Latest IPC Decisions

An individual asked the city for records relating to sidewalk repairs at a specific address. The city granted access in full to the records. The individual believes more records should exist. The city said that no more records exist. In this order, the adjudicator determines that the city did not conduct a reasonable search for records and orders it to conduct another search.

The municipality denied an individual’s request for access to records that it says contain advice or recommendations used in decision-making. The adjudicator finds that the records contain advice and recommendations on how to respond to a complaint. She finds that the records containing the individual’s personal information are exempt under section 38(a) (right to refuse requester’s own information) read with section 7(1) (advice or recommendations), and that those that do not contain the individual’s personal information are exempt under section 7(1). The adjudicator also finds that the public interest override in section 16 does not apply to the records. She dismisses the appeal.

A person asked the police for records related to a specific file number. The police provided some information from two records but denied access to the other information in those two records and to one record in its entirety. The police said that it denied access to some information and to one record because they contain another person’s personal information [section 38(b)].

The adjudicator agrees with the police’s decision that the disclosure of the information at issue would constitute an unjustified invasion of another person’s privacy. She dismisses the appeal.

An individual made a request under the Act to the ministry for records relating to the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council. The ministry located records and disclosed some of them to the appellant. In this decision, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision not to disclose some information under the advice or recommendations and solicitor client privilege exemptions. She dismisses the appeal.

An individual requested a consultant’s report, the scope of work relating to that report that was provided to the consultant, and their transmittal correspondence. The city provided documents responsive to the request. The appellant appealed the decision, stating that the city should have provided him with additional information, specifically all documents that affected the eventual scope of work. In this order, the adjudicator upholds both the city’s interpretation of the scope of the request and the city’s search for these records.

This final order follows Interim Order MO-4473-I, in which the adjudicator required the police to issue a new access decision in response to the appellant’s request for a statement made by a third party who was later charged and convicted of assaulting the appellant. The police initially denied the request because they erroneously believed the Act prohibited them from disclosing the third party’s personal information to her. In response to the interim order, the police reconsidered the appellant’s access request, this time recognizing that the statement contains the personal information of the appellant as well as that of the third party. In their revised decision, the police rely on the personal privacy exemption at section 38(b) of the Act, which permits an institution to withhold a record that contains the personal information of both the requester and another party. In this final order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s decision to withhold the statement in full under section 38(b). She dismisses the appeal.

The appellant asked the Ministry of the Solicitor General (the ministry) for a copy of a report prepared by the Ontario Provincial Police for the Toronto Police Services Board (the police). The ministry denied the request and the requester appealed the ministry’s access decision. The police were invited to make representations and said that the report is excluded from the operation of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) by the ongoing prosecution exclusion at section 52(2.1) of that act. They argued that the appellant should not be able to obtain it from a different institution under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).
In this decision, the adjudicator concludes that because she already determined that the report is, at this time, excluded by the prosecution exclusion at section 52(2.1) of MFIPPA in Order MO- 4554, it is not necessary to also consider whether the appellant can obtain the report pursuant to FIPPA and she dismisses the appeal.

The appellant requested a report prepared by the Ontario Provincial Police for the Toronto Police Services Board (the police). The police withheld the report based on section 52(2.1), the exclusion for prosecution records in the Act. The appellant appealed the access decision. The adjudicator agrees with the police’s application of section 52(2.1) of the Act and dismisses the appeal.

An individual requested access to his own records with the Chief Firearms Office (CFO). The ministry, which is in charge of responding to requests for information with the CFO, provided him with some of the records but refused to provide some information stating that disclosure would reveal investigative techniques or procedures (section 49(a), read with section 14(1)(c)), would be an unjustified invasion of another individual’s personal privacy (section 49(b)), or are not responsive to the request. In addition to seeking access to the information that was not provided to him, the individual questions whether the search conducted by the ministry for records was reasonable. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision not to disclose the information it withheld. She also finds that the ministry’s search for records was reasonable. She dismisses the appeal.

An individual sought access under the Act for records referencing Ontario’s Greenbelt that were prepared by the Premier’s office staff for a particular ministry. Cabinet Office denied the appellant access to two pages from a slide deck under the mandatory exemption under section 12(1) (cabinet records). The adjudicator upholds Cabinet Office’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant asked for documents that he had signed regarding how a municipal property is maintained. The municipality responded that the request was frivolous and vexatious, and they would not be providing a response. It explained that the appellant had already been informed that the requested information does not exist.
The appellant appealed the decision to the IPC. The adjudicator finds that the request was made for a purpose other than to obtain access and that it is frivolous or vexatious within the meaning of the Act. He dismisses the appeal.

An individual sought access under the Act to police records relating to incidents involving her and her spouse. The ministry granted partial access to police reports and officers’ notes, and withheld audio recordings of 911 calls. The ministry withheld information on the basis that disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of another individual’s personal privacy (section 49(b)). In this order, the adjudicator finds that the withheld information is exempt under section 49(b). She upholds the ministry’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

This final order resolves the outstanding issue of the reasonableness of Metrolinx’s search following Interim Order PO-4490-I. In compliance with the interim order, Metrolinx conducted further searches and provided five affidavits in support of its searches. In this final order, the adjudicator finds that Metrolinx has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it has conducted a reasonable search for responsive records. The appeal is dismissed.

On April 17, 2023, the requester asked the ministry for records related to Rondeau Provincial Park. 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 August 20, 2024.

On October 11, 2023, the requester asked the ministry for records related to the use of force on inmates at two detention centres. 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 August 20, 2024.