Latest IPC Decisions

The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (the ministry) received a request under the Act for access to records provided to or sent from the ministry to the Office of the Mayor of the City of Sault Ste. Marie and to the office of a named M.P.P. at the City of Sault Ste. Marie between 2019 to 2020.

The ministry issued an access decision advising that it had not located responsive records. The appellant appealed this access decision to the IPC on the basis that the ministry did not conduct a reasonable search for responsive records.

In this interim order, the adjudicator determines that the ministry has not provided sufficient evidence to established that it conducted a reasonable search for responsive records. Therefore, she orders the ministry to conduct further searches and to provide affidavit evidence detailing its efforts to search for and locate responsive records.

The Township of Wainfleet received a request under the Act for access to records relating to a septic system inspection at a specified address. The property owner objected to disclosure of the responsive records and the township decided to deny access to the records citing the exemption in section 14(1) (personal privacy). The requester appealed the township’s decision, confirming that she was not interested in any personal information in the records. The township maintained its decision not to release the records.

In this order, the adjudicator finds that the information remaining at issue is not exempt under section 14(1). The adjudicator allows the appeal and orders the township to disclose the records with names and contact information severed.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (the IPC) received a privacy complaint from a children’s aid society about the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) disclosing personal information contrary to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA or the Act). The children’s aid society stated that the OPP had implemented new reporting system software (Child Protection Agency Notification Plug-in) and since that time, had sent several occurrence reports in which a youth was listed a witness or victim of a serious crime, but where there was no indication of a child protection concern. The children’s aid society stated that the OPP should not send reports absent a child protection concern, and that to do so was a breach of the youth’s privacy. The IPC opened a Commissioner-initiated privacy complaint file against the Ministry of the Solicitor General (the ministry), the ministry responsible for the OPP, regarding the use of the reporting system noted above.

In this report, I find that the guidance the ministry provided for use of the Child Protection Agency Notification Plug-in is contrary to section 125 of the Child, Youth, and Family Services Act (CYFSA) and section 42 of FIPPA. Section 125 of the CYFSA sets out a number of harms or risks to children and imposes a duty to report in cases where an individual, including an OPP officer, has reasonable grounds to suspect one or more of those harms or risks. The guidance provided by the ministry requires officers to send a report to a children’s aid society in all cases where a youth is listed as a victim or witness to a serious crime. Mandating these disclosures, rather than having the officer use their judgment as to whether a duty to report exists under section 125 of the CYFSA, allows for the possibility that the OPP may disclose personal information to a children’s aid society when there is no duty to report, which would be contrary to the Act. I recommend that the ministry change its guidance to reflect that officers are to send reports to a children’s aid society when the officer judges they have a duty to report, and to remove guidance stating that such reports are mandatory when a youth is listed as a victim or a witness.

The requester made a request under the Act to the City of Greater Sudbury (the city) for correspondence regarding her operation of a pet kennel. The city issued a series of decisions, denying access to portions of the responsive records on the basis that they are exempt under the discretionary exemptions in sections 7(1) (advice or recommendations) and 12 (solicitor-client privilege), as well as the mandatory personal privacy exemption in section 14(1). The appellant appealed the city’s decisions and also the fees it charged to provide access to the records.

In this order, the adjudicator upholds the city’s decisions that the information at issue in the records is exempt under sections 7(1), 12, and 14(1). She also upholds the fees charged by the city as reasonable. She dismisses the appeal.

Under the Act, the appellant made a request to the Toronto Police Services Board (the board) for a line-by-line breakdown of the 2020 Toronto Police Service budget for six specified units. He asked that the breakdown be organized by individual program area, function, and service delivered, in accordance with a recommendation of the board chair tabled at an August 2020 public meeting of the board. He also requested any related correspondence between the board and the police service. The board denied the request based on a claim that responsive information is publicly available. The board also asserted that line-by-line budget information is exempt under certain discretionary law enforcement exemptions at section 8 of the Act. After the appellant appealed the board’s decision to the IPC, the board issued a revised decision and disclosed certain budget information in full.

In this interim order, the adjudicator finds that the newly disclosed record containing aggregate budget information does not fully respond to the appellant’s request for a detailed breakdown organized by individual program area, function, and service delivered. She orders the board to issue a decision on access to the requested budget information, and, in the circumstances, that it do so without recourse to a time extension. The adjudicator also dismisses a number of other issues raised by the appellant, including allegations of bias on the part of the police chief. She finds no reasonable basis to order further searches for the requested correspondence between the board and the police service. She remains seized of the appeal to address issues arising from the board’s new access decision.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General (the ministry) received a request under the Act for records related to the site selection for a new correctional facility in Kemptville, Ontario. The ministry issued an access decision denying access to portions of the records pursuant to sections 12(1) (Cabinet records), and 13(1) (advice or recommendations) of the Act.

The requester, now the appellant, appealed the ministry’s decision to the IPC and raised the application of the public interest override at section 23 of the Act.
In this order, the adjudicator partially upholds the ministry’s decision that portions of the responsive records are exempt by reason of sections 12(1) and 13(1). She finds that the public interest override in section 23 does not apply to override the section 13(1) exemption.

In PHIPA Decision 217, the adjudicator found the clinic had failed to demonstrate reasonable efforts to identify and locate records responsive to a request for the clinic’s complete paperwork relating to vials of donor sperm sent to the clinic for the purpose of fertility treatment. The adjudicator ordered the clinic to conduct a further search. In this final decision, the adjudicator finds the clinic has now complied with its obligations under PHIPA to conduct a reasonable search. The complaint is dismissed.

Health Sciences North received a request under the Act for information relating to the requester and the centre operated by the requester. HSN located 15 responsive records and issued a decision granting access to some records in their entirety, and denying access to other records in their entirety, claiming they were excluded from the Act under the exclusion for employment or labour relations matters at section 65(6). The appellant appealed and also claimed that HSN’s search for responsive records was not reasonable. In this interim order, the adjudicator finds that all of the records are excluded from the Act pursuant to section 65(6)3 except for one email which he also finds is not excluded under section 65(5)1. He defers his decision on access to this email so that the parties can submit representations on HSN’s exemption claim. He also finds that HSN’s search for responsive records is reasonable.

Metrolinx received a request under the Act for a track audit report that they received from a private company. Metrolinx denied access to the report under sections 17(1) (third party information) and 18(1) (economic and other interests) of the Act. The appellant appealed the decision to the IPC and raised the application of section 23 (public interest override). In this order, the adjudicator finds that the report is exempt from disclosure under section 17(1) and that the public interest override does not apply.

The appellant made a request under the Act to the Toronto Metropolitan University (the university) for access to records relating to a complaint made against him under the university’s Sexual Violence Policy. The university took the position that the records are excluded from the scope of the Act under section 65(6)3 (labour relations or employment related matters) In this order the adjudicator finds that except for an invoice, which is subject to the Act, the balance of the records are excluded from the scope of the Act under section 65(6)3. He orders the university to issue an access decision with respect to the invoice and upholds its decision not to disclose the remaining records.

The Peel Regional Police Services Board (the police) received an access request under the Act for records relating to certain police records involving the requester. The police provided partial access to the responsive records. They withheld information under the discretionary exemptions at section 38(a) (discretion to refuse a requester’s own personal information), read with section 8(1)(g) (intelligence information), as well as section 38(b) (personal privacy). On appeal, these exemptions were challenged, along with the reasonableness of the police’s search for responsive records, under section 17. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s application of the exemptions and the reasonableness of their search. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

The appellant sought access to all records related to a harassment complaint she filed with the municipality, including the final investigation report and all invoices, emails and details of the investigation services provided. The municipality issued a decision granting the appellant access to some emails, in part. The municipality did not locate any other records responsive to the appellant’s request. The appellant challenged the reasonableness of the municipality’s search for responsive records.

In this interim order, the adjudicator finds that the municipality did not conduct a reasonable search for records, and she orders the municipality to conduct a further search and issue a new access decision.

The appellant made a request to the City of Oshawa (the city) under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for council minutes, reports and correspondence on a specific topic. The city denied access to them in part, relying on the discretionary exemptions at section 6(1)(b) (closed meeting), 7(1) (advice or recommendations), 11(d) and (e) (economic and other interests), and 12 (solicitor-client privilege), as well as the mandatory exemption at section 14(1) (personal privacy) of the Act.

The appellant appealed the city’s decision and in Interim Order MO-4455-I, an adjudicator upheld some aspects of the city’s decision, but ordered other information disclosed. She also ordered the city to re-exercise its discretion to apply the section 6(1)(b) exemption. In this final order, the adjudicator finds that the city has now exercised its discretion under section 6(1)(b) and she dismisses the remainder of the appeal.

The appellant sought access to police reports related to an incident she was involved in. The police granted partial access to the reports, withholding portions of them under section 38(b) (personal privacy) of the Act. In this order, the adjudicator finds that disclosure of the withheld information would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and dismisses the appeal.

A group of hunters, including the appellant, were charged with improper hunting offences. They complained about the conduct of the investigation into the incident and sought access under the Act to the investigative records from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (the ministry).

In Interim Order PO-4370-I, I found that the responsive investigative report and supporting records were not excluded from the application of the Act under section 65(6)3 (employment or labour relations) and ordered the ministry to issue an access decision. The ministry denied access to portions of the records relying on the personal privacy exemption in section 49(b) and the solicitor-client privilege exemption in section 19(a). In this order, the adjudicator partially upholds the application of the claimed exemptions and also finds that section 49(a) applies in conjunction with section 19(a).