Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The appellant requested the name and contact information of an anonymous lawyer who submitted a statement on behalf of a respondent in a human rights complaint.

The OHRC denied access.

The Adjudicator found that the lawyer's name and professional contact information did not qualify as 'personal information' under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, considering representations from the affected lawyer regarding the appellant's past aggressive behaviour, the Adjudicator applied the discretionary exemption under section 14(1)(e) (health and safety), finding a reasonable basis to believe disclosure could endanger the lawyer's physical safety.

The OHRC was ordered to exercise its discretion under section 14(1)(e).

The appellant requested access to police notebook entries regarding an incident involving a local transit authority.

The Toronto Police Services Board denied access to a witness's personal information under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing the presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b).

After being ordered to reconsider its exercise of discretion, the Police provided further representations.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Police's decision, finding that they had properly weighed the competing interests and exercised their discretion in favour of protecting the third party's privacy.

A journalist requested information from the Ontario Realty Corporation regarding all properties sold since 1995, specifically seeking the purchaser's name, address, and purchase price.

The ORC denied access to information about individual purchasers under the personal privacy exemption and to some business purchasers under the third-party commercial information exemption.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the business purchaser information did not meet the test for exemption under section 17(1) and ordered its disclosure.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the individual purchaser information was exempt under section 21(1), except where consent was provided, but deferred the final decision to seek representations on whether the compelling public interest override in section 23 applied.

The appellant requested a correction of personal information contained in two letters sent to him by the Ministry of Finance regarding his property assessment and an access request.

The Ministry denied the request, arguing that some of the information was not personal information and that the rest was accurate.

The Assistant Commissioner found that all the information at issue was the appellant's personal information.

However, the Assistant Commissioner concluded that the appellant failed to establish that the information was inexact, incomplete, or ambiguous, and dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant's right to file a statement of disagreement.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) for a 1999 Anderson Consulting report on its supply chain operations.

The LCBO denied access, claiming the record was exempt under sections 12(1)(e) and 18(1)(f) and (g) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the adjudicator found that the report was prepared to brief the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations on matters currently before the Executive Council.

Consequently, the record was held to be exempt from disclosure as a Cabinet record under section 12(1)(e), and the LCBO's decision was upheld.

The appellant made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to allegations he made about a Ministry employee.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded from the Act under sections 65(6)1 and 65(6)3, arguing they related to labour relations or employment matters.

The Adjudicator found that while the records were connected to an employment-related investigation, there was no reasonable prospect of proceedings, nor did the Ministry establish a legal interest capable of being engaged.

The records were therefore subject to the Act, and the Ministry was ordered to issue an access decision.

The appellants sought access to a police occurrence report regarding an incident at a tavern in which they were involved, intending to use the information for a civil lawsuit.

The St. Thomas Police Services Board disclosed severed records, withholding the names and personal information of other individuals involved under the personal privacy exemption.

The adjudicator upheld the decision, finding that the information was compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumption of an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(3)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator also found that the public interest override in section 16 did not apply, as the appellants' interest in the information was primarily private.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Peel Regional Police Services Board stating that no records existed in response to his request for surveillance records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant believed he was the subject of a large surveillance network and that records must exist because of a discrepancy with a previous request where the Police refused to confirm or deny the existence of records.

The Adjudicator found that the Police had made reasonable efforts to search for and locate responsive records in its Intelligence Services bureau, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General for records relating to his unsuccessful application to the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(6)3 as employment-related matters in which it had an interest.

The Adjudicator found that while the records related to an employment matter, the Ministry failed to establish a legal interest that was reasonably capable of being engaged, as there was no evidence of a human rights or other complaint.

The records were therefore subject to the Act, and the Ministry was ordered to issue an access decision.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to four sealed envelopes contained in his personnel file at the City of Toronto.

The City denied access, claiming the records were excluded under sections 52(3)1 and 52(3)3 as they related to labour relations and employment matters, specifically a grievance that the appellant had recently withdrawn.

The adjudicator found that the first envelope, which contained information directly related to the grievance, was excluded from the Act because the grievance was withdrawn without prejudice and could be reactivated, meaning the City retained a legal interest.

However, the adjudicator found no substantial connection between the remaining three envelopes and the grievance, and ordered the City to issue an access decision for those records.

The appellant, acting as the Estate Trustee for a deceased individual, appealed a decision by the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board denying access to records concerning a fraud investigation involving the deceased's property.

The Adjudicator found that while the appellant qualified as the deceased's personal representative under section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the records contained the personal information of other identifiable individuals.

The Adjudicator concluded that the records were compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b).

The Police's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care regarding a freedom of information request.

During the inquiry, the Ministry and the affected party submitted representations and requested that they be withheld from the appellant.

The Adjudicator found that large portions of the Ministry's representations and the entirety of the affected party's representations did not meet the confidentiality criteria and ordered them to be shared with the appellant.

The appellant appealed a fee estimate provided by the Amherstburg Police Services Board in response to a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The fee estimate included $30 for one hour of search time and $15 for 30 minutes of preparation time.

The adjudicator found the estimated times to be reasonable given the locations searched and the volume of responsive records.

The fee estimate was upheld.

In an appeal regarding a freedom of information request for environmental compliance records, the Ministry of the Environment and an affected party objected to sharing their representations with the appellant.

The Adjudicator ruled that most of the representations did not meet the confidentiality criteria and must be shared with the appellant.

However, specific portions that would reveal the substance of the records claimed to be exempt were ordered to be withheld.

The appellant appealed the PGT's denial of access to records pertaining to his father's estate.

During the inquiry, the PGT submitted representations, including a 'Confidential Facts and Evidence' document, and requested that it be withheld from the appellant.

The Adjudicator found that the PGT's generalized claim of confidentiality was insufficient and ordered that the non-highlighted portions of the document be shared with the appellant, as they did not reveal the substance of the exempt records or qualify for confidentiality.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to deny access to a response to a request for proposals submitted by an affected party.

During the inquiry, the affected party requested that its representations be withheld from the appellant due to confidentiality concerns.

The adjudicator applied the Wigmore test and the IPC's confidentiality criteria, finding that some portions of the representations met the criteria for withholding, while other portions consisting of generalized assertions of law and argument did not.

The adjudicator ordered that the non-confidential portions be shared with the appellant.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Elliot Lake Police Services Board for a police report relating to a fatal motor vehicle accident involving his son.

The Police denied access citing privacy and law enforcement exemptions.

On appeal, the adjudicator found that the appellant did not qualify as the deceased's personal representative under section 54(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator held that most of the records contained personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation, triggering the presumed unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(3)(b).

However, the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of a diagram, certain photographs of the vehicle, and the contact information of one consenting witness, as they did not fall under the exemptions.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General for police records relating to the death of her mother.

The Ministry withheld portions of the records as non-responsive, and denied access to the remainder under various exemptions including invasion of privacy and law enforcement.

The adjudicator found that the appellant failed to establish she was the personal representative of her mother's estate.

The adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold most of the records under the invasion of privacy exemptions (sections 21(1) and 49(b)) and the law enforcement exemption for police ten-codes (section 14(1)(l)).

However, the adjudicator ordered the disclosure of a witness signature on an authorization form signed by the appellant, applying the 'absurd result' principle.

The Ministry of the Attorney General sought reconsideration of an order directing the disclosure of certain records.

Following a Court of Appeal decision clarifying the test for the section 20 exemption under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the adjudicator reconsidered the matter.

Applying the new test, the adjudicator found that the affected person's concerns about health and safety were not groundless or exaggerated, given the violent history of the organization associated with the appellant.

The adjudicator concluded that the records fell within the section 20 exemption and rescinded the previous order for disclosure.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Thunder Bay for records relating to parking violations on a specific residential street.

The City denied access to several records, claiming exemptions for advice or recommendations, law enforcement, and unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The adjudicator found that while some records contained personal information compiled during a law enforcement investigation and were exempt under sections 14(1) and 38(b), the City failed to establish that the remaining records qualified for the advice or recommendations exemption or the law enforcement exemptions.

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