Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Labour for access to records pertaining to grievance proceedings against him.

The Ministry located three grievance forms and denied access to two of them under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records did not contain the appellant's personal information and that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the individuals who filed the forms.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The parents of an elementary school student appealed the Ottawa Board of Education's decision to deny access to records concerning an investigation into an incident involving their son and his former teacher.

The Board claimed the records were exempt under the personal privacy provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that disclosure of the teacher's personal information in the investigation notes would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy and ordered them disclosed.

However, portions of other records containing the personal information of other parents, students, and teachers were found to be exempt and were withheld.

The appellant requested access to statements and submissions pertaining to a workplace harassment complaint made against her.

The Regional Municipality of Waterloo denied access to several records, citing the invasion of privacy exemption under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the decision and alleged a conflict of interest by the decision-maker.

The Inquiry Officer found no conflict of interest and determined that one disputed record was responsive to the request.

The Officer ordered partial disclosure of the interview notes, finding that disclosing certain portions would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy, while upholding the denial of access to the remainder.

The appellant requested access to the social services file of her deceased husband from the Town of Kirkland Lake.

The Town denied access, claiming the invasion of privacy exemption under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant met the criteria to act as the deceased's personal representative under section 54(a) of the Act, as she was contemplating a derivative legal action under the Family Law Act.

Consequently, the appellant was entitled to access the deceased's personal information, and disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Town was ordered to disclose the records, excluding the personal information of the appellant's children.

The appellant, an unsuccessful candidate in a job competition, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to the interview scores of the other candidates.

The Inquiry Officer found that the scores constituted personal information and that their disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as they were subject to the presumption against disclosure for personnel evaluations in section 21(3)(g).

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for police records relating to a motor vehicle accident in which her husband was killed.

The Ministry denied access, citing law enforcement, right to a fair trial, and invasion of privacy exemptions.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that while some portions of the records contained personal information of other individuals and were exempt from disclosure under sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Ministry failed to establish that disclosure of the remaining information would interfere with a law enforcement matter or deprive a person of a fair trial under section 14(1).

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the records to the appellant.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Labour's decision to deny access to eight records relating to an investigation into a fatal workplace accident.

The Ministry claimed the records were exempt under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) and section 14(1)(a) (law enforcement) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that all eight records were prepared by or for Crown counsel in contemplation of or for use in litigation, satisfying the requirements of Branch 2 of the section 19 exemption.

The Ministry's decision to withhold the records was upheld.

The appellant requested the names, addresses, and phone numbers of all persons who applied for the City of Mississauga's Urban Forest Management Advisory Committee.

The City denied access under the personal information exemption in section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that the records contained personal information and that none of the exceptions to the mandatory exemption applied, as disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The requester, a former inmate at the Toronto Jail, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to portions of his jail file.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 49(b) (invasion of privacy) and 49(e) (confidential correction record) of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the undisclosed information in the correctional records was supplied in confidence by other individuals, and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal that confidential information.

Furthermore, the disclosure of other inmates' personal information would constitute an unjustified invasion of their personal privacy, as the information was highly sensitive.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed the Town of Pickering's decision to deny access to certain records relating to a landfill site, claiming solicitor-client privilege under section 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester also challenged the reasonableness of the Town's search for records and argued the Town claimed the exemption too late.

The Inquiry Officer allowed the late exemption claim, finding no prejudice to the requester.

The Officer held that the legal opinions and portions of the legal accounts were exempt under section 12.

The Officer also found the Town's search for records was reasonable, except for one item, and ordered the Town to issue a decision letter regarding three newly identified letters.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for correspondence and a financial audit regarding a Community Resource Centre.

The Ministry located some records but the appellant appealed, arguing that more records should exist, specifically a letter from June 1994.

The Inquiry Officer reviewed the Ministry's representations and an affidavit from the program co-ordinator detailing the search efforts.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Environment and Energy's decision that no records existed in response to two requests for information about charges or prosecutions against two businesses.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant provided no reasonable basis for believing records should exist, and that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records.

The Ministry's decisions were upheld.

The appellant submitted 21 freedom of information requests to the Ministry of Finance seeking information about a trust company relating to a condominium construction project and the Ministry's investigation of the appellant's complaints.

The Ministry denied access to certain records, claiming exemptions for third party information, advice and recommendations, invasion of privacy, and information published or available.

The Ministry also charged a fee and denied a fee waiver.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of exemptions to some records but ordered others disclosed.

The fee was reduced by disallowing preparation time, and the decision not to grant a fee waiver was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to records concerning out-of-country provincial health coverage for 'snowbirds'.

The Ministry relied on exemptions for solicitor-client privilege and relations with other governments.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of solicitor-client privilege to legal memoranda and notes of meetings involving legal counsel, but ordered the disclosure of issue sheets and charts that were not prepared for legal advice.

The Assistant Commissioner also upheld the exemption for information received in confidence from other provincial governments regarding their future plans for out-of-country health coverage.

Partial disclosure was ordered.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of Health pertaining to a housing project for adults with physical disabilities.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, economic interests, and third party information.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner reviewed the records and found that only a small portion qualified for exemption under section 17(1) as third party information, and certain pages qualified under section 13(1) as advice or recommendations.

The Ministry failed to establish that section 18(1)(e) applied to any of the records.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records to the appellant.

The appellant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for information relating to the assessment of retail sales tax.

The Ministry of Finance denied access to some records and claimed that no records existed for the portion of the request seeking statistical data on retail sales tax assessments for similar businesses.

The appellant appealed the decision regarding the existence of records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to locate responsive records and upheld the Ministry's decision.

The appellant appealed the Town of Gravenhurst's decision to deny access to certain records relating to a planned development project.

The Town claimed exemptions under section 12 (solicitor-client privilege) and section 14 (invasion of privacy) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were properly exempt under both sections and that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply.

The Town's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested records relating to a sexual harassment complaint, written discipline correspondence, and her personnel file from the Metropolitan Separate School Board.

The Board denied access to the investigation records citing invasion of privacy and refused to confirm or deny the existence of the discipline correspondence.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board could not refuse to confirm or deny the existence of the discipline records as it had already confirmed their existence.

The Officer ordered the disclosure of the response to the complaint and meeting minutes, finding it would not be an unjustified invasion of privacy, but upheld the exemption for the Board's conclusion letter.

The Officer also found the Board conducted a reasonable search for records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to whether he had been declared mentally incompetent or had a power of attorney entered on his behalf without his knowledge.

The Ministry searched the files at the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee and found no responsive records.

The appellant appealed, arguing records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant provided no reasonable basis for his claim that such records should exist and concluded that the Ministry had conducted a reasonable search.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants sought access to police records relating to an investigation that led to sexual assault charges against them, which were later withdrawn.

The Police denied access to several records, claiming solicitor-client privilege and unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that solicitor-client privilege did not apply because there is no solicitor-client relationship between the Police and a Crown attorney.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the appellants could not exercise their adult son's right of access as they were not his appointed committee.

Some records were ordered disclosed, while others containing sensitive medical and personal information of third parties were found exempt under the personal privacy provisions.