draft analysis and later provided a final report, claiming that no other responsive records existed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that additional records should have been located.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records and dismissed the appeal.

The requester sought access to reports or summaries of investigations of bailiffs under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry denied access to eight reports, citing law enforcement and privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records met the three-part test for law enforcement reports under section 14(2)(a) of the Act, as they were prepared by the Ministry in the course of investigating potential violations of the Bailiffs Act.

The public interest override in section 23 was found inapplicable to section 14 exemptions.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested access to the last two versions of the final test and solutions administered to police officers taking the breath alcohol training course.

The Ministry denied access under several exemptions, including section 18(1)(h) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for examination questions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had definite plans to reuse the questions and that section 18(1)(h) applied.

The Inquiry Officer also determined that the record could not be reasonably severed under section 10(2) because disclosing only the answers would either reveal the exempt questions or result in meaningless information.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to personal information held by the Ministry of the Attorney General relating to a complaint against him filed with the Police Complaints Commissioner.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, citing law enforcement and invasion of privacy exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumed invasion of privacy under section 21(3)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access to the exempt portions, found the search for records reasonable, and denied the requests for continuing access and in-person viewing of original records.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs' decision to deny access to records concerning alliances or facilities-sharing arrangements between the Ministry and a named corporation.

The Ministry and the corporation claimed the records were exempt under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as third party commercial information supplied in confidence.

The Inquiry Officer found that while correspondence and diagrams were supplied in confidence and exempt, draft agreements negotiated between the parties were not 'supplied' by the third party and must be disclosed.

The Chief of Police for the City of London appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to certain records relating to the Special Investigations Unit (SIU).

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) and section 49(a) of the Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained the personal information of the Chief and the SIU Director, and that they qualified for exemption under Branch 2 of section 19 as they were prepared by Crown counsel in contemplation of litigation regarding a potential libel suit.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the exemption but ordered the Ministry to conduct a further search for records relating to an SIU audit process, finding the initial search unreasonable.

The appellant requested access to their test results and test paper from an unsuccessful application for a transit operator position with the City of Mississauga.

The City denied access to the test questions under section 11(h) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming they were questions to be used in an examination or test for an educational purpose.

The Inquiry Officer found that the test was used for an employment-related purpose, not an educational purpose, and ordered the City to disclose the test paper in its entirety.

The Ministry of Transportation received a freedom of information request for an agreement between the Ministry and a bus supplier.

The Ministry granted access to three schedules to the agreement, and the bus supplier appealed, claiming the schedules were 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 Schedule A was the product of negotiations and not 'supplied' to the Ministry, and that Schedule C was publicly discussed, making any expectation of confidentiality unreasonable.

However, the Inquiry Officer found that Schedule B contained information supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the supplier's competitive position.

The Ministry was ordered not to disclose Schedule B, but its decision to disclose Schedules A and C was upheld.

The appellant requested access to his OHIP billings and continuing access for two years under section 24(3) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry of Health disclosed the existing record but denied continuing access, arguing that an OHIP Claims Reference File is not produced on a set schedule.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that section 24(3) is intended for records produced or issued in series, not for records which are updated irregularly based on an individual's use of medical services.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board for information regarding another individual's criminal history.

The Police refused to confirm or deny the existence of any responsive records pursuant to section 14(5) of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that the requested information is highly sensitive and that disclosing even the existence or non-existence of such records would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

A journalist appealed the London Police Services Board's decision to deny access to a videotape shown at a Coroner's Inquest regarding an individual who died in police custody.

The Inquiry Officer found that the videotape contained highly sensitive personal information of the deceased and another individual.

The Officer concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply because the police's actions had already been scrutinized through the inquest and a Special Investigations Unit investigation.