Latest IPC Decisions

The appellant requested a reconsideration of Order PO-4413. 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.

The municipality received a request under the Act for an investigator’s report resulting from an allegation of harassment made against the requester by an employee of the municipality. The municipality issued a decision that no responsive records exist relating to the request. The requester appealed the municipality’s decision on the basis that responsive records should exist. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the municipality provided sufficient evidence to show that a complaint was not made against the requester and the municipality’s search was reasonable. He dismisses the appeal.

The requester sought access under the Act to the titles of books contained in receipts for books purchased over several years by the Political Science Department at a campus of the University of Toronto. The university issued a decision denying access pursuant to the research exclusion in section 65(8.1)(a) of the Act. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the records are not excluded and orders the university to issue an access decision on the information at issue, the book titles.

This interim order deals with the appeals from two access decisions made under the Act in response to requests for records relating to retaining walls and tree protection plans at specified addresses. The city denied access to responsive records on the basis of section 15(a) (information published or available to the public). During mediation, the appellant raised the issue of the reasonableness of the city’s search.

In this order, the adjudicator does not uphold the city’s decisions. She also finds that the city did not conduct a reasonable search. The adjudicator orders the city to disclose the records to the appellant and to conduct a further search.

The appellant submitted a six-part request under the Act to the town for records relating to a specific by-law. The town located records responsive to the appellant’s request and issued an access decision granting them partial access. The town withheld two records under the personal privacy exemption in section 14(1) of the Act. The appellant appealed the town’s decision and claimed additional responsive records ought to exist, thereby raising reasonable search as an issue. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the town’s decision to withhold the records under section 14(1) and the town’s search as reasonable. The appeal is dismissed.

The City of Toronto received a request for access to architectural drawings for a residential property. The city issued a decision granting access to responsive records. The homeowner appealed the city’s decision, claiming that the records are exempt under the mandatory exemption in section 10(1) (third party information) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator finds that the records at issue are not exempt under section 10(1), and upholds the city’s decision to disclose them with the appellant’s name removed.

The university submitted a request for reconsideration of Order PO-4423, in which the adjudicator reduced its fee estimate for the time to be spent preparing records for disclosure. The university sought reconsideration claiming an accidental error in the adjudicator’s calculation.

In this order, the adjudicator finds that the university has established grounds for reconsideration on the basis of an accidental error under section 18.01(c) of the IPC Code of Procedure and upholds the university’s original fee estimate for preparation time.

The appellant submitted a request for reconsideration of Order PO-4417, which upheld the OLG’s search for responsive records. In his reconsideration request, the appellant claimed that there was an error in the order. In this reconsideration order, the adjudicator denies the reconsideration request because the appellant has not established any of the grounds for reconsideration under section 18.01 of the IPC’s Code of Procedure.

The complainant sought access, under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (PHIPA), to a complete copy of her own medical records from her former physician (the custodian). The custodian located the requested records and granted her complete access to them. The complainant filed a complaint on the basis that additional records responsive to her request should exist. In this decision, the adjudicator upholds the custodian’s search as reasonable and dismisses the complaint.

The City of Niagara Falls (the city) received an access request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for a request for tender submission to the city for a municipal service centre. The city granted partial access to the submission, withholding portions under section 10(1) of the Act (third party information). In this order, the adjudicator allows the appeal in part. He finds that portions relating to the allocation of work completed by sub-contractors are exempt from disclosure under section 10(1), but finds that the names of the sub-contractors are not exempt and orders them disclosed.

The requester and another individual were involved in an incident to which the Ontario Provincial Police (the OPP) responded and about which police reports were generated. The requester sought access to these reports from the Ministry of the Solicitor General (the ministry) under the Act. The ministry claimed the discretionary personal privacy exemption in section 49(b) to deny access portions of the responsive reports.

In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision that the information at issue in the police reports is exempt by reason of section 49(b).

The City of Richmond Hill (the city) received a request for a bid summary and the winning submission for a storm sewer project. The city identified responsive records and withheld them under sections 10(1)(a) and (c) (third-party information) of the Act. In this order, the adjudicator partially upholds the city’s decision. He finds that the bid summary and parts of the winning submission are not exempt from disclosure, and orders them disclosed.

The complainant made a request to the custodian for records relating to his visits with two doctors at the custodian’s office. The custodian disclosed the complainant’s health records to him. The complainant challenged the reasonableness of the custodian’s search, claiming additional responsive records ought to exist. In this decision, the adjudicator finds the custodian conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to the complainant’s request and dismisses the complaint.

The Hamilton Police Service (the police) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for records relating to an incident involving the requester. The police conducted a search for responsive records and issued an access decision. The requester challenges the adequacy of that access decision in this appeal, as well as the police’s proposed method of access. In addition, he seeks access to the information withheld by the police in the responsive police reports and officers’ notes, and 911 calls. He also raised the issue of reasonable search. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the adequacy of the police’s access decision and finds that their proposed method of access is consistent with the Act. She also upholds the police’s decision to withhold police codes, under the discretionary exemption at section 38(a) (discretion to withhold requester’s own personal information), read with section 8(1)(l) (facilitate commission of an unlawful act). She finds that the personal information withheld in the records is exempt under the discretionary exemption at section 38(b) (personal privacy). She also upholds the reasonableness of the police’s search. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.

The Toronto Police Services Board (the police) received a freedom of information request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records related to a fire that broke out at a certain location. The police issued an access decision advising that there is no video record responsive to the request. The requester challenged the reasonableness of the police’s search, in large part on the basis of evidence he believes the police should have collected at the time of the fire, as well as a past negative experience involving the same police service and a request for video evidence. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s search for a video record responsive to the request as reasonable in the circumstances, and dismisses the appeal.