Latest IPC Decisions

An individual asked the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA) for a copy of a certain report that a third party had prepared for FSRA. The request was made under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. FSRA decided that it could withhold the report from disclosure under the exemption protecting advice and recommendations, found at section 13(1) of the Act. The requester appealed and raised the public interest override at section 23 of the Act. The adjudicator upholds FSRA’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

On June 23, 2024, the complainant asked a doctor at Family Care Medical Centre - Whitby (the custodian) for access to their personal health information under the Act. The complainant filed a complaint with the IPC because the custodian failed to respond to the request within the prescribed time limit. The decision-maker finds that the custodian is deemed to have refused the complainant’s access request under section 54(7) of the Act and orders the custodian to respond to the complainant by March 26, 2025.

The appellant requested records related to an Ontario Provincial Police staffing model. The ministry provided some records, including a PDF version of an Excel spreadsheet. The appellant sought access to the Excel version of the spreadsheet, but the ministry withheld it under the exemption for advice or recommendations at section 13(1).
The adjudicator finds that disclosure of the information in the spreadsheet, regardless of format, would reveal a recommendation within the meaning of section 13(1). He upholds the ministry’s exercise of discretion to disclose the PDF version only and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to The Greater/Grand Sudbury Police Services Board for access to police reports about his son’s death from a suspected drug overdose.

The police granted the appellant access to portions of the reports but refused to disclose certain information because disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under the mandatory personal privacy exemption at section 14(1).

In this order, the adjudicator finds that there are compassionate reasons to disclose some of the deceased’s personal information to his father (section 14(4)(c)) and orders the police to disclose that information. She upholds the police’s decision to withhold the remaining information under the personal privacy exemption at section 14(1).

An individual asked the OPP for the information that it has about him.
The ministry, for the OPP, provided the individual with copies of a significant amount of OPP records, but refused access to some for a variety of reasons (exemptions) in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The ministry also claimed that some of the records (use of force occurrence reports) are unable to be obtained through the access provisions of the Act because of the labour relations and employment exclusion (section 65(6)).
The adjudicator does not accept the ministry’s claim that the use of force occurrence reports are excluded from the Act. However, she finds that they are exempt from disclosure to the appellant under section 49(e) (correctional records).
Regarding the remaining records, the adjudicator orders the ministry to provide the appellant with personal information that is his own or of others who have consented to its disclosure. But, she upholds the ministry’s claim that the remaining information is exempt from disclosure because it is subject to the solicitor-client privilege (section 19), law enforcement (section 14(1)(l)) or personal privacy (section 49(b)) exemptions.

An individual made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of the Solicitor General for a police report related to a specified occurrence and any additional information about them in relation to the occurrence. The ministry disclosed to the individual some records. It withheld some information because its disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter (section 49(a), read with section 14(1)) and would result in an unjustified invasion of other individuals’ personal privacy (section 49(b)).

In this order, the adjudicator orders the ministry to disclose additional information and otherwise upholds the ministry’s decision.

The appellant asked the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board for copies of specific contracts, bid submissions for certain requests for proposal, and other related information. The Board provided access to some records but denied access to parts of an unsuccessful bid submission on the basis that the mandatory third party information exemption applies (section 17(1) of the Act).
The adjudicator upholds the Board’s decision, finding that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure under section 17(1)(a). She dismisses the appeal.

An individual made a request to the Waterloo Regional Police Services Board under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to policies and records related to an investigation about a complaint against a member of the police. The police granted access to the policies but withheld the complaint records because they claim the complaint records are excluded from the Act under the employment or labour relations exclusion (section 52(3)3). The individual believes more records should exist.
In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s claim that the labour relations exclusion applies. She also finds that the police conducted a reasonable search for responsive records and dismisses the appeal.

An individual made a request to the Ottawa Police Services Board (the police) for records relating to a specified incident involving a rental car. The police granted partial access to the police report explaining that disclosure of some of the information would endanger the security of a system (section 38(a), read with section 8(1)(i)).
In this order, the adjudicator finds that disclosure of some of the withheld information would endanger the security of a system and upholds the police’s decision to withhold that information. She orders the police to disclose the remaining information.

The ministry received multiple requests for records related to the death of the appellants’ son. This appeal deals with records about a related breach of trust investigation into a police officer who investigated the death. The ministry initially withheld the majority of the records under the law enforcement exemptions related to an ongoing investigation (sections 14(1)(a), (b), and (f)).

During the inquiry, an individual was charged with the death of the appellants’ son, and the ministry instead claimed the prosecution exclusion for some of the records (section 65(5.2)). The ministry also claimed the exemption at section 49(a), read with section 19 (solicitor-client privilege), and section 49(b) (personal privacy) for portions of other records. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the records are excluded from the Act due to the ongoing prosecution exclusion or otherwise exempt from disclosure under the sections claimed by the ministry. However, he finds that a portion of background information should be disclosed for compassionate reasons, and orders this information to be disclosed.

An individual submitted a request to the Ottawa Community Housing Corporation (the housing corporation) under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the name of an individual involved in a theft. The housing corporation granted partial access to the records, withholding some information.

The housing corporation denied access to an individual’s name and apartment number because disclosure of that information would be an unjustified invasion of that individual’s personal privacy (section 38(b)). In this order, the adjudicator upholds the housing corporation’s decision not to disclose the withheld information and dismisses the appeal.

A graduate of the University of Waterloo made a request, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, for records related to an accommodation request that he made during a certain period of time. This appeal is about the university’s decision to withhold one record completely on the basis that it contains advice and recommendations and a part of another record on the basis that it contains personal information of one or more university employees. The appeal is also about the appellant’s challenge of the reasonableness of the university’s search for records.
The adjudicator allows the appeal, in part. She finds that some of the information at issue is not personal information, so the personal privacy reason stated by the university does not apply. The adjudicator orders the university to disclose this information to the appellant.
The adjudicator upholds the university’s decision to withhold the other record for the advice and recommendation reason (section 49(a), read with section 13(1)).
The adjudicator also upholds the university’s search for records.

A joint custodial parent of a four-year-old child asked for records containing his child’s personal information. The children’s aid society denied his request on the basis that, as a parent with joint custody, the complainant requires the consent of the child’s other joint custodial parent to exercise substitute decision-making authority for his son under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.
The adjudicator upholds the decision of the children’s aid society. She finds that, as joint custodial parents, the father and the mother are equally ranked substitute decision-makers for the child under the Act; and without the mother’s consent to the father’s request, the father cannot act as an independent substitute decision-maker to request access to the child’s personal information. The adjudicator also finds that the children’s aid society appropriately considered whether the disclosure provision in section 292(1)(g) of the Act applies to permit disclosure of some information about the child to the complainant. She dismisses the complaint with no order.

An individual asked a hospital for access to correspondence, messages and documentation between specified doctors related to her deceased father’s two-day hospital stay. After receiving records from the hospital, the complainant stated that additional records should exist.
In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the hospital did not conduct a reasonable search for records as it is obliged to do under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, as it did not search for email communications to and from one named doctor. The adjudicator orders the hospital to conduct a further search for records responsive to the complainant’s request, to provide the adjudicator with a written explanation of the search, and to issue an access decision to the complainant regarding the any additional records it locates as a result of the further search.

An individual asked a hospital for records from her deceased father’s two-day hospital stay. After receiving records from the hospital, the complainant stated that additional records should exist.
In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the hospital conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to the request, as it is obliged to do under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004. The adjudicator dismisses the complaint without issuing an order.