Decisions

An individual requested access to his own records with the Chief Firearms Office (CFO). The ministry, which is in charge of responding to requests for information with the CFO, provided him with some of the records but refused to provide some information stating that disclosure would reveal investigative techniques or procedures (section 49(a), read with section 14(1)(c)), would be an unjustified invasion of another individual’s personal privacy (section 49(b)), or are not responsive to the request. In addition to seeking access to the information that was not provided to him, the individual questions whether the search conducted by the ministry for records was reasonable. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision not to disclose the information it withheld. She also finds that the ministry’s search for records was reasonable. She dismisses the appeal.

The appellant asked the Ministry of the Solicitor General (the ministry) for a copy of a report prepared by the Ontario Provincial Police for the Toronto Police Services Board (the police). The ministry denied the request and the requester appealed the ministry’s access decision. The police were invited to make representations and said that the report is excluded from the operation of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) by the ongoing prosecution exclusion at section 52(2.1) of that act. They argued that the appellant should not be able to obtain it from a different institution under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).
In this decision, the adjudicator concludes that because she already determined that the report is, at this time, excluded by the prosecution exclusion at section 52(2.1) of MFIPPA in Order MO- 4554, it is not necessary to also consider whether the appellant can obtain the report pursuant to FIPPA and she dismisses the appeal.

The appellant requested a report prepared by the Ontario Provincial Police for the Toronto Police Services Board (the police). The police withheld the report based on section 52(2.1), the exclusion for prosecution records in the Act. The appellant appealed the access decision. The adjudicator agrees with the police’s application of section 52(2.1) of the Act and dismisses the appeal.

An individual sought access under the Act for records referencing Ontario’s Greenbelt that were prepared by the Premier’s office staff for a particular ministry. Cabinet Office denied the appellant access to two pages from a slide deck under the mandatory exemption under section 12(1) (cabinet records). The adjudicator upholds Cabinet Office’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant asked for documents that he had signed regarding how a municipal property is maintained. The municipality responded that the request was frivolous and vexatious, and they would not be providing a response. It explained that the appellant had already been informed that the requested information does not exist.
The appellant appealed the decision to the IPC. The adjudicator finds that the request was made for a purpose other than to obtain access and that it is frivolous or vexatious within the meaning of the Act. He dismisses the appeal.

An individual sought access under the Act to police records relating to incidents involving her and her spouse. The ministry granted partial access to police reports and officers’ notes, and withheld audio recordings of 911 calls. The ministry withheld information on the basis that disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of another individual’s personal privacy (section 49(b)). In this order, the adjudicator finds that the withheld information is exempt under section 49(b). She upholds the ministry’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

This final order resolves the outstanding issue of the reasonableness of Metrolinx’s search following Interim Order PO-4490-I. In compliance with the interim order, Metrolinx conducted further searches and provided five affidavits in support of its searches. In this final order, the adjudicator finds that Metrolinx has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it has conducted a reasonable search for responsive records. The appeal is dismissed.

On October 11, 2023, the requester asked the ministry for records related to the use of force on inmates at two detention centres. 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 August 20, 2024.

On April 17, 2023, the requester asked the ministry for records related to Rondeau Provincial Park. 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 August 20, 2024.

An individual made a request under the Act for records provided to the ministry by an autobody shop to demonstrate environmental regulatory compliance. The autobody shop appealed the ministry’s decision to grant partial access to the records, asserting that the information that the ministry was prepared to disclose is third party information subject to the mandatory exemption for that type of information in section 17(1)(c) of the Act.

In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision. She finds that the information remaining at issue is not exempt under section 17(1)(c). She dismisses the appeal.

The college submitted a request for reconsideration of Interim Order PO-4512-I, claiming a fundamental defect in the adjudication process. In this reconsideration order, the adjudicator finds that the college has not established grounds for reconsideration in section 18.01 of the IPC’s Code of Procedure and denies the reconsideration request.

An individual requested access to a Full and Final Release and Confidentiality Agreement (the Release) relating to a specified property, that was received by The Corporation of the Town of Midland (the town). The town denied full access to the Release on the basis that it is subject to solicitor-client privilege (section 12). In this order, the adjudicator upholds the town’s decision that the Release is subject to solicitor-client privilege and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant asked the township for records about a specific property. The township found records that were relevant and provided all but one of these to the appellant. The township stated that it was denying access to the record because, as provided for in the Act, it is protected by solicitor client privilege (section 12). The appellant continued to seek access to the record and also claimed that additional records should exist. He asked the IPC to hear the appeal.
The adjudicator partially agrees with the township’s decision. He finds that the township is permitted under the Act to withhold the record because it is protected by solicitor-client privilege, and he finds that the township’s search for records was reasonable. However, he also finds that certain records identified during the appeal are relevant to the request and that the township must issue an access decision about those records.

An individual asked the ministry for records about the cost of the environmental assessment of the GTA West Corridor Highway, and the cost of the highway itself. The ministry created a record with this information and provided partial access to it, but denied access to the information about the cost of the highway for two reasons (exemptions) set out in the Act, sections 12(1) (Cabinet records) and 18(1)(d) (economic and other interests).

The adjudicator agrees that some of the information is not required to be provided under the Act because its disclosure would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations, allowing it to be withheld under section 12(1).

A union asked Fanshawe for a contract between it and a language academy. Fanshawe decided that the whole contract could be provided to the individual. The language academy opposed disclosure of parts of the contract to the individual because it consists of information supplied in confidence to Fanshawe that would cause certain harms (the section 17(1)) if disclosed. The adjudicator finds that these parts of the contract must be disclosed under the Act.