Latest IPC Decisions

The City of Toronto received a request for access to architectural drawings for a residential property. The city issued a decision granting access to responsive records. The homeowner appealed the city’s decision, claiming that the records are exempt under the mandatory exemption in section 10(1) (third party information) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator finds that the records at issue are not exempt under section 10(1), and upholds the city’s decision to disclose them with the appellant’s name removed.

The university submitted a request for reconsideration of Order PO-4423, in which the adjudicator reduced its fee estimate for the time to be spent preparing records for disclosure. The university sought reconsideration claiming an accidental error in the adjudicator’s calculation.

In this order, the adjudicator finds that the university has established grounds for reconsideration on the basis of an accidental error under section 18.01(c) of the IPC Code of Procedure and upholds the university’s original fee estimate for preparation time.

The appellant submitted a request for reconsideration of Order PO-4417, which upheld the OLG’s search for responsive records. In his reconsideration request, the appellant claimed that there was an error in the order. In this reconsideration order, the adjudicator denies the reconsideration request because the appellant has not established any of the grounds for reconsideration under section 18.01 of the IPC’s Code of Procedure.

The City of Niagara Falls (the city) received an access request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for a request for tender submission to the city for a municipal service centre. The city granted partial access to the submission, withholding portions under section 10(1) of the Act (third party information). In this order, the adjudicator allows the appeal in part. He finds that portions relating to the allocation of work completed by sub-contractors are exempt from disclosure under section 10(1), but finds that the names of the sub-contractors are not exempt and orders them disclosed.

The requester and another individual were involved in an incident to which the Ontario Provincial Police (the OPP) responded and about which police reports were generated. The requester sought access to these reports from the Ministry of the Solicitor General (the ministry) under the Act. The ministry claimed the discretionary personal privacy exemption in section 49(b) to deny access portions of the responsive reports.

In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision that the information at issue in the police reports is exempt by reason of section 49(b).

The City of Richmond Hill (the city) received a request for a bid summary and the winning submission for a storm sewer project. The city identified responsive records and withheld them under sections 10(1)(a) and (c) (third-party information) of the Act. In this order, the adjudicator partially upholds the city’s decision. He finds that the bid summary and parts of the winning submission are not exempt from disclosure, and orders them disclosed.

The complainant made a request to the custodian for records relating to his visits with two doctors at the custodian’s office. The custodian disclosed the complainant’s health records to him. The complainant challenged the reasonableness of the custodian’s search, claiming additional responsive records ought to exist. In this decision, the adjudicator finds the custodian conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to the complainant’s request and dismisses the complaint.

The Hamilton Police Service (the police) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for records relating to an incident involving the requester. The police conducted a search for responsive records and issued an access decision. The requester challenges the adequacy of that access decision in this appeal, as well as the police’s proposed method of access. In addition, he seeks access to the information withheld by the police in the responsive police reports and officers’ notes, and 911 calls. He also raised the issue of reasonable search. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the adequacy of the police’s access decision and finds that their proposed method of access is consistent with the Act. She also upholds the police’s decision to withhold police codes, under the discretionary exemption at section 38(a) (discretion to withhold requester’s own personal information), read with section 8(1)(l) (facilitate commission of an unlawful act). She finds that the personal information withheld in the records is exempt under the discretionary exemption at section 38(b) (personal privacy). She also upholds the reasonableness of the police’s search. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.

The Toronto Police Services Board (the police) received a freedom of information request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records related to a fire that broke out at a certain location. The police issued an access decision advising that there is no video record responsive to the request. The requester challenged the reasonableness of the police’s search, in large part on the basis of evidence he believes the police should have collected at the time of the fire, as well as a past negative experience involving the same police service and a request for video evidence. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s search for a video record responsive to the request as reasonable in the circumstances, and dismisses the appeal.

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (the TRCA) received an access to information request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) from a requester seeking access to all records relating to his address during a certain timeframe. The TRCA located responsive records, and granted partial access to them. In this order, the adjudicator finds that most of the information requested is exempt from disclosure under the discretionary exemption at section 38(a) (discretion to refuse requester’s own personal information), read with the discretionary exemption at sections 8(1)(a) (law enforcement matter), and that the rest of it is exempt under section 38(a), read with section 12 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Act. As a result, she upholds the TRCA’s decision to withhold this information, and dismisses the appeal.

The complainant made a correction request under the Act to the hospital. The complainant asked that a record relating to the genetic testing of his minor child and all references to it be removed in their entirety from the child’s records of personal health information. In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the hospital does not have a duty to correct the record under section 55(8) by upholding its refusal to correct based on the application of section 55(8) itself. She also finds that the complainant’s request that the record be removed from the child’s health record is not a remedy that is available under section 55(10) or any other section of the Act. The complaint is dismissed.

This reconsideration decision addresses the complainant’s request for reconsideration of PHIPA Decision 207. In that decision, the adjudicator ordered the clinic to correct certain records under section 55(8) of PHIPA. The complainant remained dissatisfied and filed a reconsideration request. In this reconsideration decision, the adjudicator finds that there are no grounds to reconsider PHIPA Decision 207 and she denies the request.

The complainant made a correction request under the Act to the hospital. The complainant asked that a record relating to the genetic testing of his minor child and all references to it be removed in their entirety from the child’s records of personal health information. In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the hospital does not have a duty to correct the record under section 55(8) by upholding its refusal to correct based on the application of section 55(8) itself. She also finds that the complainant’s request that the record be removed from the child’s health record is not a remedy that is available under section 55(10) or any other section of the Act. The complaint is dismissed.

The IPC issues an interim order directing a number of the respondents to ensure the security and preservation of records of personal health information transferred from a medical clinic to a storage facility for a three month period, pending the IPC’s review.

The complainant, the husband of a deceased individual, sought a complete copy of the deceased individual’s medical records from a group of hospitals (the custodian). The custodian provided access to the responsive records. The complainant was not satisfied with the completeness of the records he received, and filed a complaint with this office challenging the reasonableness of the custodian’s search for records. In this decision, the adjudicator upholds the custodian’s search as reasonable and dismisses the complaint.