Latest IPC Decisions

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 access to records relating to the withdrawals of land from the Greenbelt Plan. To date, the ministry has not issued a final access decision in response to the request. An appeal was made to the IPC and Appeal file PA23-00098 was opened to determine the issue of the ministry’s deemed refusal under section 29(4) of the Act.

In light of the Auditor General’s observations in her Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt, the appeal file was moved to the adjudication stage. In this interim order, the adjudicator finds that the Auditor General’s observations regarding the use of personal email accounts by political staff and their record retention practices, provide reasonable grounds for the belief that records responsive to the appellant’s request may be irretrievably lost or destroyed. Accordingly, the adjudicator orders the ministry to take steps to secure the preservation and recovery of responsive records within its custody or control, in accordance with its duties set out in section 10.1 of the Act and the Archives and Recordkeeping Act, 2006.

The ministry received a request under the Act for records including occurrence reports, officer notes, emails and reports that involve the appellant for a specified time period. Ultimately, after receiving consent to disclose personal information from one affected party, the ministry issued a decision providing access to some information but withholding information pursuant to section 49(b) (personal privacy) and section 49(a) read with sections 14(1)(c) and 14(1)(l) (law enforcement). In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

The complainant, a mother, sought access under the Act to her family’s entire file with the Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto (JFCS). JFCS granted the complainant partial access to the responsive records, denying access to some information pursuant to sections 312(1)(a) (legal privilege) and 312(1)(d)(iii) (identification of a source) of the Act. The complainant asked the IPC to review JFCS’s decision not to grant access to the information withheld under those sections.

In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the exemptions at sections 312(1)(a) and 312(1)(d)(iii) apply to the information for which they were claimed. She upholds JFCS’s decision not to grant the complainant access to the withheld information.

Infrastructure Ontario (IO) received a request under the Act for environmental assessment records regarding the proposed Kemptville jail. IO conducted a search and advised the appellant that no responsive records exist.

In this interim order, the adjudicator orders IO to conduct another search for responsive records.

The Township of Russell (the township) received an access request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to township committee meetings. The township issued a final access and fee decision granting partial access to the responsive records. The appellant appealed the amount of the $1,510.00 fee. In this order, the adjudicator orders the final fee be reduced to $340.50.

The appellant sought access to records from the Durham District School Board (the board) related to educational software used by the board. The board searched for and disclosed responsive records to the appellant. The appellant maintained that the board did not conduct a reasonable search for responsive records.

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

The appellant filed two requests under the Act with the ministry for records relating to two incidents that took place on his property. The ministry granted the appellant partial access to them. Relevant to this order, the ministry withheld portions of the records under the discretionary personal privacy exemption in section 49(b). The adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision, in part. The adjudicator orders the ministry to disclose to the appellant one portion of the records that relates solely to him, but finds the remainder of the information at issue is exempt under the personal privacy exemption and upholds the ministry’s exercise of discretion.

The Town of Pelham (the town) received a request for access to information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to records relating to contracts with specified media organizations. The town granted partial access to invoices and emails, but withheld portions under section 10(1) (third party information) and section 11 (economic and other interests) of the Act.

In this order, the adjudicator allows the appeal in part. He finds that emails related to pricing information are exempt from disclosure, but finds that invoices provided by the media organizations to the town are not and orders them disclosed.

This appeal is about access to records relating to the granting and renewal of a firearms licence to an individual with a conviction for a violent offence and who later used a legally-owned weapon to kill his former girlfriend and himself in a murder-suicide. The ministry denied access to responsive records on the basis of the law enforcement exemptions in sections 14(1)(c) (reveal investigative techniques and procedures), 14(1)(i) (endanger security of a system or procedure), and 14(1)(l) (facilitate commission of an unlawful act or hamper control of crime), and the mandatory personal privacy exemption in section 21(1). The appellant raised the application of the public interest override in section 23.

In this order, the adjudicator partially upholds the ministry’s decision. The adjudicator finds that some of the records contain confidential law enforcement information that is exempt under sections 14(1)(c) and (i). She finds that disclosure of some of the remaining records, except where they contain the personal information of individuals other than the victim or the licensee, would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(2)(a) because disclosure is desirable for subjecting the activities of government to public scrutiny. The adjudicator also finds that the public interest override in section 23 does not apply to the personal information she finds to be exempt under section 21(1). The adjudicator orders the ministry to disclose a severed version of the records to the appellant by removing information that is exempt under sections 14(1)(c) and (i), and some of the personal information belonging to the licensee and some individuals other than the licensee.

This decision involves a request made by an executor of an estate under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (the Act) for access to all records of personal health information of a patient who died while in residence at the Pioneer Manor Long-Term Care Home (the custodian). The custodian denied access to the records, claiming that some of the records did not qualify as personal health information. The custodian also denied access to information it deemed to be personal health information on the basis that the executor was not permitted to access it under the Act. The custodian suggested that the complainant make a request for information under the Municipal Freedom of Information of and Protection of Privacy Act because it is part of the City of Greater Sudbury.

In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the Act governs this request, that all of the records contain the deceased’s personal health information as defined in section 4(1), and that the executor has a right of access to the personal health information of the deceased individual under section 52(1) of the Act. The adjudicator orders the custodian to issue an access decision to the executor under the Act without recourse to a time extension.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the Landlord and Tenant Board (the board) conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to two parts of the appellant’s multi-part request under the Act. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the board conducted a reasonable search and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant made a request to the TDSB for records relating to an investigation conducted by the TDSB’s Integrity Commissioner. The adjudicator finds that the responsive records are not within the TDSB’s custody or control. The adjudicator also finds that the TDSB conducted a reasonable search for any responsive records.

The Ministry of Transportation received two requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to records relating to the access of the appellant’s information by third parties. The ministry issued two decisions granting full access to the responsive records. The appellant appealed the ministry’s decisions to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, because he believes further records responsive to his requests should exist. In this order, the adjudicator dismisses both appeals because she finds that additional information requested by the appellant is outside the scope of one appeal and that the ministry conducted a reasonable search for responsive records in both appeals.

The City of Belleville (the city) received three requests under the Act related to the appellant’s property. The city issued decision letters granting the appellant partial access, withholding information under the discretionary legal privilege exemption under section 38(a) in read with section 12. The city also takes the position that disclosure of some of the withheld information would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under the discretionary exemption at section 38(b). The appellant appealed the city’s decision regarding the application of the exemptions to the IPC. The appellant also claims that additional records should exist. The city, in turn, claims that the requests before me are frivolous and vexatious.

In this order, the adjudicator determines that one of the appellant’s requests is frivolous and vexatious and dismisses the appeal filed in relation to that request. The adjudicator then considers the application of the discretionary exemptions to the information withheld pertaining to the two other requests. She finds that the discretionary exemptions apply to all but two emails, which she orders the city to disclose to the appellant. The adjudicator finds that the city exercised its discretion properly in relying on the exemptions to withhold these emails.

With respect to the appellant’s claim that the city did not conduct a reasonable search, the adjudicator finds that the city failed to conduct a reasonable search for records responsive to one of the three requests and orders it to conduct a further search.

The complainant sought a copy of specific letter sent from his former doctor upon the transfer of his care to the custodian. The custodian conducted multiple searches and did not locate the specified letter. The complainant was not satisfied with the custodian’s response and filed a complaint to the IPC challenging the reasonableness of the custodian’s searches. In this decision, the adjudicator finds the custodian’s searches reasonable and dismisses the complaint.