Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Environment and Energy's decision to deny access to a letter relating to the appellant's application for a sewage system and use permit.

The Ministry denied access under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the letter contained highly sensitive personal information of the affected person and other identifiable individuals, and upheld the Ministry's decision to deny access.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Health for her health records, including version codes and billing information.

The Ministry disclosed some records but severed portions containing the personal information of other individuals.

The appellant appealed, arguing the severed records should relate to her and that additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the severed information was not responsive to the request as it contained billing information of other individuals.

The Inquiry Officer also concluded that the Ministry's search for responsive records was reasonable.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision regarding a freedom of information request for records relating to the denial and subsequent reversal of his re-appointment to a Police Services Board.

The appellant argued that more records should exist and that severed portions of a record were responsive.

The Inquiry Officer found that the severed portions did not relate to the appellant and were not responsive.

The Inquiry Officer also concluded that the Ministry's search for responsive records was reasonable, as the appointments were political and there was no requirement to document the decisions.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to portions of records relating to timber licences.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 17(1) (third party information), and 19 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were exempt under section 13(1), while others did not meet the requirements and were ordered disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the application of section 17(1) to certain records containing confidential commercial information, and section 19 to records containing legal advice.

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

The appellant requested access to the detailed cellular phone invoices of the Town Administrator.

The Town claimed it did not have custody or control of the detailed call listings, as the Administrator discarded them and the Town Council had passed a resolution stating the Administrator was not required to submit them.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Town had control of the records, as the account was in the Town's name and the cellular company would provide copies upon request.

The Town was ordered to obtain the records and issue an access decision without charging a fee.

The appellant requested access to all information pertaining to any investigation conducted by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board into a named bookstore and its staff.

The Police granted partial access to three records and refused to confirm or deny the existence of other records under section 14(5) of the Act, claiming invasion of privacy under section 14(1).

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the Police failed to provide sufficient evidence that confirming the existence of the records would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, and thus section 14(5) did not apply.

However, the Commissioner upheld the decision not to disclose the records themselves, as they contained personal information of individuals other than the appellant and disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Guelph Police Services Board for records relating to investigations into computer bulletin board services.

The Police refused to confirm or deny the existence of the records under section 8(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that section 8(3) no longer applied because the investigation had concluded and charges had been laid, making the matter public.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the decision to deny access to the records under section 8(1)(a), as disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement matter before the courts.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Environment and Energy's fee estimate of $1,227.50 for processing a freedom of information request regarding lagoon type sewer systems in Northwestern Ontario.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's calculation, which included 39.25 hours of search time, photocopying, and courier fees, was reasonable and in accordance with the Act and Regulation.

The fee estimate was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request for job specifications, physical demands analyses, and salary ranges for several positions within the Ontario Insurance Commission.

The Ministry of Finance granted partial access but claimed no job specification existed for the Commissioner position.

The appellant appealed the reasonableness of the search.

The Inquiry Officer accepted the Ministry's affidavit evidence that a search of human resources files was conducted and no such record was created, concluding the search was reasonable and upholding the Ministry's decision.

The appellant sought access to police records relating to the death of her husband.

In an interim order, the Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the personal information of both the appellant and the deceased, requiring analysis under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and directed the Police to provide representations on their exercise of discretion.

The Police refused, maintaining that section 14 applied and declining to exercise discretion under section 38(b).

The Inquiry Officer held that the Police could not forestall a decision by refusing to respond, conducted an independent review, and ordered the disclosure of the records, finding that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision that no records existed responsive to a request for information regarding complaints against an Assault Crisis Centre.

The sole issue was whether the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The Inquiry Officer found the search unreasonable because the Ministry failed to search the files of the review team members who conducted an operational review of the Centre, or any centralized offices.

The Ministry was ordered to conduct a further search.

The requester appealed the Metropolitan Licensing Commission's decision to deny access to the names, addresses, and licence details of taxi licence holders.

The Inquiry Officer found that information relating to corporate and partnership licence holders did not constitute personal information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and ordered its disclosure.

However, the Inquiry Officer upheld the Commission's decision to deny access to the information of natural person licence holders, finding that it constituted personal information and its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

A trade union representing sheet metal workers requested access to the names, addresses, and certification details of sheet metal workers and apprentices from the Ministry of Education and Training.

The Ministry denied access under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the requested records contained personal information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

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

The requester appealed the City of Nanticoke's decision to transfer a freedom of information request to the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk, arguing the City had custody or control of the requested zoning and licensing records.

The sole issue on appeal was whether the City's search for responsive records was adequate.

The Inquiry Officer found that the City's search was reasonable, noting that the records were likely transferred to the Regional Municipality when it assumed planning functions.

The City's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Education and Training's decision to transfer a freedom of information request to the Peel Board of Education, arguing that the Ministry should have responsive records.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Ministry's search for records prior to the transfer was reasonable, as the requested records related to the jobsOntario Training program, which are maintained directly by individual brokers rather than the Ministry.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant requested a copy of their jobsOntario application from the Peel Board of Education.

The Board advised that the requested record did not exist.

The appellant appealed the decision.

The Inquiry Officer found that the Board's search for the records, which included checking its own files and contacting another jobsOntario broker, was reasonable in the circumstances.

The Board's decision was upheld.

The requester appealed the City of London's decision to deny access to the address of his former employer, which he sought to complete a Workers' Compensation Board questionnaire.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the City's decision, finding that the address constituted personal information and its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of privacy under section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester failed to establish that the information was necessary for a fair determination of rights or that a compelling public interest outweighed the privacy exemption.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to a stayed criminal charge against an individual who allegedly broke into the appellant's home.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 19, 21(1), 49(a), and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were exempt under solicitor-client privilege and personal privacy exemptions, while others did not qualify for these exemptions.

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

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Natural Resources' decision to deny access to three records related to the drilling of a well, claiming the third party information exemption under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant also appealed the reasonableness of the Ministry's search for inspection and monitoring records.

The Inquiry Officer found that Record 1 met the three-part test for exemption under section 17(1)(b) and was properly withheld.

However, Records 2 and 3 did not meet the test because the information was not supplied to the Ministry by the third party, and were ordered disclosed.

The Inquiry Officer also upheld the Ministry's search for records as reasonable.

The requester appealed the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board's decision to deny access to tape recordings of their hearing.

The Board claimed it lacked the technological means to reproduce the recordings under section 30 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and also claimed exemptions under sections 20, 49(b), and 49(d).

The Inquiry Officer found that it was reasonably practicable to reproduce the recordings and that the claimed exemptions did not apply, ordering the Board to disclose the recordings in their entirety.