Latest IPC Decisions

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.

An affected third party opposed disclosure of a record ordered disclosed by Order MO-4403. They submitted a request for reconsideration, claiming a defect pursuant to section 18.01(a) of the IPC’s Code of Procedure and submitted fresh submissions in support of their position against disclosure. The adjudicator finds that the grounds for reconsideration in section 18.01 have not been established and that the submission of additional representations does not establish a basis for reconsidering the order pursuant to section 18.02. The adjudicator denies the reconsideration request.

The appellant sought access, under the Act, to information from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (the ministry) related to the emission capacity of a proposed asphalt plant to be operated by the affected party. The ministry located a report containing this information and ultimately decided to grant access to it in full. The affected party appealed the ministry’s decision claiming that certain emission rate information is exempt under the mandatory third party information exemption in section 17(1) of the Act.

In this order, the adjudicator finds that the affected party has not established that section 17(1) applies to the report. She upholds the ministry’s decision to disclose the report to the appellant.

The appellant sought access to the monthly number of internal disciplinary measures applied to members of the Sault Ste. Marie Police Services Board (the SSMPS) between January 2015 and April 2021. Relying on section 52(3)3 of the Act, SSMPS took the position that the responsive record is excluded from the scope of the Act. In this order the adjudicator finds that the Act does not apply to the record, upholds SSMPS’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

The complainant is the parent of a child whose sudden death was investigated by the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP). Under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (PHIPA), the complainant made a request to a named physician (Dr. X) with privileges at the respondent hospital for access to a report and related records arising from the OPP’s request for an expert opinion to assist in the OPP’s death investigation. The hospital responded to the request on behalf of Dr. X, based on its initial position that responsive records would be hospital records. Later, during the IPC’s review, it became clear that the records sought by the complainant arose from the OPP’s retainer of Dr. A (a different physician with privileges at the hospital), and not Dr. X, for an expert opinion to assist the OPP in their investigation.

Through its various searches, the hospital located responsive records in its email system. These include Dr. A’s expert opinion report for the OPP, records the OPP provided to Dr. A for the purpose of the expert opinion, and other communications between Dr. A and the OPP relating to the retainer agreement executed between them for the expert opinion. The records also include an email between Dr. A and Dr. X, with whom Dr. A consulted about the expert opinion. Ultimately, the hospital denied access to all responsive records on various grounds in PHIPA and in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The complainant took issue with the hospital’s decisions and complained to the IPC.

In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the complainant has no right of access to the records under PHIPA or under FIPPA. She finds that the responsive records are OPP records relating to the investigation into the death of the complainant’s child, and are not subject to the access provisions in PHIPA because they are not records of personal health information in the custody or under the control of the hospital, or of Drs. A or X, acting in the capacity of a health information custodian for the purposes of PHIPA. The adjudicator also finds that the records are not in the custody or under the control of the hospital for the purpose of the access provisions in FIPPA. In the result, the adjudicator upholds the hospital’s denial of access to the records under PHIPA and FIPPA and dismisses the complaint.

The complainant sought access to her records of personal health information from Pond Mills Medical Clinic (the custodian). This decision determines that the custodian is deemed to have refused the complainant’s request for access. The custodian is ordered to provide a response to the complainant regarding her request for access to records of her personal health information in accordance with the Personal Health Information Protection Act.

The complainant sought a review of the hospital’s decision to deny her request for access to her deceased son’s hospital records, under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004, because she was not authorized to exercise a right of access on the deceased’s behalf. The hospital exercised its discretion to disclose some of the deceased’s personal health information to the complainant – the circumstances of his death – as permitted by section 38(4)(b) of the Act.

The adjudicator determines that no review is warranted under sections 57(3) and 57(4)(a) of the Act because there are no reasonable grounds to review the complaint and the hospital has responded adequately to the complaint. The complainant has no right of access to her deceased son’s personal health information under the Act and she has received from the hospital the limited personal health information that may be disclosed without consent under section 38(4)(b) of the Act.

The appellant made a continuing access request under the Act to the ministry for the current business contact information for the heads of two named colleges, clarified as the chairs of the boards of governors. The ministry issued a decision to the appellant denying access to the requested information under section 22(a), claiming the information is publicly available. The appellant appealed the ministry’s decision. During mediation, the appellant claimed the ministry failed to fulfil its obligations under sections 31(b) (publication of information re institutions), 32(c) (publication of types of records of the institution), 35(1) (documents made available), and 36(2) (annual review) of the Act. In this order, the adjudicator finds the discretionary exemption in section 22(a) does not apply to the requested information and orders the ministry to disclose it to the appellant. Accordingly, she finds the appellant’s request qualifies for continuing access under section 24(3) of the Act and orders the ministry to provide the appellant with a proposed schedule for continuing access. In addition, the adjudicator finds the ministry fulfilled its obligations under sections 31(b), 32(c), 35(1) and 36(2) of the Act.

At issue in this appeal is whether the appellant’s request to Conservation Halton (CH) is frivolous or vexatious under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA). In this order the adjudicator finds that CH has established that the request is frivolous or vexatious under section 4(1)(b) of MFIPPA. He upholds CH’s decision to deny access on that basis and imposes conditions on any current and future requests submitted by the appellant to CH, as well as conditions on appeals of CH’s decisions.

An adopted person and former child in care made a request to Family and Children’s Services Niagara (FACS Niagara) under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA or the Act), for access to all records containing his personal information, including his adoption file. FACS Niagara granted partial access to the requested records, disclosing all non-identifying information to the requester. The requester filed a complaint with the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (the IPC) because he seeks access to all records containing his personal information, without redactions.

In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the information in the records is excluded from the scope of Part X of the CYFSA under section 285(4)(a) because it is information related to an adoption. As a result of the application of the exclusion, Part X does not apply and the requester does not have a right of access to the redacted information under that part. The complaint is dismissed.

Toronto Metropolitan University (the university) received a request from the appellant for access to information about herself. The university denied access to one of eight responsive records, an email thread discussing the appellant and student events. The university claimed that the record is exempt under section 49(a) (discretion to refuse requester’s own information) read with 13(1) (advice or recommendations) of the Act because it contains advice or recommendations, and under section 49(b) because it contains mixed personal information belonging to the appellant and a university employee. In this order, the adjudicator partially upholds the university’s decision. She finds that a portion of the record is exempt under section 49(a) read with section 13(1), and that a portion of the record is exempt under section 49(b). She orders the university to disclose a severed version of the record to the appellant.

The appellant sought access to records under the Act from the Toronto Police Services Board (the police) related to his murder conviction. The police denied access to the responsive police reports and witness interviews, relying on the discretionary personal privacy exemption in section 38(b).

In this order, the adjudicator orders disclosure of the interviews of the witnesses that were interviewed in their professional capacity and determines that the section 38(b) exemption applies to the remaining information at issue in the records.

An individual made a request under the Act to the ministry for access to all information about himself held by the Ontario Provincial Police, including records relating to allegations of him being a member of any motorcycle clubs. Citing section 14(3) of the Act, the ministry refused to confirm or deny the existence of records on the basis that any records, if they exist, would be exempt under law enforcement exemptions in the Act. The adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records under section 14(3).

This order deals with an access decision made by the Ministry of Education (the ministry) under the Act for any final products, including reports, delivered to the ministry by a named company during a specified time frame in order to fulfill its consulting contracts related to COVID-19. The ministry denied access to the records, claiming the application of the mandatory Cabinet Record exemption in section 12(1). In this order, the adjudicator finds that the records are exempt from disclosure under the introductory wording in section 12(1), and the appeal is dismissed.

North Bay Hydro Distribution Limited (NBHDL) received a request under the Act for details and results of any calculations showing financial benefits resulting from NBHDL’s purchase of Espanola Hydro. NBHDL located a responsive record and after seeking the views of an affected third party, it denied access to the record pursuant to section 10(1) (third party information) and 11 (economic and other interests). The requester appealed NBHDL’s decision. In this order, the adjudicator upholds NBHDL’s decision and finds that section 10(1) applies to exempt the record from disclosure.