Decisions of the Information Commissioner

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Commission. He found it was justified in refusing access to the information sought under section 37(1) of the FOI Act.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department's decision.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Council.

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Department. While he found that the Department was justified in refusing access to the vast majority of the information at issue under section 37(1), he found that a small amount of information was not exempt and directed its release.

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Council. She affirmed the Council's decision to refuse access to records under section 31(1)(a) of the Act on the basis of legal professional privilege. She found that section 37(1) applied to other records on the basis that they contain the personal information of individuals other than the applicant. She found that the public interest in granting the request did not outweigh the public interest in upholding the privacy rights of other individuals. The Senior Investigator annulled the Council's decision to refuse access to records under sections 30(1)(c) and 32(1)(a)(iv) and directed their release, subject to the redaction of personal information under section 37.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Council. He found it was justified in refusing access to the records sought under section 42(m)(i).

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Board’s decision. She found that section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act applies to the applicant’s request insofar as it relates to additional records. She found that the Board was justified in refusing access to a number of records under section 31(1)(a) of the Act on the basis that the records would be exempt from production in a court on the basis of legal professional privilege. She found that the Board was justified in refusing access to one record under 37(1) of the Act as release of that record would involve the disclosure of third party personal information and the public interest that the request should be granted does not outweigh the public interest in upholding the right of privacy.

The Senior Investigator varied the Regulator's decision. She found certain information to be exempt under section 36(1)(b) (commercially sensitive information) and directed the Regulator to grant access to some of that information in the public interest. She found that the remaining information, was not exempt and directed the Regulator to grant access to those parts of the records.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department's decision to refuse access to the records. She found that they are exempt under section 36(1)(b) (commercial sensitivity) and that, on balance, the public interest would be better served by refusing the request.

The Senior Investigator varied the Department's decision to refuse access to the records. She found that the Department was not justified in refusing the request under section 29 (deliberative process). She found that sections 36(1)(b) (commercial sensitivity) and 36(1)(c) (information affecting negotiations) applied to the records and that the public interest weighed in favour of granting access to some but not all parts. She found that sections 31(1)(b) (contempt of court) and 35 (confidential information) did not apply to the remaining records or parts of the records.