Latest IPC Decisions

The appellant submitted a request to the City of Ottawa (the city) for access to records relating to a specific by-law complaint. The city located responsive records and provided the appellant with access to them. The appellant appealed the city’s decision because he believes additional responsive records should exist. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the city conducted a reasonable search for responsive records. The appeal is dismissed.

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 so that the adjudicator may conduct an inquiry. In this interim decision, the adjudicator orders the ministry to produce the records at issue to the IPC.

The Barrie Police Services Board received a request under the Act for records relating to complaints involving the appellant. The police granted the appellant partial access to an occurrence report and officer’s notes claiming that the withheld portions qualified for exemption under section 38(a)(discretion to refuse a requester’s own information), read with section 8(1)(d)(confidential source). The police withheld an audio recording provided by an affected individual on the basis that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b)(personal privacy). The appellant appealed the police’s decision to the IPC. The adjudicator finds that the records qualify for exemption under sections 38(a) and (b) and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant requested information, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, relating to enrolment and admission applications of domestic and international students from the college. The college denied access to the responsive information under the economic and other interests exemption at section 18(1) of the Act.
The appeal is allowed. The adjudicator finds that information is not exempt and orders the college to disclose the information to the appellant.

The complainant made a correction request under the Act to a health information custodian (the custodian) for the correction of his personal health information in a consultation report. The custodian denied the correction request on the basis that he does not have a duty under section 55(8) of the Act to make the correction. In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the custodian was not required to make the requested corrections as the complainant has not established that the information he seeks corrected is inaccurate for the purposes for which the custodian uses it. The adjudicator issues no order and upholds the custodian’s decision.

The complainant submitted a correction request under PHIPA to a hospital to correct her personal health information in two forms completed by a physician. The hospital denied the complainant’s request citing section 55(8). The adjudicator finds that the complainant did not demonstrate that the information in the records was incomplete or incorrect for the purpose the hospital uses the information. As a result, the hospital’s decision to not make the requested corrections is upheld.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (the ministry) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for records related to the decision of the Government of Ontario to make changes to the Ontario Greenbelt. The ministry issued the requester a fee estimate of $232.50. The requester asked for a fee waiver on the basis that dissemination of the records would benefit public health and safety, under section 57(4)(c) of the Act. The ministry denied the fee waiver request. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision to do so, and dismisses the appeal.

The Corporation of the City of Cambridge received a multi-part request under the Act for access to information relating to an investigation into a named company by the Cambridge Fire Department. While numerous records were disclosed, a letter was withheld under section 10(1) (third party information). In this order, the adjudicator finds that some of the information contained in the letter is exempt under section 10(1). She orders the city to disclose the non-exempt information to the appellant.

A requester made a request under FIPPA to the Landlord Tenant Board (the tribunal) seeking adjudicative records (spreadsheets containing certain fields of information from tribunal hearings conducted during a certain timeframe). The Ontario Superior Court held that a tribunal may effectively by-pass FIPPA under certain conditions, but the adjudicator in this appeal finds that the tribunal did not do so. She also finds that FIPPA applies to the request for these adjudicative records and that the Dagenais/Muntuck test is relevant, and that the records qualify as “records” under FIPPA. As a result, she orders the tribunal to produce the responsive records and, for a specified period of time, on an ongoing basis.

The Waterloo Region District School Board (the board) received a request from an individual under the Act for records related to a specified social media post. The board located one responsive email and denied access to it in full under section 7(1) (advice or recommendations). The board later disclosed additional responsive records and a portion of the initial email, but the appellant continued to seek access to the remainder of the email.

In this order, the adjudicator finds that the withheld information in the email is exempt from disclosure under section 7(1) and dismisses the appeal.

The ministry submitted a request for reconsideration of Order PO-4463, seeking a reconsideration on the grounds that there was a fundamental defect in the adjudication process under section 18.01(a) of the IPC’s Code of Procedure (the Code). In this Reconsideration Order, the adjudicator finds the ministry did not establish that grounds exist under section 18.01 of the Code for reconsidering Order PO-4463, including a fundamental defect in the adjudication process. She denies the reconsideration request and orders the ministry to comply with Order PO-4463.

The appellant submitted a request to the Toronto Metropolitan University (the university) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for records relating to an incident at the Student Resource Centre on a specified date. The university located responsive records and disclosed some of the records and information to him, but portions of some records were withheld under the discretionary exemption in section 49(a) (discretion to refuse requester’s own information), read with sections 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and 19 (solicitor-client privilege), and section 49(b) (personal privacy).

The appellant appealed the university’s decision and also submitted that the university had not conducted a reasonable search. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the withheld portions of the records are exempt from disclosure under section 49(a), read with sections 13(1) and 19(a), and section 49(b). She also finds that the university conducted a reasonable search. She upholds the university’s access decision and dismisses the appeal.

In this order, the adjudicator partially upholds the city’s decision to withhold certain information sought by the appellant under the exemptions for solicitor-client privilege and advice and recommendations (in the context of the exemption pertaining to a right to access one’s own personal information). The adjudicator orders the remaining information to be disclosed to the appellant.

The police received a request under the Act for records relating to the protocols and procedures for the preparation of “Wanted Posters,” including those using photographs obtained from the Ministry of Transportation as well as the specific records used to create the “Wanted in Canada” poster using the personal information of the appellant. In Interim Order MO-4266-I, the adjudicator found that the search for records in response to the request was not reasonable and ordered the police to conduct a further search for responsive records. In this final order, the adjudicator finds that the police’s search is reasonable and dismisses the appeal.

The City of Windsor (the city) received an access request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records related to specified properties. The city issued an access and fee decision granting partial access to responsive records. The appellant appealed the amount of the $256.80 fee. In this order, the adjudicator orders the final fee be reduced to $175.45 as some of the responsive records contain the appellant’s personal information.