Latest IPC Decisions

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.

The appellant made a request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General (the ministry) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to records about complaints made against him regarding his care of two horses. The ministry denied access to the responsive records in part, relying on the discretionary personal privacy exemption in section 49(b).

In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision to deny access to the records.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General (the ministry) received a request for records relating to a specified incident attended by the OPP. The requester, a township, clarified that it was seeking records sufficient to answer questions into the circumstances of an affected party’s possible attendance at the incident. The ministry identified responsive records and denied access to them citing the exemption in section 21(1) (personal privacy) of the Act. For some of the records, it identified the exemption in section 14(1) (law enforcement), in the alternative. The requester appealed the ministry’s decision. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision in part. She finds that, except for information about the OPP officers and other information that does not qualify as personal information, the records are exempt under the personal privacy exemption in section 21(1) and, in respect of police codes that appear in the records, under the law enforcement exemption in section 14(1). The adjudicator orders the ministry to disclose identifying information of three individuals that she finds does not qualify as personal information.

The appellant submitted a request for reconsideration of Order MO-4439. 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.

This appeal relates to a multi-part request submitted under the Act for records relating to an IT system review conducted by the Town of Arnprior (the town) and an in camera discussion of that review at town council. The town granted partial access to the responsive records and relied on sections 6(1)(b) (closed meeting), 8(1)(i) (security), 10(1) (third party information) and 11 (economic and other interests) of the Act to withhold records. In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the exemptions at section 6(1)(b) and section 8(1)(i) apply to some records. She also finds neither the exemption at section 10(1) nor the exemption at section 11 apply to any of the records for which they were claimed. She orders the town to disclose the non-exempt information and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant made a request for records relating to the Premier’s OPP security detail and the ministry denied the appellant access to officers’ notes under the discretionary law enforcement exemption in section 14(1) of the Act. The appellant appealed the ministry’s decision to the IPC. The ministry refused to provide records to the IPC. In this interim decision, the Assistant Commissioner orders the ministry to produce the records at issue to the IPC.

The appellant sought access to an occurrence report about an incident in which he was involved. The police granted partial access but withheld the personal information of an affected party under the personal privacy exemption in section 38(b). The adjudicator finds that disclosure of the affected party’s personal information would constitute an unjustified invasion of their personal privacy and upholds the police’s decision. She finds that the police exercised their discretion properly in withholding this information and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant submitted a request under the Act to the ministry for the criteria used under the Ontario Autism Program (the OAP) to determine the budget of core services for a child diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. The ministry located one record, the Determination of Needs Tool (the tool), and denied the appellant access to it. The ministry withheld the record under the discretionary exemption in section 18(1)(d) (economic and other interests) of the Act. The appellant appealed the ministry’s decision and raised the possible application of the public interest override in section 23. In this order, the adjudicator finds the tool qualifies for exemption under section 18(1)(d) and the public interest override does not apply. The ministry’s decision is upheld, and the appeal is dismissed.

The appellant submitted a request to the Toronto Police Services Board (the police) under the Act for access to records relating to herself. The responsive records identified by the police all relate to her attempts to be recruited and hired as a police constable. The police denied access to most of the records because they are excluded from the Act by section 52(3) (labour relations or employment records). In this order, the adjudicator finds that section 52(3)3 applies to all of the records at issue. He decides to exercise his discretion under section 41(1)(b) not to conduct an inquiry to review the police’s access decision because the appeal has no reasonable prospect of success. The appeal is dismissed.

The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant’s request to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (the AGCO) is frivolous or vexatious under section 10(1)(b) of the Act. In this decision, the adjudicator finds the AGCO established the appellant’s request is frivolous or vexatious and upholds the AGCO’s decision to refuse the appellant access to the responsive records. The adjudicator also imposes conditions on future requests submitted by the appellant to the AGCO.

A patient made an access request under PHIPA for notes taken during a meeting he had with a Director of a facility. The custodian denied access to the notes claiming that the legal privilege exemptions in section 52(1)(a) and (c) (legal privilege) apply. The adjudicator finds that the notes are dedicated primarily to the complainant’s personal health information and that the legal privilege exemptions do not apply. The adjudicator orders the custodian to grant the complainant access to the whole record.