Latest IPC Decisions

In Order MO-4520-I, the adjudicator reserved her finding regarding whether disclosure of three emails would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy (section 14(1)), pending the notification of the individuals who might be affected by disclosure.
In this final order, the adjudicator orders the town to disclose the three emails to the appellant finding that they do not contain the personal information of these individuals.

The appellant made three access requests for records relating to the deaths of two pediatric patients in May or June 2024. The hospital denied access to all records in all requests under the discretionary exemption for economic and other interests (section 18(1)). The appellant appealed the hospital’s decision to the IPC. The hospital refused to provide records to the IPC so that it may resolve the appeal. In this decision, the Registrar orders the hospital to produce the records at issue in the appeal to the IPC.

An individual asked the Ministry of the Solicitor General (the ministry) for access to police records relating to a specified incident on a specified date. The ministry provided some information in a general occurrence report explaining that disclosure of the rest of the information would be an unjustified invasion of another individual’s personal privacy (section 49(b)).
In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision not to disclose the information it withheld.

An individual asked the police for specified police records. The police granted access in full to the records. The individual believes that an audio statement should exist. The police said that no more records exist.
In this order, the adjudicator determines that the police conducted a reasonable search for records and dismisses the appeal.

An environmental rights organisation made a request to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The organisation seeks access to records of requests from landowners to modify the official plans in seven regions of Southwestern Ontario and records of directions from the minister’s office to ministry staff regarding these requests.
After notifying third parties and providing them with an opportunity to comment, the ministry decided to release to the organisation some records that it had identified as possibly containing third party information. A third party appealed the ministry’s decision claiming that one of those records, a letter it sent to the former minister, should not be disclosed because of the third party information exemption in section 17(1) of the Act.
In this order the adjudicator finds that the letter and its enclosures do not contain third party information that should be withheld and upholds the ministry’s decision to disclose it to the requester.

An individual requested access from the Ministry of the Attorney General (the ministry) for records of a Special Investigations Unit investigation of his complaint against a police officer. The ministry provided access to some of the records but denied access to others. The appellant determined that he wanted to pursue access to audio recordings of witness interviews that the ministry denied access to, claiming the personal privacy exemption.
In this order, the adjudicator finds the records are exempt under the personal privacy exemption because disclosure of the personal information in those records would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. She upholds the institution’s decision not to disclose them and dismisses the appeal.

After locating additional records related to the original request, the ministry submitted a request for reconsideration of Order PO-4552, claiming a fundamental defect in the adjudication process and other errors. In this reconsideration order, the adjudicator finds that the ministry has not established grounds for reconsideration under the IPC’s Code of Procedure and denies the reconsideration request.

Cabinet Office received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for records relating to the GO Transit train service and the Milton line. Cabinet Office forwarded the request to Metrolinx under section 25(1) of the Act. Cabinet Office did so because it determined that, based on the wording of the request, it did not have custody or control of responsive records; it also reached out to Metrolinx and confirmed that it had custody or control of responsive records.
The appellant appealed Cabinet Office’s decision and argued section 25(1) implicitly requires an institution to conduct a search before forwarding a request. In this order, the adjudicator finds that section 25(1) does not require an institution to conduct a search and that it was reasonable for Cabinet Office not to conduct a search before forwarding the request, in the circumstances. She upholds Cabinet Office’s decision to forward the search under section 25(1) and dismisses the appeal.

An individual submitted a request to the London Police Services Board (the police) under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records related to a specified incident. The police granted partial access to the records withholding some information.
The police denied access to 911 calls because disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of an identifiable individual’s personal privacy (section 38(b)), and because the information could reveal a confidential source (section 38(a) read with section 8(1)(d)) of the Act. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s decision not to disclose the 911 calls and dismisses the appeal.

An individual asked the City of Markham (the city) for specific records about one of the committees of the Markham City Council. The city initially informed the individual that no records existed. Having conducted an additional search, the city located two records, which it provided to the individual in full. The individual states that more records exist. The adjudicator finds that the city conducted a reasonable search for records and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant made a request to the Town of Blue Mountains (the town) under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to the video recordings of a hearing into a by-law infraction. The town denied access to these videos pursuant to section 8(1)(a) of the Act on the basis that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter.

In this order, the adjudicator finds that disclosure of the video recordings could not reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter, and she orders the town to disclose them to the appellant.

The appellant asked the Ministry of Health for records of a potential billing concern identified by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. The ministry denied the appellant access to the responsive records. To do so, the ministry relied on the discretionary exemption to refuse the requester’s own personal information in section 49(a), read with the law enforcement exemption in section 14(1) of the Act.
In this order, the adjudicator finds that the exemption in section 49(a), read with 14(1)(c), applies to the information at issue. She upholds the ministry’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant requested records of communications between the City of Greater Sudbury (the city) and the Electrical Safety Authority. The city withheld the responsive records based on section 52(2.1), the exclusion for records that relate to an ongoing prosecution, in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The appellant appealed the city’s access decision. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the city’s application of section 52(2.1) of the Act and dismisses the appeal.

An individual asked the ministry for access to environmental information relating to an industrial site in St. Catharines formerly owned by the appellant. The appellant appealed the ministry’s decision to grant partial access to responsive records, claiming they are exempt under the mandatory exemption for third party information in section 17(1). The appellant also claimed that some of the records contain employee personal information. The adjudicator finds that the records are not exempt under section 17(1) and do not contain personal information. She upholds the ministry’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

An individual asked the City of Vaughan (the city) for records related to a specified address. The city provided partial access to the records. It did not disclose some information because its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of another individual’s personal privacy [section 14(1)]. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the city’s decision and dismisses the appeal.