Latest IPC Decisions

An individual made a request under the Act for records provided to the ministry by an autobody shop to demonstrate environmental regulatory compliance. The autobody shop appealed the ministry’s decision to grant partial access to the records, asserting that the information that the ministry was prepared to disclose is third party information subject to the mandatory exemption for that type of information in section 17(1)(c) of the Act.

In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision. She finds that the information remaining at issue is not exempt under section 17(1)(c). She dismisses the appeal.

The college submitted a request for reconsideration of Interim Order PO-4512-I, claiming a fundamental defect in the adjudication process. In this reconsideration order, the adjudicator finds that the college has not established grounds for reconsideration in section 18.01 of the IPC’s Code of Procedure and denies the reconsideration request.

An individual requested access to a Full and Final Release and Confidentiality Agreement (the Release) relating to a specified property, that was received by The Corporation of the Town of Midland (the town). The town denied full access to the Release on the basis that it is subject to solicitor-client privilege (section 12). In this order, the adjudicator upholds the town’s decision that the Release is subject to solicitor-client privilege and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant asked the township for records about a specific property. The township found records that were relevant and provided all but one of these to the appellant. The township stated that it was denying access to the record because, as provided for in the Act, it is protected by solicitor client privilege (section 12). The appellant continued to seek access to the record and also claimed that additional records should exist. He asked the IPC to hear the appeal.
The adjudicator partially agrees with the township’s decision. He finds that the township is permitted under the Act to withhold the record because it is protected by solicitor-client privilege, and he finds that the township’s search for records was reasonable. However, he also finds that certain records identified during the appeal are relevant to the request and that the township must issue an access decision about those records.

An individual asked the ministry for records about the cost of the environmental assessment of the GTA West Corridor Highway, and the cost of the highway itself. The ministry created a record with this information and provided partial access to it, but denied access to the information about the cost of the highway for two reasons (exemptions) set out in the Act, sections 12(1) (Cabinet records) and 18(1)(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).

A union asked Fanshawe for a contract between it and a language academy. Fanshawe decided that the whole contract could be provided to the individual. The language academy opposed disclosure of parts of the contract to the individual because it consists of information supplied in confidence to Fanshawe that would cause certain harms (the section 17(1)) if disclosed. The adjudicator finds that these parts of the contract must be disclosed under the Act.

A union asked Fanshawe for a contract between it and a language academy. Fanshawe decided that the whole contract could be provided to the individual. The language academy opposed disclosure of parts of the contract to the individual because it consists of information supplied in confidence to Fanshawe that would cause certain harms (the section 17(1)) if disclosed. The adjudicator finds that these parts of the contract must be disclosed under the Act.

An individual asked the ministry for information about searches made on the Ontario Provincial Police database. The ministry initially refused access to a spreadsheet of responsive information. During the appeal, the ministry revised its position and decided to provide partial access to the spreadsheet. It did not disclose portions of the spreadsheet claiming that disclosure of that information would be an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of another individual (section 49(b)).

In this order, the adjudicator finds some of the information that was not disclosed is not responsive to the request. She finds the other information that the ministry decided not to disclose is exempt under section 49(b) and upholds the ministry’s decision. She dismisses the appeal.

The Hospital for Sick Children received a 19-part request under the Act for access to a variety of records including invoices, records of payments, emails, communications, and donations made for various specified time periods including prior to 2007. The hospital disclosed some information but denied access to entire records on the basis that they were exempt from the Act by section 19 (solicitor-client privilege). It also stated that because of section 69(2) of the Act, it was not required to search for records that pre-date January 1, 2007. The appellant appealed the hospital’s decision and also claimed that section 69(2) is unconstitutional. In this appeal, the adjudicator upholds the hospital’s reliance on section 19 and dismisses the appellant’s claim that section 69(2) is unconstitutional.

This interim order arises from two issues raised by an affected party during an inquiry into an appeal of Cabinet Office’s decision to deny a request made under the Act. The request was for the call log of the personal cell phone number of an identified individual for a specific time period. Cabinet Office denied access to the records claiming they are not under its custody or control. The appellant appealed Cabinet Office’s decision. During the inquiry, the adjudicator notified an affected party and invited them to make submissions on the issues under appeal. In their representations and further correspondence, the affected party raised two additional issues: whether there is a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the adjudicator, and whether limitations should be placed on the appellant’s use of the affected party’s representations. In this interim order, the adjudicator finds there is no reasonable apprehension of bias and does not place restrictions on the appellant’s use of the affected party’s redacted representations.

This interim order arises from two issues raised by an affected party during an inquiry into an appeal of Cabinet Office’s decision to deny a request made under the Act. The request was for the call log of the personal cell phone number of an identified individual for a specific time period. Cabinet Office denied access to the records claiming they are not under its custody or control. The appellant appealed Cabinet Office’s decision. During the inquiry, the adjudicator notified an affected party and invited them to make submissions on the issues under appeal. In their representations and further correspondence, the affected party raised two additional issues: whether there is a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the adjudicator, and whether limitations should be placed on the appellant’s use of the affected party’s representations. In this interim order, the adjudicator finds there is no reasonable apprehension of bias and does not place restrictions on the appellant’s use of the affected party’s redacted representations.

An individual sought access under the Act to a water drainage map for his neighbourhood in the City of Burlington (the city). The city denied access to the drainage map saying that if it was to disclose the map it could endanger a system (section 8(1)(i)) or threaten the health or safety of individuals (section 13). In this order, the adjudicator finds that the city has not established that disclosure could endanger a system or threaten the health or safety of any individuals. She orders the city to disclose the drainage map to the individual.

The William Osler Health System – Peel Memorial Centre (the hospital) received a request under the Act for access to contracts, agreements, or fees paid to a named company. The hospital denied access to the responsive records under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Act. In this order, the adjudicator partially upholds the hospital’s decision and orders the hospital to disclose additional information to the appellant.

An individual requested, under the Act, records relating to a fire inspection complaint made about her property. The city disclosed some information in the records but withheld other information saying that it was not responsive to the request. The individual appealed the city’s access decision because she believes that the non-responsive information had some connection to her property. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the city’s decision not to disclose the remaining information finding that it is not responsive to the request.

An individual requested fire inspection records about a particular fire. The ministry provided some of these records, but denied access to others. The ministry said that it did so to protect other people’s personal privacy (section 21(1) of the Act).

The adjudicator did not agree that the parts of records that the individual wanted contained other people’s personal information. She ordered the ministry to disclose the withheld information to the individual.