Product details

Practice area: 
Privacy
Jurisdiction: 
General
Publication date: 
2020-12-17
ISBN: 
9780779896530

The 2020-2021 Annotated Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Acts

Availability: In Stock

The 2020-2021 edition of Annotated Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Acts includes all Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act amendments in force as of June 1, 2019, and the regulations thereunder as in force at June 1, 2019. The Commissioners orders summarized are those issued on or before April 30, 2019. The court decisions summarized are those made on or before April 30, 2019.

Noteworthy decisions that are new in this edition among the other, include:

  • Order PO-3894 (Re University of Western Ontario; October 30, 2018) — Two agreements between the university’s student council and third parties; the agreement between the council and a healthcare benefits provider is not in the university’s custody or control. The agreement between the council and the London Transit Authority is in the university’s custody; the university took over responsibility for student’s transportation and relied on the record for reconciliation purposes
  • Order PO-3921 (Re Ontario Securities Commission; January 25, 2019) — The Commissioner upheld the institution’s decision to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records. If the institution were to confirm or deny the existence of records, this could reasonably be expected to have a deterrent effect on existing or prospective complainant’s willingness to provide investigatory assistance to the institution
  • Order PO-3917 (Re Ministry of Community Safety & Correctional Services; December 21, 2018) — It would only be in the most unusual of cases that an affected person could raise the application of an exemption which has not been claimed by an institution. Given that the claim that disclosing information might seriously affect the safety interests of the company’s employees, this case meets the most unusual of cases standard and the § 20 exemption will be considered
  • Order MO-3685 (Greater/Grand Sudbury Police Services Board; November 14, 2018) — The § 14(2)(b) factor applies to a chart relating to the seizure of marijuana plants from various addresses
  • Order MO-3713 (Re Peel Regional Police Services Board; December 21, 2018) — Much of the withheld personal information relates to the deceased’s prior interactions with the police and their observations regarding her mental and physical health. This information differs significantly from the information already disclosed relating to the sudden death investigation. The information the requester has received regarding the sudden death investigation has not provided her with clarity regarding the circumstances surrounding and leading up to her sister’s death
  • Order MO-3295 (Re Algoma Public Health; March 10, 2016), upheld in Barker v. Ontario (Information & Privacy Commissioner), 2019 ONCA 275, reversing 2017 ONSC 7564 (Ont. Div. Ct.)
  • Privacy Complaint PC17-9 (Re Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario; August 2, 2018) — The tribunals published decisions are not covered by the privacy rules in Part III of FIPPA because the information in those decisions is maintained for the purpose of creating a record available to the general public

The 2020-2021 Annotated Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Acts

Author: David Goodis
Availability: In Stock

Description

The 2020-2021 edition of Annotated Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Acts includes all Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act amendments in force as of June 1, 2019, and the regulations thereunder as in force at June 1, 2019. The Commissioners orders summarized are those issued on or before April 30, 2019. The court decisions summarized are those made on or before April 30, 2019.

Noteworthy decisions that are new in this edition among the other, include:

  • Order PO-3894 (Re University of Western Ontario; October 30, 2018) — Two agreements between the university’s student council and third parties; the agreement between the council and a healthcare benefits provider is not in the university’s custody or control. The agreement between the council and the London Transit Authority is in the university’s custody; the university took over responsibility for student’s transportation and relied on the record for reconciliation purposes
  • Order PO-3921 (Re Ontario Securities Commission; January 25, 2019) — The Commissioner upheld the institution’s decision to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records. If the institution were to confirm or deny the existence of records, this could reasonably be expected to have a deterrent effect on existing or prospective complainant’s willingness to provide investigatory assistance to the institution
  • Order PO-3917 (Re Ministry of Community Safety & Correctional Services; December 21, 2018) — It would only be in the most unusual of cases that an affected person could raise the application of an exemption which has not been claimed by an institution. Given that the claim that disclosing information might seriously affect the safety interests of the company’s employees, this case meets the most unusual of cases standard and the § 20 exemption will be considered
  • Order MO-3685 (Greater/Grand Sudbury Police Services Board; November 14, 2018) — The § 14(2)(b) factor applies to a chart relating to the seizure of marijuana plants from various addresses
  • Order MO-3713 (Re Peel Regional Police Services Board; December 21, 2018) — Much of the withheld personal information relates to the deceased’s prior interactions with the police and their observations regarding her mental and physical health. This information differs significantly from the information already disclosed relating to the sudden death investigation. The information the requester has received regarding the sudden death investigation has not provided her with clarity regarding the circumstances surrounding and leading up to her sister’s death
  • Order MO-3295 (Re Algoma Public Health; March 10, 2016), upheld in Barker v. Ontario (Information & Privacy Commissioner), 2019 ONCA 275, reversing 2017 ONSC 7564 (Ont. Div. Ct.)
  • Privacy Complaint PC17-9 (Re Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario; August 2, 2018) — The tribunals published decisions are not covered by the privacy rules in Part III of FIPPA because the information in those decisions is maintained for the purpose of creating a record available to the general public