The annotations in The 2018-2019 Annotated Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Acts are organized around the various sections of the provincial Act. Following the text of each section is a general Commentary and a description of Related Provisions in the provincial Act. Under the heading Municipal Information and Privacy Act is a reference to the equivalent section of MFIPPA and a note of any differences it may exhibit, as well as a description of the related provisions of that Act.
The 2018-2019 edition includes the following new legislative developments and decisions:
- Amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
- Ontario (Children’s Lawyer) v. Ontario (Information & Privacy Commissioner), 2018 ONCA 559 (Ont. C.A.): although the Ministry of the Attorney General is an institution under s. 2(1) of FIPPA, bodies that may be administratively structured under the ministry are not automatically subject to FIPPA.
- Toronto Star v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 2586: at issue was the constitutional validity of section 21(1) of FIPPA which sets out a presumption of non-disclosure of personal information and imposes an onus on the requesting party to justify disclosure of a record.
- Order MO-3477 (Re Toronto Police Services Board; August 3, 2017): the temporary disabling of a computer is not, without more, confirmation of unreasonable interference.
- Order MO-3489 (Re Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority; August 29, 2017): it would be contrary to the purpose of the act to respondent to evade its statutory duty to provide its residents with access to its information simply because its board of directors was exercising authority as a separate legal entity over which it holds ultimate authority.
- Order PO-3738-I (Re Ministry of Economic Development, Employment & Infrastructure; June 20, 2017): the provisions of the legislation relating to frivolous or vexatious requests were included in the act for the benefit of institutions. The affected party is neither entitled to declare that the request is frivolous or vexatious itself, nor entitled to substitute its own view of the request for that of the head of the institution.
- Privacy Complaint PI16-3 (Re Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services; September 13, 2017): a Commissioner-initiated complaint relating to a police officer’s use of a personal cell phone to record an interaction with a member of the public during a traffic stop, and the officer’s later destruction of the device.
- Order PO-3734 (Re Ministry of Health & Long-Term Care; May 24, 2017): the record at issue qualified as a “report” since it set out information that was gathered, along with conclusions and recommendations based on very detailed analysis of the information.
- Order MO-3476 (Re Peel Regional Police Services Board; July 31, 2017): the information in the record at issue was a series of questions about police street checks and racial data. This information did not reveal information gathered by a law enforcement agency in a covert manner with respect to ongoing efforts devoted to the detection and prosecution of crime or the prevention of possible violations of law.
- Order PO-3817-I (Re Ministry of Natural Resources & Forestry; February 27, 2018): the First Nation in this case qualified as “another government” for the purposes of s. 15(a) of FIPPA.