Latest IPC Decisions

The City of North Bay (the city) received a two-part request under the Act for a specified staff report to council (the report) and correspondence by a former named Chief Administrative Officer. The city granted full access to the correspondence but withheld the report in full under the discretionary exemption at section 6(1)(b) (closed meeting). In this order, the adjudicator finds that the report is exempt under section 6(1)(b).

An individual submitted a request to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (the ministry) under the Act for access to records relating to himself and his company. The ministry issued a fee estimate and agreed to waive part of the fee when the appellant applied for a fee waiver. The appellant appealed the ministry’s fee, seeking a full fee waiver on the basis of financial hardship and that dissemination of the records would benefit public health or safety. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision not to provide a further fee waiver. The appeal is dismissed.

A reporter requested records under the Act from Cabinet Office related to the Ontario Government’s consideration of changes to the Greenbelt. Cabinet Office denied access to the responsive slide deck, under the mandatory exemption at section 12(1) (Cabinet records) of the Act. The adjudicator upholds Cabinet Office’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

The Toronto Police Services Board (the police) received a request under the Act for all records and surveillance videos relating to an identified occurrence report and all associated police officer notes. The police denied access to portions of the responsive records, relying on the discretionary personal privacy exemption in section 38(b).
The appellant appealed the police’s decision and claimed that additional responsive records should exist.
In this order, the adjudicator finds that the information at issue in the records is exempt by reason of section 38(b) and that the police have conducted a reasonable search for responsive records. Accordingly, she dismisses the appeal.

The appellant sought access to records from the Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board (the board) related to her child’s attendance at a specific school and certain activities that took place at that school. The board located a single responsive record. The board disclosed part of the record to the appellant during the appeal process. The appellant maintained that the board did not conduct a reasonable search for responsive records and that there should be additional records responsive to her request. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the board’s search for responsive records and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant made a request to the police for access to information relating to a complaint about him. The police granted partial access to responsive records but denied access under the personal privacy exemption in section 38(b) to a video recording of an interview with the individual who made the complaint. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the video recording is exempt under section 38(b). She upholds the police’s decision to deny access to it and dismisses the appeal.

The complainant made a request under PHIPA for access to her medical records in the possession of a named physician, who is a relative of the complainant. The physician released several records to the complainant, but denies that she held those records in the capacity of a health care provider to the complainant. The complainant filed a PHIPA complaint against the physician based on a belief that the physician has additional records to which the complainant has a right of access under PHIPA.
In this decision, the adjudicator concludes that the physician is not governed by PHIPA in respect of the records the complainant seeks; accordingly, there is no right of access under PHIPA to such records if they exist. As there are no reasonable grounds to review the matter under PHIPA, the adjudicator dismisses the complaint.

The Toronto Police Services Board (the police) received a request for a police report related to a collision between a motor vehicle and a pedestrian. The police granted partial access to the report and an officer’s notes and the appellant continued to seek the contact information of the driver, withheld under section 38(b) (personal privacy) of the Act.

In this order, the adjudicator finds that the name of the driver is not exempt from disclosure under section 38(b) and orders it disclosed.

This order involves a request for records relating to the appellant in the context of their employment with the University of Ottawa (the university). The university denied access to the records, claiming that they are excluded from the scope of the Act under the labour relations and employment exclusion in section 65(6)3. The appellant claims that the records are not excluded from the Act due to the doctrine of promissory estoppel and to the exception in section
65(7). In this order, the adjudicator finds that section 65(6)3 applies, and that promissory estoppel and the exception in section 65(7) do not apply. She finds that the records are excluded from the scope of the Act .

A media requester sought access to information related to the existence of and cost of a safe room at the City of Windsor’s (the city) City Hall. The city issued a decision to the requester, refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records responsive to the request.

In this order, the adjudicator upholds the city’s refusal to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records under section 8(3) and she dismisses the appeal.

The appellant submitted a request for reconsideration of Order MO-4452. In this reconsideration order, the adjudicator finds that the appellant has not established any of the grounds for reconsideration in section 18.01 of the IPC’s Code of Procedure and denies the reconsideration request.

The appellant made a request for records relating to OPP employees stationed at specified addresses during a specified time period, and the ministry denied access to the responsive information under sections 14(1) (law enforcement) and 21(1) (personal privacy) of the Act. The appellant appealed the ministry’s decision to the IPC. The ministry refused to provide a copy of the records to the IPC. In this interim decision, the Assistant Commissioner orders the ministry to produce the records to the IPC.

The Windsor Police Services Board (the police) received a request for a general occurrence report related to a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian. The police granted partial access to the report and the appellant continued to seek the name and address of an affected party, withheld under section 38(b) (personal privacy) of the Act.

In this order, the adjudicator finds that the name and address of the affected party are not exempt from disclosure under section 38(b) and orders them disclosed.

The appellant submitted a request for reconsideration of Order MO-4454 which upheld the police’s decision with respect to the application of the exemptions claimed. In this reconsideration order, the adjudicator finds that the appellant has not established that grounds exist under section 18.01 of the IPC’s Code of Procedure for reconsidering Order MO-4454 and she denies the reconsideration request.

The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for clinical records, patient relations records, and quality review records arising from her experience at the Brant Community Healthcare System (the hospital). The hospital identified and released a number of records, but the complainant believed there ought to be more. She filed an appeal under FIPPA in respect of the hospital’s search for records and the completeness of the records released to her. In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (PHIPA), which also applies the hospital, is the relevant statute governing the issues raised by the complainant. The adjudicator finds that the hospital conducted a reasonable search for records in accordance with its obligations under PHIPA, which are analogous to those applicable to the hospital under FIPPA. As there is no reasonable basis to believe that additional searches would yield responsive records, the adjudicator dismisses the complaint without issuing an order.