Latest IPC Decisions

An individual sought access under the Act to a water drainage map for his neighbourhood in the City of Burlington (the city). The city denied access to the drainage map saying that if it was to disclose the map it could endanger a system (section 8(1)(i)) or threaten the health or safety of individuals (section 13). In this order, the adjudicator finds that the city has not established that disclosure could endanger a system or threaten the health or safety of any individuals. She orders the city to disclose the drainage map to the individual.

An individual requested, under the Act, records relating to a fire inspection complaint made about her property. The city disclosed some information in the records but withheld other information saying that it was not responsive to the request. The individual appealed the city’s access decision because she believes that the non-responsive information had some connection to her property. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the city’s decision not to disclose the remaining information finding that it is not responsive to the request.

An individual requested fire inspection records about a particular fire. The ministry provided some of these records, but denied access to others. The ministry said that it did so to protect other people’s personal privacy (section 21(1) of the Act).

The adjudicator did not agree that the parts of records that the individual wanted contained other people’s personal information. She ordered the ministry to disclose the withheld information to the individual.

The William Osler Health System – Peel Memorial Centre (the hospital) received a request under the Act for access to contracts, agreements, or fees paid to a named company. The hospital denied access to the responsive records under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Act. In this order, the adjudicator partially upholds the hospital’s decision and orders the hospital to disclose additional information to the appellant.

The municipality received a request under the Act for records relating to its mandatory vaccination policy. This appeal deals with part 3 of the request for access to meeting dates and documents of closed door meetings of its Council that discussed the mandatory vaccination policy. Ultimately, the municipality claimed the responsive record was excluded from the Act by section 52(3)3 (labour relations and employment-related information) and, in the alternative, it claimed the record was exempt by section 6(1)(b) (closed meeting). At mediation, the appellant also raised the issue of scope and the municipality’s search for responsive records. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the record is not excluded from the Act by section 52(3)3 but finds that the exemption at section 6(1)(b) applies to the information. He also finds that the municipality’s search for responsive records was reasonable and dismisses the appeal.

The complainant made a request under the Act for access to her and her child’s charts. The custodian charged the complainant $30 for each chart. The complainant’s request to the custodian to waive the fees was denied. As a result, the complainant filed a complaint under the Act with respect to the amount of the fee and the custodian’s decision not to waive the fee.
In this decision, the adjudicator finds that $30 constitutes “reasonable cost recovery” for each chart. The adjudicator upholds the custodian’s exercise of discretion not to waive the fee..

An individual made two requests to the ministry. One request was for access to a named company’s application to receive funding from the ministry’s Skills Development Fund (SDF) to operate a training program for Home Support Workers and the other request was for a related agreement between the named company and the ministry. The ministry issued a decision on each request granting access, in part, to the SDF application and the agreement, relying on section 17(1) (third party information) to withhold some information. The named company appealed the decision on the basis that section 17(1) applies to the information the ministry is prepared to disclose. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the information remaining at issue is not exempt under section 17(1). She orders the ministry to disclose the information in accordance with its revised decisions and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant was the victim of fraud, losing a large amount of money when he transferred Bitcoin to another individual under false pretences. The police conducted an investigation but did not have enough information to proceed with criminal charges. The appellant received an occurrence report under the Act with an individual’s information withheld under section 14(1) (personal privacy). He appealed the police’s access decision, stating that he required this information to recover the lost money.
In this order, the adjudicator finds that the information is exempt from disclosure under section 38(b) (personal privacy, with the report containing the appellant’s personal information). He finds that the extent, if any, of the individual’s involvement in the crime is not known, favouring withholding the information. Additionally, he finds that the appellant has not adequately explained how the information at issue would assist with recovering the lost money. He upholds the police’s decision.

The appellant asked the City of Ottawa for information about amendments to a by-law. The city granted access to some information. The appellant asked for more information at mediation that the city says went beyond the scope of the original request. The adjudicator finds that the new details are outside the scope of the original request and that the city was not required to search for additional records based on the new information. She dismisses the appeal.

Toronto Metropolitan University (which was previously called Ryerson University) received a request under the Act for briefs or communications made to it during a public engagement period relating to Egerton Ryerson. After the appellant received disclosure of the responsive emails (without identifying details), she raised the issue of reasonable search. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the reasonableness of the university’s search and dismisses the appeal.

The township received a request under the Act, in part, for a report that was discussed at a closed session of the township council. The township relied on section 6(1)(b) of the Act to deny access to the report on the basis that it revealed the substance of deliberations of the closed session. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the township’s decision.

The Toronto Transit Commission (the TTC) received a multi-part request under the Act for records relating to its investigation into the requester’s complaint and to information about transit fare enforcement and revenue. The TTC granted partial access to responsive records, withholding portions on the basis of the exemptions in sections 14(1) (personal privacy) and 38(b) (discretion to refuse requester’s own information) of the Act. The TTC denied access to the investigation file claiming the exclusion in section 52(3)3 (employment or labour relations). In addition, the TTC stated that other requested records did not exist. The requester appealed the TTC’s decision to pursue access to the withheld information and records and stated that additional records ought to exist.
In this order, the adjudicator upholds the TTC’s search as reasonable. The adjudicator finds that the exclusion in section 52(3)3 applies to the investigation file. In addition, the adjudicator upholds the TTC’s decision to withhold portions of the records because they are exempt under section 14(1) and section 38(b). She dismisses the appeal.

The City of Kawartha Lakes (the city) received a request under the Act for all city expenses over $1,000 over three and a half years. The city determined that it had reasonable grounds to consider the request as frivolous or vexatious under section 4(1)(b) of the Act. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the city’s decision, and dismisses the appeal.

An individual asked the appointed guardian of her late doctor’s medical records (the custodian) for access to her complete medical records. While the custodian originally claimed he found the individual’s medical records, he later said he did not find any. In this interim decision, the adjudicator finds the custodian did not conduct a reasonable search for the individual’s medical records and orders him to conduct another search.

The appellant sought access from the WSIB to records relating to his claims. The WSIB granted partial access, withholding information from one of 17 responsive records because it contains another individual’s personal information. The appellant challenges the WSIB’s claim that the withheld information is exempt and claims that the WSIB narrowed the scope of his request, resulting in a restricted search for responsive records. The adjudicator finds that the WSIB’s clarification of the request and its search for responsive records were reasonable and that the withheld information at issue is exempt under the discretionary personal privacy exemption in section 49(b). She dismisses the appeal.