Latest IPC Decisions

The complainant sought access to her records of personal health information from Dr. Eric Ireland (the custodian). This decision determines that the custodian is deemed to have refused the complainant’s request for access. The custodian is ordered to provide a response to the complainant in response to her request for access to records of her personal health information in accordance with the Personal Health Information Protection Act.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of the adjudicator’s decision in Order
MO-4199 to uphold, in part, the reasonableness of a search conducted by the Regional
Municipality of Durham (the region) for records about environmental testing at a waste
management facility.
In this decision, 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

The appellant submitted a request under the Act to the town for emails relating to a recreational facility. The town withheld the emails of councillors on the basis that it does not have custody or control of them under section 4(1). The adjudicator finds that three emails are within the town’s custody and control and orders the town to issue an access decision related to these emails. The adjudicator upholds the town’s decision that the remaining emails withheld under section 4(1) are not in its custody or control.

The town also located other emails exchanged between staff and residents. The town granted the appellant partial disclosure to these emails claiming that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 14(1). The adjudicator also finds that the personal privacy provision applies to the majority of the emails and upholds the town’s decision to not to disclose them to the appellant under section 14(1). The adjudicator reserves her finding on the application of section 14(1) to three emails, pending notification of the individuals who might be affected by their disclosure.

On May 25, 2023, the requester submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) to the Ministry of the Solicitor General (the ministry) for access to general records. The requester appealed to this office on the basis that the ministry failed to provide an access decision within the prescribed time limit under the Act. This order finds the ministry to be in a deemed refusal situation pursuant to section 29(4) of the Act. The ministry is ordered to issue a final decision regarding access by May 9, 2024, without any recourse to a time extension.

The appellant sought access to all university records during a specific period regarding his appointment to a position with an external organization while he was a professor at the university. The university located responsive records and granted the appellant access to most of them. To withhold some records and information, the university relied on the discretionary exemption in section 49(a) (discretion to refuse requester’s own information), read with section 13(1) (advice or recommendations). It also withheld information that was not responsive to the request.
The appellant challenged the university’s decision and asserted that the withheld information should be ordered disclosed under section 23 because disclosure is in the public interest.
In this order, the adjudicator upholds the university’s decision that the information it withheld under section 49(a) read with section 13(1) is exempt from disclosure. She also concludes that the public interest override does not apply because the withheld information does not relate to the geopolitical issue the appellant cites; rather, the withheld information relates to a university resources allocation matter.

The Toronto Police Services Board received a request under the Act for records, including photographs or videos, relating to the marine unit’s assistance to another police service’s investigation into the disappearance of six teenagers in 1995. The police responded to the request claiming that no records exist. In this appeal, the adjudicator finds that the police conducted a reasonable search and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of Order PO-4494. In that order, the adjudicator upheld the ministry’s decision to withhold a determination of needs tool (the tool) from disclosure under section 18(1)(d) (economic and other interests) of the Act. In this decision, the adjudicator finds the appellant has not established any of the grounds for reconsideration in section 18.01 of the IPC’s Code of Procedure. The appellant’s reconsideration request is denied.

The Municipality of Middlesex Centre (the municipality) received a request under the Act for information related to the maintenance of a specified municipal property. The municipality denied the request on the basis that it was frivolous or vexatious, stating that the appellant had already been informed through previous letters from the municipality, disclosures under the Act, and court disclosures that the requested information does not exist. In this order, 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.

The complainant requested seven corrections be made to certain records in his Children’s Services Record under Part X of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017. The Durham Children’s Aid Society refused the correction request, and the complainant filed a complaint with the IPC for a review of the refusal. The complainant also challenged the reasonableness of DCAS’s search for records responsive to his request and alleged that certain DCAS staff who were addressing his correction request were in a conflict of interest.
DCAS subsequently granted the complainant’s request for two corrections. However, DCAS maintained that for the remaining five requested corrections the complainant had not demonstrated to its satisfaction that the records were inaccurate or incomplete, as required for the application of the duty to correct in section 315(9) of the Act.
In this decision, the adjudicator considers the correction provisions in the Act and upholds DCAS’s decision that the duty to grant a correction in section 315(9) of the Act applies in respect of two of the seven requested corrections. She also concludes that DCAS has granted the two required corrections in compliance with sections 315(1) and 315(11) of the Act. Finally, the adjudicator upholds DCAS’s refusal of the remaining requested corrections and the reasonableness of its search for responsive records, and she determines that the complainant’s conflict of interest concern is unfounded. In the circumstances, no order is issued.

The appellant made a request under the Act for the email records of seven Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) employees. The LCBO issued a fee estimate of $15,557.50. The appellant requested a waiver of this fee based on financial hardship. The LCBO denied the appellant’s fee waiver request.

In this order, the adjudicator upholds the LCBO’s denial of a fee waiver, as she finds that a fee waiver is not fair and equitable in the circumstances of this appeal.

The appellant requested a copy of a police report concerning a specified occurrence that involved an affected party and herself. The police granted partial access to the report and withheld some information pursuant to sections 14(1) and 38(b) (personal privacy). The appellant appealed the decision taking the position that the personal information in the withheld information is her own and should be disclosed to her. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s claim that section 38(b) applies to the withheld personal information and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant sought access under the Act to a police report about an incident he was involved in. The police granted partial access to the report, citing section 38(b) (personal privacy) of the Act to deny access to the remaining information. In this order, the adjudicator finds that disclosure of the withheld information would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and therefore, this information is exempt under section 38(b). She dismisses the appeal.

Two sons of a deceased patient requested under the Act that the hospital make several corrections to the death note of their mother. The hospital granted two corrections related to the date and circumstances of their mother’s death but denied a third related to the cause of death.
In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the information the sons want corrected, the impact of their mother’s mental health in her death, is a professional opinion or observation made in good faith by the attending physician, and the section 55(9)(b) exception to the duty to correct therefore applies. He upholds the decision of the hospital and dismisses the complaint.

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 records including videos, 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, the exception in section 65(7) and that the videos were not made for an employment purpose. In this order, the adjudicator finds that promissory estoppel does not apply, section 65(6)3 applies to all of the records except the videos, and the exception in section 65(7) do not apply. She orders the university to issue a decision letter to the appellant regarding the videos without recourse to section 65(6)3.

This final order resolves the outstanding issue of the reasonableness of the City of Hamilton’s (the city’s) search following Interim Order MO-4443-I. In compliance with the interim order, the city conducted a further search for responsive records to the appellant’s requests and provided an affidavit describing its search. In this final order, the adjudicator finds that the city has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it has conducted a reasonable search for responsive records. The appeal is dismissed.