Latest IPC Decisions

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has received a high volume of requests for access to records relating to the decision to amend the Greenbelt Plan. This appeal arises from one of those requests, in which there was delay in issuing a final access decision within the time prescribed by the Act.
The Auditor General’s Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt included observations regarding the use of personal email accounts by political staff and the deletion of emails. In light of these published observations, and on the IPC’s own initiative, the adjudicator issued Interim Order PO-4449-I and ordered the ministry to take steps to secure the preservation and recovery of records responsive to the appellant’s request.
The ministry provided the adjudicator with affidavit evidence explaining measures in place to preserve records relating to amendments to the Greenbelt Plan.
In this final order, the adjudicator is satisfied that measures are in place to secure the preservation of records relating to the subject matter of the access request giving rise to this appeal. Regarding the recovery of responsive records, the adjudicator accepts the ministry’s evidence of the steps taken to recover records relating to government business contained in personal email and messaging accounts of former staff and acknowledges the limitations to retrieving data that may have been permanently deleted prior to such measures being taken. The adjudicator makes recommendations to enhance compliance and accountability regarding record retention practices going forward.

The Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario (the tribunal) received a request under the Act for access to records related to two cases that the requester had before the tribunal. The tribunal identified records responsive to the request and took the position that the records were not subject to the Act due to section 65(3.1) and the common law concept of adjudicative privilege (or deliberative secrecy). Alternatively, the tribunal claimed the discretionary exemption at section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) in relation to some of the responsive records. The requester also alleged a conflict of interest on the part of the individual who processed her access request.
In this order, the adjudicator upholds the tribunal’s decision in part. The adjudicator finds that the claim of conflict of interest is not substantiated and dismisses that aspect of the appeal. She upholds the tribunal’s decision to withhold the adjudicators’ personal notes and draft decisions under section 65(3.1). However, she finds that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the remaining records at issue are excluded from the scope of the Act under section 65(3.1). She also finds that the common law concept of adjudicative privilege or deliberative secrecy cannot be claimed in the alternative to section 65(3.1) in response to a request under the Act. As a result, she orders the tribunal to issue an access decision in relation to those records, considering the possible application of section 49(a) (discretion to refuse requester’s own personal information), given the nature of the records requested. In addition, the adjudicator decides that the tribunal’s claim of section 19 over certain emails is permitted, although this claim was made late. However, she orders the tribunal to consider whether this exemption applies when read with section 49(a), given the nature of the records requested.

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) was the victim of a cyberattack. A threat actor gained access to its systems via a phishing attack, used malware to encrypt these systems, and exfiltrated data. The TTC notified the IPC, its employees, and the public of this privacy breach. It was later able to restore nearly all of its systems from backups and hired experts to determine the information that had been exfiltrated, and how the attack occurred. They found that the TTC’s failure to install a patch for a known security vulnerability contributed to the attack.

In this report, I conclude that the TTC did not have reasonable security measures in place to prevent unauthorized access to the personal information on its systems. However, the TTC put additional security measures in place following the attack. It also implemented detailed revised guidance on scanning for vulnerabilities and installing patches. These set out timelines and state who is responsible for these tasks. Based on the measures that the TTC has taken since the breach, I am generally satisfied with their response to the breach, though I recommend that they implement guidance on using encryption as a default.

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.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General (the ministry) received a request under the Act for a specified Ontario Provincial Police weapons strategy report. The ministry claimed the section 14(2)(a) (law enforcement report) exemption to withhold the record in its entirety. The appellant claimed the application of the section 14(5) (success of a law enforcement program) exception to the exemption. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the record is exempt from disclosure under section 14(2)(a) and the section 14(5) exception does not apply. He upholds the decision of the ministry and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant submitted a request under the Act to the ministry for records relating to an ethics complaint he filed with the Alcohol and Gaming Commission (the AGCO). The AGCO granted the appellant partial access to the responsive records. The AGCO withheld some of the records under the solicitor-client privilege exemption in section 19 of the Act. The appellant appealed the AGCO’s decision and claimed additional responsive records ought to exist. In this decision, the adjudicator upholds the AGCO’s decision in part. She finds some of the records are exempt from disclosure under the solicitor-client privilege exemption but orders the AGCO to disclose the remainder to the appellant. The adjudicator upholds the AGCO’s search for responsive records as reasonable.

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).

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.

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 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.