Latest IPC Decisions

This decision concerns a complainant’s request under Part X of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (the Act) for access to records about her deceased uncle and her entire family. It considers whether there is a right of access in Part X to records of a deceased individual’s personal information that relate to the provision of a service to the individual. It also considers the potential relevance of sections of Part X that permit or require the disclosure of personal information in some circumstances.

In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the complainant does not have a right of access to the personal information of her deceased uncle and of her family members under the Act. The records are not records of the complainant’s personal information and they do not relate to the provision of a service to her. Part X of the Act does not contain explicit authority for an individual to act on behalf of a deceased individual in respect of the deceased individual’s personal information; as a result, the complainant cannot make a request for access to her deceased uncle’s records on his behalf. In addition, the complainant has not demonstrated that she is lawfully authorized under the Act to make a request on behalf of her other family members for access to records about them. The adjudicator also upholds the service provider’s decision that none of the sections of Part X permitting or requiring disclosure of personal information applies in the circumstances. As a result, she dismisses the complaint.

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.

Under FIPPA, the appellant made a request to Hamilton Health Sciences (the hospital) for statistical and other information relating to the work of the Child Advocacy and Assessment Program (CAAP) at a particular hospital location. The appellant asserts that her child was misdiagnosed by the CAAP team as a victim of child abuse, and she seeks information relating to the number and outcomes of similar incidents over the past 10 years. The hospital denies the appellant’s characterization of the work of CAAP, including the assertion that CAAP team members diagnose child abuse or make child abuse allegations. Ultimately the hospital denied the appellant’s request on the basis it does not compile the type of information she seeks.

In this order, the adjudicator explains her reasons for declining to conduct an inquiry of this matter under FIPPA. She accepts the evidence that the requested information does not exist in the form sought by the appellant, and finds there is no obligation under FIPPA for the hospital to conduct a search or to create a responsive record in the circumstances. She dismisses the appeal.

The Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board (the board) submitted a request for reconsideration of Order MO-4354, claiming a jurisdictional defect. In this reconsideration order, the adjudicator finds that the board has not established any of the grounds for reconsideration in section 18.01 of the IPC’s Code of Procedure, including a jurisdictional defect in section 18.01(b), denies the reconsideration request and orders the board to comply with Order MO-4354.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General (the ministry) received a request for an Ontario Provincial Police occurrence report. The ministry granted partial access to the report and the appellant continued to seek the name and address of an affected party, withheld under section 49(b) (personal privacy) of the Act.

In this order, the adjudicator finds that the withheld personal information is not exempt under section 49(b). He orders the information disclosed.

The appellant sought access to a police report regarding a complaint he had filed with the police. The police granted access to the report, but withheld portions of it pursuant to section 38(b) (personal privacy) of the Act. In this order, the adjudicator allows the appeal in part. He finds that portions related to statements made by affected parties to the police are exempt from disclosure, but orders portions related to statements made by the appellant disclosed.

In this decision, the adjudicator finds that Woburn Medical Dental Centre Inc. is the health information custodian of the records of personal health information alleged to have been abandoned. The adjudicator orders the custodian and its agent to retrieve and secure the records. The adjudicator also finds that the use and/or disclosure of the records by certain respondents is governed by section 49(1) of the Act and that some of these respondents have contravened section 49(1) of the Act by withholding some of the records from the custodian. The adjudicator orders these respondents to return these records to the custodian when the custodian attends to retrieve them. The adjudicator makes other orders against some of the respondents necessary to preserve and secure the records until the custodian has retrieved them.

The appellant sought access to records from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (the ministry) related to the Office of the Provincial Land and Development Facilitator. The ministry searched for and disclosed responsive records to the appellant. The appellant maintained that the ministry did not conduct a reasonable search for responsive records.

In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s search for responsive records and dismisses the appeal.

The OMDC received two requests under the Act for records relating to retroactive changes to the Ontario Interactive Digital Media Tax Credit. The OMDC issued a fee estimate for each request and agreed to waive part of the fee when the appellant applied for a fee waiver. The appellant appealed the OMDC’s fee seeking a full fee waiver based on financial hardship and on the basis that dissemination of the records would benefit public health and safety. He also claimed that the FOI coordinator at the OMDC was in a conflict of interest as she was also the executive assistant to the CEO. In this order, the adjudicator does not order a further fee waiver and finds that the FOI coordinator and the CEO of the OMDC are not in a conflict of interest in responding to his requests. The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant made a request under the Act to the police for access to records relating to a specific case number. The police issued a decision granting the appellant partial access to the responsive record, a general occurrence report. The police withheld portions of the record under the personal privacy exemption in section 38(b). The appellant appealed the police’s decision. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of Order MO-4447. In this reconsideration order, the adjudicator finds that the appellant has not established any of the grounds for reconsideration in section 18.01 of the IPC’s Code of Procedure and denies the reconsideration request.

After being ordered by the IPC to search for additional records, the city located and issued a new decision for records, in which it assessed a fee. The appellant appealed the search fee and asked for a fee waiver.

In this order, the adjudicator upholds the city’s $300 search fee and the city’s decision not to waive this fee.

The appellant filed a request under the Act with the police for records relating to the manner in which the police conduct investigations and execute search warrants, including but not limited to the investigations of two identified individuals. The police located responsive records and granted the appellant partial access to them. The police withheld portions of records under sections 14(1) (personal privacy) and 8(2)(a) (law enforcement report). The police also withheld records in full under the solicitor-client privilege exemption in section 12. The appellant appealed the police’s decision to the IPC and raised the application of the public interest override in section 16. In this order, the adjudicator orders the police to disclose certain records and information that she finds not exempt under section 14(1) or section 8(2)(a). She upholds the police’s decision to withhold the remainder of the information and records under sections 12 and 14(1).

The appellant sought access under the Act to records about the handling of a whistleblower complaint he made to the hospital alleging improper external influences in the hospital’s decision regarding his position at the hospital. The hospital decided to withhold information, in part, denying access to some information on the basis of the discretionary exemptions at sections 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 19 (solicitor-client privilege). In this order, the adjudicator upholds the hospital’s decision.

This final order resolves the outstanding search issue from Interim Order MO-4430-I. Following the interim order, the Township of Severn (the township) conducted a further search for videos and photos and provided an affidavit in support of its search. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the township has now provided sufficient evidence to establish that its search efforts were reasonable, and dismisses the appeal.