PO-2465

The Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (the OLGC) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for the cheque number relating to lottery winnings allegedly collected by the requester’s husband. The OLGC applied the exemption found in section 21(5) of the Act to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records.

The requester (now the appellant) appealed the OLGC’s decision. The appeal was assigned to a mediator, but mediation did not resolve the issue. The appeal then moved to the adjudication stage and was assigned to me to conduct an inquiry.

I placed the appeal on hold, pending the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Ontario (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care) v. Ontario (Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2004] O.J. No. 4813 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (May 19, 2005), S.C.C. 30802. That decision addressed the interpretation of section 21(5).

Once the Court of Appeal rendered its decision in Ontario (Minister of Health), I sent a Notice of Inquiry to the OLGC, initially, and invited its representations. The OLGC provided representations. I then sent the Notice of Inquiry and a complete copy of the OLGC’s representations to the appellant. In response, the appellant provided a letter and some handwritten notes on a copy of the OLGC’s representations. The appellant’s response did not directly address the issues set out in the Notice of Inquiry.

Due to the lack of contact information, it was not possible to provide notice of the appeal to the appellant’s husband nor to seek his representations.

• 2(1) personal information
• 21(5)
• 21(3)(f)
• 21(2)
• 21(2)(e)
• FIPPA

• lottery winner
• refusal to confirm or deny existence of record