Decisions

A school board received a request for information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for pricing information contained in contracts with student transportation operators. The board denied access to this pricing information, stating that it is third party information subject to the mandatory exemption in section 10(1) of the Act.

In this order, the adjudicator finds the pricing information at issue is not third party information exempt under section 10(1) and orders the board to disclose it.

A public hospital contacted the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario to report a breach under the Personal Health Information Protection Act (the Act). The breach involved an unauthorized use of personal health information of patients by a physician. In response to the breach, the hospital updated its privacy training, confidentiality agreements and privacy policies. In this Decision, I find that the hospital was in breach of sections 10 (Information practices) and 12 (Security) of the Act. However, given the steps taken by the hospital to address the breach, I have also found that no formal review of this matter will be conducted under Part VI of the Act.

A journalist asked the ministry for a record listing each complaint filed against a police officer to the Complaints Director of the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency during an 11-year period. The journalist did not want aggregate information, but rather, several details about each complaint (such as the police’s officer’s name and badge number, the police service where they were employed, the seriousness of the allegation, and the status of the complaint). The ministry responded to the request and produced a spreadsheet about 40,000 lines long. The ministry disclosed all information in the record except the names and badge numbers of the police officers who had been complained about. The ministry said that it had to protect another person’s personal information (section 21(1)).

The adjudicator agreed that the names and badge numbers are personal information and should not be shared for that reason. She considered the journalist’s view that it is in the public interest (section 23) to disclose the names and badge numbers anyway, but she was not persuaded of that. As a result, she agrees with the ministry’s decision to withhold the names and badge numbers in the spreadsheet.

An individual submitted a request for reconsideration of Order MO-4512, which upheld the town’s decision to disclose some portions of building permit application records relating to their address. The individual claimed that there was a fundamental defect in the adjudication process, a jurisdictional defect in the decision and/or a clerical error, accidental error or omission or other similar error in the decision. In this reconsideration order, the adjudicator finds that none of the grounds under section 15.01 of the IPC’s Code of Procedure for reconsideration has been established and denies the request for reconsideration.

A person asked a hospital for access to records of their personal health information. The hospital issued a fee estimate charging the person $702.01 for the records. The person disputes the amount of the fee.
In this decision, the adjudicator does not uphold the hospital’s fee estimate and instead finds that the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 permits the hospital to charge $40 for the records.

On August 8, 2023, the appellant asked the city for access to records related to a recreational centre. The appellant filed an appeal because the city failed to provide a decision within the prescribed time. This order finds the city to be in a deemed refusal situation and orders the city to issue a final decision by October 29, 2024, and November 14, 2024, where third party notification is required.

An individual requested four insurance policies taken out by the County of Norfolk (the county). The county decided that the records were excluded from the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) under the labour relations and employment exclusion in section 52(3) and, alternatively, exempt from disclosure under the third party information exemption in section 10(1), as well as the economic interests exemption in section 11(d). In this order, the adjudicator disagrees with the county and orders it to disclose the records to the individual.

The appellant, a member of the media, made a request under the Act for access to an email chain relating to an academic review of an article published by the Lancet. The hospital denied the appellant access to the email chain, claiming it is excluded from the scope of the Act due to the research exclusion. The hospital also withheld certain emails within the chain, claiming they are not responsive to the appellant’s request. In this decision, the adjudicator finds the research exclusion applies to the entire email chain. The appeal is dismissed.

On February 28, 2024, a media appellant asked the ministry for the final version of a report. The requester filed an appeal because the ministry failed to provide a decision within the prescribed time. This order finds the ministry to be in a deemed refusal situation and orders the ministry to issue a final decision by October 30, 2024.

The complainant asked a hospital to remove personal health information from records of his visits to a hospital’s pacemaker clinic. The custodian denied the correction request, but later added information to one of the visit notes that addressed some of the complainant’s concerns. In her decision, the adjudicator finds that the hospital provided an adequate response to the complainant’s correction request. She finds no purpose would be served by conducting a review of the complaint because deletion of personal health information is not permitted as part of a patient’s right to seek correction of records under the Act.

The city submitted a request for reconsideration of Order MO-4530, claiming a fundamental defect in the adjudication process and a jurisdictional defect. In this reconsideration order, the adjudicator finds that the city has not established grounds for reconsideration under the IPC’s Code of Procedure and denies the reconsideration request.

In a request made under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, an individual asked the City of Hamilton’s fire and building departments for records relating to a specified city address. The city found relevant records and decided to provide some records to the individual. The city decided not to provide other records because they had previously been given to the individual in response to earlier requests and some were protected by solicitor client privilege.

In Interim Order MO-4510-I, the adjudicator ordered the city to provide the records previously released and to issue a decision for any records it had previously withheld. The adjudicator agreed that the other records withheld by the city were protected by solicitor-client privilege but ordered the city to make submissions showing the factors it had considered in reaching that decision.

In this final order, the adjudicator is satisfied that the city has now provided the relevant records to the individual and that it properly reached its decision not to provide the records protected by solicitor-client privilege. The adjudicator dismisses this appeal.

An individual asked the ministry for the names of the public servants who participated in the selection of lands proposed for removal from the Greenbelt. The ministry located a spreadsheet containing a list of names and other information and decided not to grant access to it.

This interim order disposes of the preliminary issue of whether all the information in the spreadsheet is responsive to the request.

The adjudicator finds that the scope of the request does not include all the information in the spreadsheet. Accordingly, portions of the spreadsheet are not responsive to the appellant’s request and have been removed from the scope of this appeal.

In a request made under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, an individual asked the ministry for records of the Ontario Provincial Police that relate to him. The ministry provided access to the records in part. It did not disclose some information saying that it contained the personal information of other individuals (section 49(b)), that, if disclosed, could reveal investigative techniques and procedures (section 14(1)(c)) or could facilitate the commission of an unlawful act (section 14(1)(l)). In this order, the adjudicator finds that some of the withheld information should be provided to the appellant. However, he upholds the decision of the ministry not to disclose the remaining information to the appellant.

The appellant asked the hospital for seven years of patient satisfaction survey results and other data. The hospital granted the appellant complete access to most of the requested records. For the written patient comments in the records, the hospital estimated a fee of $967.50 to redact personal health information from the records before releasing them to the appellant. The appellant asked the hospital to reduce or waive the fee. The hospital reduced the fee by 50% to $483.75, but the appellant remained dissatisfied with the fee estimate.

In this order, the adjudicator does not uphold the hospital’s fee estimate. She orders the hospital to reduce its fee to $150.