Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The appellant requested access to information relating to refunds of rehabilitation deposits for a specific quarry.

The Ministry of Natural Resources denied access to two statements of return filed by the current lessee, claiming the third party information exemption under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the records contained commercial information supplied in confidence, neither the Ministry nor the lessee provided evidence to substantiate a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The requester sought information from the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board regarding complaints about harassing phone calls allegedly made by a named individual.

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

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Police's decision, finding that confirming or denying the existence of the records would reveal whether the named individual was the subject of a police investigation, which would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Act.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of the Attorney General relating to a job competition in which he was an unsuccessful candidate.

The Ministry denied access to the resumes, covering letters, interview answers, and scores of the other candidates under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (invasion of privacy).

The appellant appealed and argued that the public interest override in section 23 applied.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained personal information and that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under various presumptions in section 21(3).

The Inquiry Officer also found that the appellant failed to establish a compelling public interest in disclosure under section 23.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

A newspaper reporter appealed the County of Grey's decision to deny access to Notices of Intent submitted under its Tree By-law.

The County claimed exemptions for invasion of privacy and third party information, and attempted to raise additional discretionary exemptions late in the process.

The Commissioner refused to consider the late exemptions.

The Commissioner found that the information related to individuals in their business capacities, not personal capacities, so the privacy exemption did not apply.

Furthermore, the third party information exemption did not apply because the information was not supplied in confidence.

The County was ordered to disclose the Notices.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Finance's decision to deny access to a Special Examination Report concerning a trust company.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including the law enforcement exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the report was prepared during a special examination under section 183 of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, rather than a routine inspection under section 184.

Therefore, the report qualified for the law enforcement exemption under section 14(2)(a) and the Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

A former employee of the City of Oshawa appealed the City's decision to deny access to records relating to the position of City Manager and a forensic accounting investigation that led to the employee's termination.

The Inquiry Officer found that the internal investigation did not qualify as a 'law enforcement' matter under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, several records were found to be exempt under solicitor-client privilege, either as confidential communications or as records prepared in contemplation of litigation.

The draft by-law exemption was applied strictly to actual drafts, not to staff comments, and the advice exemption was applied only to specific suggested courses of action.

The City was ordered to disclose the non-exempt records.

The complainant, representing the Adult Protective Association of Ontario, filed a privacy complaint regarding the Ministry of Community and Social Services' collection of personal information from the files of developmentally challenged clients without their consent.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether the collection complied with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that while the collection of personal information was necessary for the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity under the Development Services Act, the Ministry failed to provide the required notice of collection under section 39(2) of the Act.

The Ministry was ordered to ensure proper notice is given for future collections.

The requesters appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to portions of a draft document entitled 'A Proposal to Designate Wildlife Rehabilitators as Agents of the Crown' under the advice or recommendations exemption in section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the substantive advice and recommendations under each option were properly exempt, but the headings identifying the options did not contain advice or recommendations and must be disclosed.

The requester appealed the Township of Bentinck's decision to deny access to various records related to a property development, including correspondence and building plans.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the solicitor-client privilege exemption to the correspondence.

The Inquiry Officer also found that most of the building plans were exempt from disclosure under the third party information and security exemptions, with the exception of one plan which was ordered disclosed.

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

The requester appealed the Town of Gravenhurst's decision to deny access to records relating to a land development proposal.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Town's decision, finding that one record was exempt under the solicitor-client privilege exemption as it was prepared by counsel for legal advice or litigation.

The Commissioner also found that the remaining record was exempt under the closed meeting exemption, as its disclosure would reveal the actual substance of deliberations of a closed committee meeting.

The appellant appealed the decision of Sheridan College of Applied Arts and Technology to deny access to records relating to a human rights complaint and grievance.

The College claimed exemptions under sections 19 (solicitor-client privilege) and 21 (invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that disclosure of personal information of other individuals in certain records would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 49(b).

The Inquiry Officer also found that most of the records qualified for exemption under section 19 and section 49(a) as they were subject to solicitor-client privilege or prepared for litigation, but ordered the disclosure of one record and portions of legal accounts that did not relate to the seeking or giving of legal advice.

The appellant appealed the Sarnia Police Services Board's decision to deny access to certain information in cellular telephone bills, including phone numbers, account numbers, and the name of the authorized recipient.

The Police claimed exemptions under the law enforcement provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the information was administrative in nature and did not qualify for exemption under sections 8(1)(b), (c), (d), or (g).

The Police were ordered to disclose the information.

The complainant alleged that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs improperly disclosed his personal information to the Interim Chair of the Ontario Municipal Board and to a Town employee via facsimile.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information constituted personal information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The disclosure to the Interim Chair was found to be for a consistent purpose and thus compliant with section 42 of the Act, as it allowed the Chair to respond to the complaint against him.

However, the disclosure to the Town was not for a consistent purpose and violated section 42.

The Ministry was recommended to ensure future compliance.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to the 1992 increase in probate fees.

The Ministry relied on the Cabinet records and advice and recommendations exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the application of the Cabinet records exemption to the Treasury Board submission and its attachment.

The Inquiry Officer also found that portions of a briefing note qualified for the advice and recommendations exemption, but ordered the disclosure of the remaining records, finding no compelling public interest to override the exemptions.

An employee of the Ministry of Finance complained that the Ministry's collection of Social Insurance Numbers (SIN) on three internal forms violated the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the SIN is personal information under section 2(1) of the Act.

The collection of the SIN on the 'Request for Leave of Absence' form was found to comply with section 38(2) because it was necessary for payroll administration.

However, the collection of the SIN on the 'Statement of Travelling Expenses' and 'Request for Advance' forms was not necessary for the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity and therefore violated section 38(2).

The Ministry was recommended to cease collecting the SIN on the latter two forms.

The requester appealed the Town of Meaford's decision to deny access to records regarding a property subject to an Order to Remedy.

The Town claimed exemptions under section 10(1) (third party information) and section 12 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Town failed to establish the requirements for the section 10(1) exemption for tender documents.

Regarding section 12, the Inquiry Officer upheld the exemption for three records that were confidential communications between solicitor and client, but ordered the disclosure of the remaining records, which involved communications with third parties.

The appellant appealed the Borough of East York's decision to deny access to records concerning a 1984 fence viewer's award under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Borough relied on the invasion of privacy exemption in section 14.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained only the personal information of an affected person and that no factors weighed in favour of disclosure.

The Borough's decision to deny access was upheld.

The requester appealed the decision of the Guelph Police Services Board to deny access to portions of records relating to a complaint filed by the requester against the police.

The police claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including section 38(b) for unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law under the Police Services Act, triggering the presumption in section 14(3)(b).

The decision of the police to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate of $787.90 issued by the Durham Regional Police Services Board in response to a request for police records relating to the appellant.

The Inquiry Officer found that under section 45(2) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, fees cannot be charged for access to records containing the requester's own personal information.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Police to recalculate the fees based on a record-by-record analysis, rather than a page-by-page analysis, and upheld a fee estimate of $161 for records that did not contain the appellant's personal information.

The requester appealed the City of Etobicoke's decision to deny access to the name of a person who filed a by-law complaint against them.

The City relied on the law enforcement exemption under section 8(1)(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing that disclosing the name would reveal a confidential source.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the City's decision, finding that the confidentiality of complainants is integral to the by-law complaints process and that the City properly exercised its discretion to refuse disclosure of the requester's own personal information under section 38(a).