Decisions

The complainant sought access under Part X of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (the Act) for her entire file with the Family and Children’s Services Niagara (the service provider). The complainant was granted access, in part, but was denied access to information the service provider says relates to other individuals pursuant to the exemption at section 312(1)(d)(iii) of the Act (identification of an individual who provided information explicitly or implicitly in confidence). The complainant filed a complaint with the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC), asking the IPC to review the service provider’s access decision.

In this decision, the adjudicator upholds the service provider’s decision in part. She upholds its decision to withhold information in records contained in the complainant’s protection file, which includes records pertaining to the complainant’s family. However, the adjudicator orders the service provider to grant greater access to records contained in the complainant’s care file. She finds these latter records are dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the complainant, and that the claimed exemption does not apply to some of the withheld information.

The complainant sought access under Part X of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (the Act) for her entire file with the Family and Children’s Services Niagara (the service provider). The complainant was granted access, in part, but was denied access to information the service provider says relates to other individuals pursuant to the exemption at section 312(1)(d)(iii) of the Act (identification of an individual who provided information explicitly or implicitly in confidence). The complainant filed a complaint with the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC), asking the IPC to review the service provider’s access decision.

In this decision, the adjudicator upholds the service provider’s decision in part. She upholds its decision to withhold information in records contained in the complainant’s protection file, which includes records pertaining to the complainant’s family. However, the adjudicator orders the service provider to grant greater access to records contained in the complainant’s care file. She finds these latter records are dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the complainant, and that the claimed exemption does not apply to some of the withheld information.

The appellant submitted a request to the city under the Act for records relating to specified complaints to the city’s animal services department. The city located responsive records and disclosed a number to her, but an audio/video recording was withheld under the discretionary exemption in section 38(b) (personal privacy).

In this order, the adjudicator finds that portions of the recording are exempt from disclosure, but portions of the recording should be disclosed to the appellant.

The appellant made a request for records relating to their ex-partner to the ministry and the ministry denied access to those records under the mandatory and discretionary personal privacy exemptions. The appellant appealed the ministry’s decision to the IPC. The ministry refused to provide records to the IPC so that it may conduct an inquiry. In this decision, the adjudicator orders the ministry to produce the records at issue in the appeal to the IPC.

The City of Ottawa (the city) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The city asked for clarification about what was meant by the wording in the request, but did not receive clarification from the requester. On appeal, during mediation, the city offered a re-formulation of the request, based on what it believed the requester could be asking for. The requester rejected this offer, and asked that his file be moved to adjudication. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the appellant’s representations do not establish that he assisted the city with clarifying or confirming the scope of his request. As a result, she dismisses the appeal.

The City of Guelph received a request under the Act for access to information relating to the sale of the District Energy system. The city denied access to the information at issue under section 10(1) (third party information). In this order, the adjudicator finds that the information at issue is not exempt under section 10(1) and orders it disclosed.

The appellant sought access to records from the OPP pertaining to an investigation it conducted regarding Correctional Service Canada’s use of a cell-site simulator at the penitentiary at which the appellant worked. The appellant also challenged the reasonableness of the search for a videotape of his interview with a named OPP detective. The ministry released some information to the appellant but relied on a number of exemptions under the Act to deny access to the portions it withheld. The ministry also took the position that it conducted a reasonable search for the videotape, but none could be found. In this order the adjudicator partly upholds the ministry’s decision. He finds that the ministry conducted a reasonable search for the videotape, but that certain claimed exemptions do not apply to some withheld information. He orders that this information be disclosed to the appellant.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (the ministry) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to records relating to the withdrawals of land from the Greenbelt Plan. To date, the ministry has not issued a final access decision in response to the request. An appeal was made to the IPC and Appeal file PA23-00098 was opened to determine the issue of the ministry’s deemed refusal under section 29(4) of the Act.

In light of the Auditor General’s observations in her Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt, the appeal file was moved to the adjudication stage. In this interim order, the adjudicator finds that the Auditor General’s observations regarding the use of personal email accounts by political staff and their record retention practices, provide reasonable grounds for the belief that records responsive to the appellant’s request may be irretrievably lost or destroyed. Accordingly, the adjudicator orders the ministry to take steps to secure the preservation and recovery of responsive records within its custody or control, in accordance with its duties set out in section 10.1 of the Act and the Archives and Recordkeeping Act, 2006.

The ministry received a request under the Act for records including occurrence reports, officer notes, emails and reports that involve the appellant for a specified time period. Ultimately, after receiving consent to disclose personal information from one affected party, the ministry issued a decision providing access to some information but withholding information pursuant to section 49(b) (personal privacy) and section 49(a) read with sections 14(1)(c) and 14(1)(l) (law enforcement). In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant sought access to records from the Durham District School Board (the board) related to educational software used by the board. The board searched for and disclosed responsive records to the appellant. The appellant maintained that the board did not conduct a reasonable search for responsive records.

In this order, the adjudicator upholds the board’s search for responsive records and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant filed two requests under the Act with the ministry for records relating to two incidents that took place on his property. The ministry granted the appellant partial access to them. Relevant to this order, the ministry withheld portions of the records under the discretionary personal privacy exemption in section 49(b). The adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision, in part. The adjudicator orders the ministry to disclose to the appellant one portion of the records that relates solely to him, but finds the remainder of the information at issue is exempt under the personal privacy exemption and upholds the ministry’s exercise of discretion.

The complainant, a mother, sought access under the Act to her family’s entire file with the Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto (JFCS). JFCS granted the complainant partial access to the responsive records, denying access to some information pursuant to sections 312(1)(a) (legal privilege) and 312(1)(d)(iii) (identification of a source) of the Act. The complainant asked the IPC to review JFCS’s decision not to grant access to the information withheld under those sections.

In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the exemptions at sections 312(1)(a) and 312(1)(d)(iii) apply to the information for which they were claimed. She upholds JFCS’s decision not to grant the complainant access to the withheld information.

Infrastructure Ontario (IO) received a request under the Act for environmental assessment records regarding the proposed Kemptville jail. IO conducted a search and advised the appellant that no responsive records exist.

In this interim order, the adjudicator orders IO to conduct another search for responsive records.

The Township of Russell (the township) received an access request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to township committee meetings. The township issued a final access and fee decision granting partial access to the responsive records. The appellant appealed the amount of the $1,510.00 fee. In this order, the adjudicator orders the final fee be reduced to $340.50.

The Town of Pelham (the town) received a request for access to information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to records relating to contracts with specified media organizations. The town granted partial access to invoices and emails, but withheld portions under section 10(1) (third party information) and section 11 (economic and other interests) of the Act.

In this order, the adjudicator allows the appeal in part. He finds that emails related to pricing information are exempt from disclosure, but finds that invoices provided by the media organizations to the town are not and orders them disclosed.