• The compelling public interest override only applies to the exemptions specifically enumerated in this section. (Orders #P-1, P-123)

• In this case, the Commission determined that this section may not apply where only a personal interest, and not a public interest is at issue. (Order #M-217)

• The Commission ruled that the compelling public interest override can apply in respect of access by an individual to his or her own personal information. The Commission noted that were this not the case, an individual could theoretically have a lesser right of access to his or her own personal information than would a stranger. In this particular case, however, the override was held not to apply. (Order #P-541)

• This section cannot be used by people trying to assert only private interests. (Orders #P-12, P-270, P-282, P-347, P-1439)

• Once the presumption in s.21(3) [FIPPA] \ s.14(3) [MFIPPA] has been established, it may only be rebutted by the criteria set out in s.21(4) [FIPPA] \ s.14(4) [MFIPPA] or by the "compelling public interest" override in s.23 [FIPPA] \ s.16 [MFIPPA]. In this case, the Court ruled that the compelling public interest override did not apply simply because there is an apparent contradiction between a judge's negative comments about the honesty of certain police officers who had given evidence in a criminal trial and an internal Ontario Provincial Police investigation report that exonerated the officers. In the result, the internal investigation report was not released. The Court held that the judge's personal comments made after the trial and his personal interest in the witnesses who testified before him did not have "public significance" and that his comments did not constitute evidence of "public interest." (Re John Doe et al. and Information and Privacy Commissioner et al. (1993), O.R. (3d) 767 (Div. Ct.), Order #M-170)

• In order to invoke the compelling public interest override, there must be a compelling public interest that clearly outweighs the purpose of the exemption, as distinct from the value of disclosure to the requester of the particular record in question. The burden regarding applicability of this section falls on the individual seeking the application. (Orders #P-24, P-47, P-55, P-61, P-68, P-72, P-123, P-124, P-149, P-159, P-164, P-180, P-183, P-196, P-263, P-270, P-332, M-6, M-7, M-69, M-102, P-442, P-454, P-463, P-506, P-512, P-532, M-173, P-541, M-217, M-235, P-568, M-242, P-607, M-249, P-613, M-265, M-273, M-278, P-648, M-288, P-658, P-710, P-755, P-771, P-797, P-807, P-803, P-813, P-814, P-806, P-805, P-810, M-426, P-828, M-441, P-838, M-570, P-1026, P-1430)

• While the burden of establishing the applicability of this provision to particular records is on the appellant, this burden is not absolute. Where the appellant is not familiar with the contents of the records, the Commissioner will review them with a view to deciding whether this provision applies. (Orders #P-241, P-263, P-270, P-273, P-286, P-293, P-332, P-347, M-6, M-7, M-61, M-69, P-506, P-512, P-607, P-613, M-265, M-288, P-658, P-710)

• The need for public debate in and of itself is not sufficient to outweigh the purpose of the exemptions. The Commission noted that public debate may be restricted when access to government records is denied, but as long as the reasons for denying access fall within the scope of one of the exemptions in the Act, such restrictions are not inconsistent with the principles of the legislation. In this case, the Commission did not accept that the need for government to receive full and frank advice and recommendations was outweighed by the difficulties an individual might have in challenging the powers of a board. (Order #P-128)

• This section cannot be utilized for the protection or non-disclosure of a record where an exemption has been found not to apply.(Order # P-1303)

• The weight of the argument for public interest disclosure is lessened by the fact of an independent court review of the institution's decision. (Order #MO-1180)

• The Commission found that records produced by a consultant relating to options for the future of Ontario Hydro's nuclear division, such as those pertaining to the possible divestiture of assets and the financial position of the division, were not subject to a public interest override as they do not substantially address public interest considerations such as the safe operation of nuclear facilities. (Order #PO-1746)

• The criminal justice system "is not just a 'public institution' but one that is 'essential and fundamental in a free and democratic society'. Where there is reason to believe that a record can shed light on a possible failure of the criminal justice system, there is a compelling public interest in the disclosure of that record. The compelling public interest in the disclosure of records concerning a possible failure of the criminal justice system can clearly outweigh the purpose of the section 21 exemption, including the important public policy basis for that exemption relating to the protection of individual privacy. (Order #PO-1779) Jurisdiction of the IPC to consider and decide Charter issues: Notwithstanding the case of Cooper v. Canada (Human Rights Commission), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 854, the Commissioner's right to consider and decide Charter issues where a section 52(1) remedy such as "reading in" or severing or striking down legislation is clearly established by the trilogy of Douglas/Kwantlan Faculty Assn. V. Douglas College, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570, Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5 and Tétreault-Gadoury v. Canada (Employment and Immigration Commission), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 22. Specifically, this is because the Commissioner is an adjudicative body with jurisdiction over the whole of a matter before it, namely, the parties, subject matter and remedy sought. The Commissioner also has the power to grant "individually tailored remedies that do not involve striking down or reading in, including a "constitutional exemption" under section 24(1) of the Charter. (Order #PO-1779)

• The Commission found that the disposal of public property valued in the millions of dollars is inherently a matter of public interest. The land registry system in Ontario recognizes the need for public accountability in the sale of all land through the statutory registration requirements administered by the government. This need for accountability is further magnified in the case of public property. (PO-1804-F)

• The Commission found that any public interest in protecting the business or economic interests of public organizations is clearly outweighed by the compelling public interest in disclosure of records for the purpose of scrutinizing the safety activities of Hydro in respect to its nuclear facilities, in the interests of public health and safety and protecting the natural environment. (PO-1805)

Does apply

• The appellant alleged that the hiring of the affected person amounted to a breach of security, and placed the integrity of a sensitive section of the Ministry at risk. He raised serious questions about the activities of government, and submitted that the public must know how the alleged incident happened, why it happened and if anything untoward occurred as a result of the breach. The Commission recognized that issues of this nature do rouse strong interest or attention among members of the public, particularly in an age dominated by computer records. Whether there actually was a security risk and whether the Ministry's actions were appropriate is not the issue. It is enough that serious questions have been raised. Thus, the Commission found that section 23 applied and ordered disclosure for the portions of the critical issue sheet which were found to be exempt under section 21. (Order #P-984). The information contained in a record must serve a purpose of informing the citizenry about the activities of their government (Order #P-1134)

• The Commission may determine whether the disclosure of records may inform the public about the propriety of its elected officials. Regardless of whether or not allegations of improper conduct are confirmed, there exists a compelling public interest in the disclosure of the records that clearly outweighs the privacy protection provisions. (Order #M-710)

• The Commission found that public interest in nuclear safety outweighed the fact that inspection reports qualified for exemption under s.18(1)(c). (Order # P-1190)

• Compelling is defined as rousing strong interest or attention (Oxford). In order to find that there is a compelling public interest in disclosure, the information contained in a record must serve the purpose of informing the citizenry about the activities of their government, adding in some way to the information the public has available to it to make effective use of the means of expressing public opinion or making political choices. (Order #P-1363)

• The Commission ruled there is a compelling public interest in disclosure of a portion of the Minutes of the Interministerial Committee of Aboriginal Emergencies. The Commission considered the following circumstances: the death of an aboriginal person at the hands of the police in a land-claims dispute, extensive discussion in the Legislature concerning the government's role in the events, remarks made by the Attorney General in the Legislature on the subject referred to in the portion of the record, and the comprehensive reporting of events in the news media.(Order #P-1363)

• The Commission found that public interest surrounding the occupation of a park by native protesters was significant and exceptional and ordered records previously exempt under section 13(1) to be disclosed. The Commission was not convinced that public servants would be seriously inhibited in their ability to fully explore options and provide advice to government officials. (Order #P-1619)

May Apply

• This case provides an example of an instance where this provision may have applied to records related to nuclear safety but for the fact that the records were otherwise accessible,. The Commission noted that all members of the public have the need to know that any safety issues related to the use of nuclear energy, which may exist, are being properly addressed. Since the Commission ruled that the exemption did not apply, this provision was not used. (Orders #P-270, P-901)

Does Not Apply

• The records regarding the construction of the retractable roof of the SkyDome were not available under this provision. The records indicated that both the components used in the roof structure and the construction project were inspected frequently and on a number of levels. As well, it was evident that there was a pattern of reporting and evaluative testing where any quality control concerns arose. The records did not show that the construction posed a safety hazard. (Order #P-561)

• While the operation of publicly funded organizations (e.g., hospitals) should be open to scrutiny, the disclosure of specific salaries of the staff is not necessary for this purpose. In this case, the salary ranges of staff were available and this disclosure was sufficient to satisfy the public interest. As a result, this provision did not apply. (Order #P-61)

• The application of this provision does not result in the disclosure of salary information of public officials. Since exact salaries have the benefit of a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy, it is unlikely, in most circumstances, that any salary-related information would be available to the public. As is evident from the personal information exemption in clause (4)(a), the legislature intended that salary ranges, not exact salaries, be disclosed. (Order #M-102)

• The public does not have a compelling interest in the disclosure of the exact salaries of public officials, which clearly outweighs the privacy protection given in the Act to individuals' salary information. Clause 21(4)(a) (FIPPA\clause 14(4)(a) MFIPPA) itself incorporates the public interest in that it permits members of the public to obtain salary range information. As a result, the purpose of section 21 (FIPPA)\14 (MFIPPA) includes making salary ranges of public employees available to the public. (Order #M-18)

• Where most of a severance package for an employee of an institution is disclosed, the release of the remainder is not required under this section. In determining this, the Commission considered that the personal information exemption is a mandatory one and that most of the information had been released so that the public concerns regarding expenditures of this nature have been addressed. (Orders #M-173, M-278)

• Where extensive public hearings are held as a result of a Royal Commission of Inquiry, the public's interest in the subject matter of the Commission's review has been adequately served and this provision would not apply. (Orders #P-123, P-124)

• While there is an element of public interest in the disclosure of personal information about victims of crime, in this case it is not a compelling one. (Order #M-6)

• This provision was not satisfied where information about an inspection report done to review the operation of a police force was sought. The requester was provided with access to much of the report. The Commission believed that the public inquiry into the issues, which was being held, would deal with the public interest issues. (Order #P-391)

• Disclosure of records concerning negotiations between two First Nations bands and a mining company about a proposed mining project was not authorized under this section. In this case, the negotiations were ongoing. When a final agreement exists, the mining company has to submit a formal application to the Ministry of Environment and Energy; at that stage the public is involved in the process. (Order #P-512)

• While there is a public interest in obtaining information about the Ontario government's joint business venture with a private sector company, Teranet, to produce a land-based information system, the interest is not compelling. A significant amount of disclosure had already taken place. The Commissioner, in the postscript of the decision, stated that where private sector organizations enter into arrangements with government, they must expect public scrutiny. He suggested that at the time a new arrangement such as Teranet is formed, a public document be prepared by the appropriate institution outlining the nature of the arrangement. The document could identify those who are involved in the arrangement and the nature of their involvement and other information that is not otherwise exempt under the Act. (Order #P-532)

• This section did not apply where the institution had released a briefing note to the requester which described in some detail the circumstances under which these Coroner's reports were compiled. The Commission ruled that the level of disclosure provided the requester with an adequate level of understanding of the institution's investigation. (Order #P-568)

• This section did not apply to the disclosure of the costs a named company incurred to purchase electricity from Ontario Hydro that was otherwise exempt under s.17 FIPPA \s.10 MFIPPA. Even though the Commission found that the company's rate may be different than that provided to the public at large, and that therefore there was a public interest in the disclosure of the information, the Commission did not find that the information ought to be disclosed under this section. (Order #P-607)

• The fact that there is a public interest in having matters determined by the courts, does not, in itself, mean that information ought to be disclosed under this provision to facilitate that court process. The court process does provide an alternative disclosure mechanism and, in any event, the interests being furthered in this case, where information is intended to be used for a civil proceeding, would be private and not public interests. (Order #M-249)

• The disclosure of an Ontario Provincial Police investigation report of a named individual was not warranted by virtue of this section. While the Commission noted that the public had an interest in the matter, the report did not recommend that charges be laid and the issue was widely covered and analysed by the media. As a result, the Commission ruled that this section did not apply. (Order #P-613)

• A report that makes recommendations regarding the improvement of the operations of a police force does not, in this case, have a direct bearing on the safety of the public. (Order #M-265)

• Disclosure of the unit prices and the letters of credit provided by a third party in a tender were not disclosed based on this provision. The Commission did not find that the public interest was so compelling as to outweigh the exemptions for commercially valuable information that applied in this case. The Commission noted that the requester received the names of all contractors and the total amounts of all bids and that the lowest bidder is known to the requester. (Order #M-288)

• This provision did not apply to warrant the disclosure of personal information contained in a report of the review of a legal branch of an institution. There was no suggestion in the report that the professional conduct of the lawyers as lawyers was ever at issue. The report was a management review. As such, the fact that the Law Society of Upper Canada provides a code of conduct for lawyers was irrelevant in this matter. (Order #P-658)

• In this case, the Commission held that the disclosure to the accused of the Crown brief regarding the accused's prosecution was not envisaged by this section. The Commission noted that the courts provide for a disclosure process for parties to a dispute and that while the conduct of a police officer is a matter of public interest, there was no compelling public interest in this matter. (Order #M-317)

• The disclosure of a school board employee's credentials and degrees were not required under this section. The requester believed that the individual acted unprofessionally in counselling certain students, but this interest was not a public interest; rather, it was predominantly personal. (Order #M-319)

• The fact that the internal investigation of a police officer was listed on the agenda of a public meeting did not mean that the officer had lost privacy rights and that this provision ought to apply. Nor did the fact that a police officer was investigated for a Code of Conduct offence mean that the public had a compelling interest in the disclosure of the report. (Order #M-348)

• The application and evaluative material provided by an organization for a funding grant was not disclosed under this provision. The Commission held that some information had been disclosed and that the criteria for the application had not been met in respect of the remaining information. (Order P-838)

• This provision did not apply to the disclosure of competition records to an unsuccessful candidate even though the candidate questioned the fairness of the competition and was contemplating legal action. (Order #P-924)

• This provision did not apply to warrant disclosure of documents relating to increases in court fees. In this case, the appellant failed to provide any submissions on how disclosure of the records related to the legal and administrative problems which the appellant argued would result from an increase in court fees. (Order #P-920)

• This provision did not apply to authorize the disclosure of personal information concerning a police investigation of a teacher regarding allegations in relation to his students. The fact that proceedings may be held to determine the validity of the teacher's consequent termination did not mean that disclosure of the records to the relevant board of education was required under this legislation. The Education Act and Public Inquiry Act both authorize disclosure of information by summons. Therefore the public interest in obtaining the information may be addressed by those mechanisms. (Order #M-539)

• This provision did not apply to an Agreement of Purchase and Sale of land between a Township and individual purchasers even though the information at issue might be raised in a matter before the Ontario Municipal Board and in a legal proceeding. (Order M-536)

• A Collection Agency which has had its licence revoked does not expose the public to potential problems and therefore there is no public interest in the disclosure of the records. (Order P-952)

• In this case, a request had been made for a coroner's report regarding an accident in which three people died. Several records pertained to medical information as well as investigative reports prepared by police. The Commission ruled that this provision did not apply.(Order # P-945)

• In this case the Commission was not convinced that the public good of reducing impaired driving was sufficiently compelling to warrant disclosure of the blood alcohol readings of a deceased driver involved in a fatal accident. (Order #P-1121)

• The public interest involved in disclosing the terms and conditions of a development agreement between a land developer and a school board would not outweigh the public interest to be found in the ability to negotiate the most favourable terms in private and avoid legal costs before the Ontario Municipal Board. (Order #M-712)

• A media requester's interest in disclosure does not constitute a public interest merely because the request is made by a member of the media. (Order #M-773, M-1074 )

• Providing an inheritance search service of use to many individuals which may also reduce the workload and burden at the Public Trustee's office is not sufficient to invoke this override.(Order #P-1232)

• Records exempt under section 15(b) of the Act relating to occupation of a park by native protesters were not available under this provision. The Commission found that while there was media and public attention to the government's handling of the situation, it was not sufficiently compelling to outweigh the purpose of the exemption for intergovernmental communications.(Order #P-1619)

• The public interest override does not apply to information collected to determine tax liability which is properly exempt under section 17(2). (Order PO-1161)