Decisions of the Information Commissioner

The Senior Investigator varied the Department's decision. She found that it was justified in refusing access to 10 records under section 29(1) of the Act as the records contain information in relation to the deliberative processes of the Low Pay Commission and granting access to them would be contrary to the public interest. She annulled the Department’s decision to refuse access to the remaining records or parts of records and she directed their release to the applicant subject to the redaction of personal information of individuals which she found to be exempt under section 37(1).

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of AIT.

The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of the CRA. He found that it was not justified in refusing to provide the statement of reasons sought and that a letter it issued to the applicant outside of the FOI process was not adequate for the purposes of section 10. He directed the CRA to issue a revised statement of reasons.

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Council. She found that the Council was justified in its decision to refuse access to further records under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act. She affirmed the decision of the Council to refuse access to records under section 31(1)(a) of the Act on the basis of legal professional privilege. She annulled the decision of the Council to refuse access to information in one record under section 29 of the Act and directed its release.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department's decision, under section 36(1)(c) of the FOI Act.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Agency. She found that the Agency was justified in its decision to refuse access to further records under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act. She affirmed the Agency's refusal of access to some records under section 31(1)(b) of the FOI Act on the basis that the withheld information is covered by the in camera rule so that releasing it would constitute a contempt of court. She affirmed its decision to withhold information in other records under section 37(1) 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 affirmed the decision of the NCSE. He found that it was justified in refusing access to further records falling within the scope of the applicant's request on the basis that it had taken all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts and that section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act applied.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the NCSE to refuse to provide a statement of reasons on the ground that it was not required to do so.

The Senior Investigator varied the Department's decision. She affirmed its decision on the majority of records, under sections 15(1)(d), 31(1)(a), 31(2)(a), 42(f), 42(j) and 37 of the FOI Act. She annulled its decision on the few remaining records and directed their release.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the WRC to refuse access to the records sought in accordance with Part 1(s) of Schedule 1.