Latest IPC Decisions

The Ministry of the Solicitor General (the ministry) received a request under the Act for an occurrence report related to the appellant’s deceased son. The ministry disclosed the report, but withheld portions under section 49(a) (discretion to refuse requester’s own information), read with section 14(1)(l) (facilitate commission of an unlawful act), and section 49(b) (personal privacy).

In this order, the adjudicator partially upholds the ministry’s decision. He finds that the information is exempt from disclosure under sections 49(a) and (b), but orders some withheld portions disclosed because disclosure is desirable for compassionate reasons (section 21(4)(d)). He also finds that withholding another portion provided by the appellant to the police would lead to an absurd result, and orders it disclosed.

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 Port Hope Police Services Board (the police) received a request under the Act for reports made to the police by a named individual. The police granted partial access to records, but withheld emails sent by the named individual to the police, along with police responses, under sections 38(a) (discretion to refuse requester’s own information), read with 8(1)(e) (endanger life and safety), and section 38(b) (personal privacy).

In this order, the adjudicator finds that the emails are exempt from disclosure under section 38(b) and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant is the father of Soleiman Faqiri, an inmate who died after an altercation with correctional officers at Central East Correctional Centre on December 15, 2016. The Kawartha Lakes Police Service (KLPS), which investigated the inmate’s death, disclosed some records to the appellant in response to his access request under the Act. However, it denied access to other records under a number of exemptions, including sections 8(1)(e) (endanger life or safety), 9(1) (relations with other governments), 13 (threaten safety or health), 14(1) (personal privacy) and 38(a)/(b) (discretion to refuse access to requester’s own personal information). The appellant raised the public interest override in section 16 of the Act and claimed that there is a compelling public interest in disclosing these records that clearly outweighs the purposes of the exemptions claimed by the KLPS.

In this order, the adjudicator finds that the main contents of a significant number of records that qualify for exemption under section 14(1) of the Act must be disclosed to the appellant because the public interest override in section 16 applies to them. These records include 41 typewritten brief synopses of video witness statements that correctional staff provided to the KLPS, a typewritten witness statement provided by a correctional staff person, and 15 handwritten notes prepared by KLPS officers. He orders the KLPS to disclose these records to the appellant but to sever some personal information of correctional staff and other inmates.

The adjudicator also finds that the public interest override in section 16 does not apply to records relating to an Institutional Crisis Intervention Team that was put on standby at the correctional centre on the day the inmate died and the video witness statements of correctional staff and other inmates. He upholds the KLPS’s decision to withhold those records under sections 9(1)(b) and 14(1) respectively.

Finally, the adjudicator finds that the discretionary exemptions in sections 8(1)(e) and 13 do not apply to any information of correctional staff in the records. However, he finds that some information that was found to be exempt from disclosure under section 14(1)(k) (security) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in Order PO-4428 must also be found exempt from disclosure in the records at issue in this appeal under the equivalent provision in section 8(1)(k) of the Act.

The Ministry of Health received a request under the Act for access to records pertaining to its review of the requester’s OHIP billing. The ministry decided to grant the requester partial access to responsive records relying on the law enforcement exemption in section 14(1) and the personal privacy exemption in section 21(1). The requester appealed the ministry’s decision, seeking access to the information withheld pursuant to section 14(1)(c). During mediation, it was agreed that because the records might contain the requester’s personal information, the discretionary exemption to refuse the requester’s own information in section 49(a), read with 14(1)(c), may apply.
In this order, the adjudicator finds that the exemption in section 49(a), read with 14(1)(c), applies to the information at issue. The adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision to withhold the information that she finds exempt and dismisses the appeal.

Under the Act, the appellant sought access to a statement made by a third party to the York Regional Police Services Board (the police) concerning an incident that led to charges against the third party for assault of the appellant. The police denied the appellant access to any part of the statement on the basis its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the third party.

In this interim order, the adjudicator finds that the requested statement contains the personal information of the third party and of the appellant, so that the relevant personal privacy exemption is section 38(b) of the Act. Section 38(b) is a discretionary exemption that permits, but does not require, an institution to refuse to disclose to a requester her own personal information. The police instead applied the personal privacy exemption as if it were a mandatory exemption, based on a fundamental misapprehension of the nature of the record and of the appellant’s greater right of access under the Act to a record of her own personal information. In the circumstances, the adjudicator orders the police to issue a new access decision to the appellant, having regard to the principles set out in this interim order. She remains seized of the appeal to address issues arising from the police’s new access decision.

The appellant submitted a request under the Act for OPP investigative records relating to a named individual. The ministry located responsive records and denied the appellant access to them. The ministry claimed the records were exempt under the mandatory personal privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Act, among other exemptions. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision, finding that all the records are exempt under section 21(1) of the Act. The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant seeks access to four videos featuring commentary by high school students prepared for an online civics course. The videos were made available to school boards across the province until they were removed following controversy surrounding one of them. The Ministry of Education denied access to the videos on the basis that they contain personal information belonging to the students that is exempt under the personal privacy exemption in section 21(1). In this order, the adjudicator finds that the presumptions against disclosure in sections 21(3)(d) (educational history) and 21(3)(h) (racial or ethnic origin or religious or political beliefs) apply to the videos and that they are therefore exempt from disclosure under section 21(1). She upholds the ministry’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant submitted a request for reconsideration of Order PO-4455, claiming jurisdictional defects and breaches of natural justice in the decision. In this reconsideration order, the adjudicator finds that the appellant has not established any of the grounds for reconsideration contemplated in section 18.01 of the IPC’s Code of Procedure and denies the reconsideration request.

In CYFSA Decision 11, the complainant, a former child in care, sought access under Part X of the Act for her entire file with the Family and Children’s Services Niagara (the service provider). The service provider granted the complainant partial access to two files relying on certain exemptions under the Act. Following a review, the adjudicator ordered the service provider to grant the complainant greater access to records contained in the complainant’s care file having found that the records in this file are dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the complainant and that no exemption applied.

However, the adjudicator upheld the service provider’s decision to deny access to records contained in the protection file, finding that the exemption at section 312(1)(d)(iii) of the Act (identification of an individual who provided information explicitly or implicitly in confidence) applied.

The complainant requested reconsideration of CYFSA Decision 11. In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the complainant has not established any ground for reconsideration of the decision and denies the complainant’s request.

In CYFSA Decision 12, the complainant, a former child in care, sought access under Part X of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (the Act) for her entire file with the Family and Children’s Services Niagara (the service provider). The service provider granted the complainant partial access to two files relying on certain exemptions under the Act. The adjudicator ordered the service provider to grant the complainant greater access to records contained in the complainant’s care file having found that the records in this file are dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the complainant and that no exemption applied.

However, the adjudicator upheld the service provider’s decision to deny access to records contained in the protection file, finding that the exemption at section 312(1)(d)(iii) of the Act (identification of an individual who provided information explicitly or implicitly in confidence) applied.

The complainant requested reconsideration of CYFSA Decision 12. In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the complainant has not established any ground for reconsideration of the decision and denies the complainant’s request.

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (the WSIB) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to recordings of WSIB phone calls for a particular claim number. The WSIB issued a decision stating that records responsive to the appellant’s request do not exist, claiming that the WSIB only retains phone call recordings for a 90-day period. The appellant appealed the WSIB’s decision to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, because he believes recordings should exist. The appeal was transferred to the adjudication stage, where an adjudicator may conduct an inquiry under the Act.

Based on her review of the file, the adjudicator is satisfied that ordering the WSIB to conduct further searches would not yield any records because of the WSIB’s 90-day retention policy for recordings. In this order, the adjudicator exercises her discretion under section 52(1) of the Act to not conduct an inquiry and dismisses the appeal.

The requester sought access under the Act to records about a specific residential property in the City of Thunder Bay (the city). The city issued a decision denying access to some of the responsive records pursuant to section 12 (solicitor-client privilege) and some information under section 14(1) (personal privacy) of the Act. The city stated that it was charging a fee. The requester and the owners of the property appealed the city’s decision. The requester also appealed the city’s fee and claimed that the city had not conducted a reasonable search for responsive records.

In this order, the adjudicator partially upholds the application of section 14(1). She upholds the application of section 12. She does not uphold the fee. Finally, she orders the city to conduct another search for responsive records.

The complainant is a joint custodial parent of two minor children who received counselling services from the custodian, a doctor. Under PHIPA, the complainant made a request to the doctor for all communications between the doctor, the complainant, and the other joint custodial parent (the children’s father) regarding the children’s counselling services. The doctor denied the complainant’s request, including on the basis the responsive emails are not records of the children’s personal health information, and that the children’s father did not consent to release of the emails to the complainant.

The ministry submitted a request for reconsideration of Order PO-4411-F pursuant to section 18.01(a) of the IPC’s Code of Procedure, claiming fundamental defects in the decision. In this reconsideration order, the adjudicator finds that the ministry has not established a ground under section 18.01(a) for reconsideration and denies the reconsideration request.