Latest IPC Decisions

An individual, a member of the media, seeks access to records relating to the government’s consideration of changes to the Greenbelt. Cabinet Office located responsive records but denied the appellant access to them, claiming the records should not be disclosed due to the cabinet records exemption in section 12(1) of the Act. In this decision, the adjudicator upholds Cabinet Office’s decision not to disclose the records and dismisses the appeal.

An individual asked the municipality for records concerning a zoning issue. The municipality provided records but denied access to some information. It said that its decision was based on three reasons (exemptions) set out in the Act: that disclosure would reveal the substance of deliberations in a closed council meeting (section 6(1)(b)), that disclosure would reveal information that would harm an ongoing law enforcement matter (section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(b)) and that disclosure would reveal solicitor-client privileged information (section 12). The requester appealed the decision and also stated that the municipality’s search was not reasonable as more information should be available.

In this order, the adjudicator upholds the municipality’s decision that section 6(1)(b) and 8(1)(a) apply to exempt the information from disclosure. He does not agree with the municipality that record 49 is exempt under section 12. Finally, he finds that the municipality’s search was reasonable.

A person asked the ministry for specific information contained in inspection reports of animal research and related supply facilities. The ministry denied access to some information. The ministry said, in part, that the disclosure of the withheld information might endanger the life or physical safety of an individual or the security of a building [sections 14(1)(e) and (i)]. The appeal was narrowed to specific information in one record.
In this order, the adjudicator agrees with the ministry’s decision to withhold the information at issue and dismisses the appeal.

An individual asked the ministry for records about real estate property value assessments for the GTA West Corridor highway. The ministry gave the individual some records, but denied access to some information about specific costs for two reasons (exemptions) set out in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, sections 12(1) (Cabinet records) and 18(1)(c) and (d) (economic and other interests).
The adjudicator agrees that some of the information is not required to be provided under the Act because its disclosure would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations, allowing it to be withheld under section 12(1). For other parts of the records, he does not agree that they would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations, and he also does not agree that they would harm the economic interests of the province. He orders this information disclosed.

The requester asked the municipality for the winning bid submission for sponsorship rights. The municipality disclosed parts of the submission but denied access to some financial information stating that it is third party information subject to the mandatory exemption in section 10(1).

In this order, the adjudicator finds the financial information is not subject to the exemption for third party information and orders the municipality to disclose it to the requester.

An individual asked the Toronto Police Services Board to provide her with all records in which she is named. The police decided to disclose a significant number of records to her but refused to provide her with some records and parts of records. The individual wanted access to the information not provided to her and also believed that the police had not located all records in their search. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s decision to withhold some records because they are excluded from the Act under the exclusion for labour relations or employment records (section 52(3)3). He also upholds the police’s decision to withhold information that they received from a law enforcement agency in the United States (section 38(a), read with section 9(1)(d)), and the names and other personal information of individuals other than the appellant, because disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of those individuals’ personal privacy (section 38(b)). He orders the police to provide the appellant with the names of two individuals identified in a professional capacity in the records. Finally, he finds that the police conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to the appellant’s request.

An individual who was involved in an incident with the Toronto Police asked for the video footage recorded by the body-worn cameras of the three officers who attended the incident. The police did not provide the video footage claiming it relates to labour relations or employment matters (section 52(3)) which are excluded from the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act). The police also claimed that if the video footage was not found to be excluded from the Act, it should not be disclosed, even though it contains information about the individual requesting the information, because disclosure would deprive another individual of the right to a fair trial or an impartial hearing under sections 38(a) and 8(1)(f) of the Act.

The adjudicator finds that the video footage is an operational record not related to labour relations or employment matters and is therefore subject to the Act. She also finds that the police have not shown that disclosure of the video footage would deprive another individual of the right to a fair trial or an impartial hearing. She orders the police to disclose the video footage to the appellant, with the personal information of other identifiable individuals withheld.

An individual asked the city for records related to a complaint made against his property. The city provided him with full access to photographs and emails but only provided him with partial access to a city staff note explaining that disclosure of some of the information would be an unjustified invasion of another individual’s personal privacy (section 38(b)). The individual seeks access to the information that was not provided to him on the basis that the public interest override (section 16) applies to allow the city to disclose it to him. The individual also questions whether the search conducted by the city was reasonable.
In this order, the adjudicator upholds the city’s decision not to disclose the information it withheld and finds that the public interest override does not apply to permit its disclosure. She also finds that the city’s search for records was reasonable.

The appellant asked the ministry for access to specific records about the recommendation and decision to delist travel medicine services from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan in 1998.
The ministry responded by stating that it had disclosed the requested 1998 records in part in response to a prior access request that was the subject of an IPC appeal and order. The ministry maintained the same position that it took in the prior request, except that it decided to give the appellant access to some previously withheld cabinet records because they were now over 20 years old and could be disclosed under the exception in section 12(2) of the Act. However, the ministry denied access to one of these records claiming that the section 65(6) exclusion applies to it.
In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision that the one record at issue is excluded from the application of the Act because it relates to labour relations in which the ministry has an interest. She also finds she has no jurisdiction to address the remaining records, which were addressed in a prior IPC order.

On November 8, 2022, the requester asked for records related to a long-term care facility. The requester filed an appeal because the ministry failed to provide a decision within the prescribed time. This order finds the ministry to be in a deemed refusal situation and orders the ministry to issue a final decision by September 27, 2024 and October 15, 2024 where third party notification is required.

An individual requested access to general occurrence reports and officers’ notes for incidents that occurred in 2018 on a specified street. The police provided her with some information but refused to provide certain information stating that its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of another individual’s personal privacy (38(b)). In this order the adjudicator upholds the police’s decision not to disclose the information they withheld. She dismisses the appeal.

A dog owner sought access to records under the Act related to complaints made to the city about her dog biting individuals in two separate incidents. The city provided access to some of the responsive emails, forms, and medical records, relying on the personal privacy exemptions in sections 14(1) and 38(b) to withhold some information.

In this order, the adjudicator upholds the city’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant asked the ministry for records about a particular incident involving him. The ministry provided records but denied access to some information. The ministry said that it made this decision to protect another person’s personal privacy, a reason set out in section 49(b) of the Act. The ministry also said that the information in the record was exempt under the discretionary exemption for personal information (section 49(a)) read with the law enforcement exemption at section 14(1).
The adjudicator does not uphold the ministry’s decision and orders it to disclose the relevant information to the appellant.

An individual asked the township for records about the municipal water system. The township granted access to part of the responsive records, withholding information because it might endanger life or safety or security (sections 8(1)(e)) and 8(1)(i)), and cause danger to safety or health (section 13). In this order, the adjudicator does not uphold the township’s decision and disagrees that disclosure of the information could endanger a system, threaten the health or safety of any individuals, or be a threat to health and safety. She also finds that the township has not established that it conducted a reasonable search for some of the records and orders the city to conduct a further search.

The city received a request for electronic communications of elected officials and city staff during two city meetings. The city claimed that portions of the communications are subject to solicitor-client privilege (section 12) and should not be disclosed. The city also claimed that it did not have custody or control over certain records. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the city’s claim that portions of the records are subject to solicitor-client privilege. He also finds that the city has custody or control over communications between city staff but not over communications between elected officials, including the mayor. The adjudicator upholds the city’s decision in part and orders it to issue a decision regarding access to communications between city staff.