Latest IPC Decisions

An individual asked for a copy of her medical records from a hospital. She specified that she wanted these records provided to her in electronic form “where available”. The hospital invoiced the individual for a paper copy of her records, at a fee of $1,352.00.
In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the hospital is obliged to provide the complainant with an electronic copy of her records. The adjudicator does not uphold the hospital’s fee estimate and instead finds that the hospital is permitted to charge $1,194.00.

An individual made a request to the ministry under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to a pre-sentence report. The ministry claimed the report is not in its custody or under its control. The adjudicator finds the report is in the custody or under the control of the ministry and orders the ministry to submit representations on the application of the exemptions originally claimed.

The records in this appeal relate to the police’s procurement and use of facial recognition technology. The police denied access to approximately 4,000 pages of records, claiming several exemptions under the Act. During the inquiry, the individual who asked for the records raised the application of the public interest override. In this order, the adjudicator finds that a number of records are exempt from disclosure and the public interest override does not apply to these records. She also finds that several records are not exempt from disclosure and she orders these to be disclosed to the individual who requested them.

The appellant wanted information about an investigation of a childcare centre overseen by the Algoma District Services Administration Board. The investigation followed allegations of financial misconduct at the Centre. Algoma granted the appellant access to two records and denied access to the rest because they contained personal information of other individuals. The appellant challenged Algoma’s access decision and asserted that additional responsive records exist.

In this order, the adjudicator largely upholds Algoma’s decision that most of the records should not be disclosed to the appellant because disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other individuals. However, she orders Algoma to disclose three records that do not contain personal information of other individuals and do not qualify for exemption from disclosure. She also finds that there is no reasonable basis to believe that additional responsive records exist, and she dismisses that claim.

The complainant asked for access to her child’s patient records on her child’s behalf. Hamilton Health Sciences granted access to some records, but withheld information in the records regarding its communications with a children’s aid society. It claimed that granting access to the withheld information could reasonably be expected to result in a serious risk of harm to the child’s treatment or recovery, within the meaning of the exemption in section 52(1)(e)(i) of PHIPA.

In this decision, the adjudicator accepts that the withheld information is exempt, and she dismisses the complaint.

A former student at a college made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for information related to an investigation into his behaviour conducted by the college. The college disclosed some records and disclosed additional records during the inquiry. The adjudicator finds that some of the information is protected by solicitor-client privilege and that disclosing additional information would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. He upholds the college’s decision.

A source contacted the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario to report that a multi-disciplinary health clinic was disposing of records of personal health information in an unsecured manner in contravention of the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (the Act or PHIPA). The investigator finds that the clinic, as the health information custodian in this matter, was not in compliance with sections 10(1) (Information practices) and (2) (Duty to follow practices), 12(1) (Security) and 13(1) (Handling of records) of the Act. However, considering the measures applied in response to the breach, including the creation and implementation of privacy and security policies, practices, procedures and training, the investigator finds that an order is not warranted.

The Ottawa Police Service denied a request to correct personal information in a police occurrence report. The adjudicator finds that the three-part test for correction in section 36(2) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Privacy Act is not met and upholds the police’s decision.

An individual made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the police for access to records relating to her sister’s death. The police provided some information but decided not to provide the requester with a suicide note stating it was exempt under the personal privacy exemption in section 14(1) of the Act. The individual appealed stating that the deceased’s parents needed the suicide note for closure in their grieving.

In this order, the adjudicator finds that though the individual provides compassionate reasons for requesting the suicide note, its disclosure is not desirable in this case as it would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy of the deceased’s spouse and other individuals. The adjudicator upholds the police’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

An individual made a request to the Cornwall Police under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for records from a specified police file. The police file related to a complaint that the individual made relating to events involving her minor daughter. The police provided access to the records requested, but withheld some portions of police officers’ notes, stating that these portions did not contain information responsive to the request.
In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s decision to withhold the information marked as non-responsive in the records and finds that the police conducted a reasonable search for responsive records.

A father filed a complaint under the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA) regarding a social worker’s decision to deny him access for notes and documents relating to the social worker’s preparation of a custody and access assessment report. The social worker had already provided copies from his file to the complainant’s family lawyer. The social worker takes the position that he was not a “health information custodian” for the purposes of preparing the report. In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the social worker is not a “health information custodian” within the meaning of that term under section 3(1) of PHIPA for the purpose of preparing the report. Accordingly, the adjudicator finds that the complainant does not have a right under PHIPA to request access to the requested records or complain about any fee requested or already paid. The adjudicator exercises her discretion not to conduct a review under sections 57(4)(a) and (b) of PHIPA.

The Town of Saugeen Shores (the town) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a receipt for a lease payment made by a specified corporation. The town provided a copy of the receipt to the appellant, but withheld the amount of money paid by the corporation under section 14(1) (personal privacy) of the Act.

The adjudicator finds that the amount of money paid by the corporation to the town is not personal information and that therefore the section 14(1) personal privacy exemption does not apply. He orders the information disclosed.

An individual asked Infrastructure Ontario (IO) for records related to a major Ontario development project. IO located several records, releasing some but not others. The individual appealed the decision to the IPC. During the appeal IO released additional records, but refused to release three records for certain reasons (exemptions) in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act: sections 17(1) (third party information), 18(1) (economic and other interests), and 19 (solicitor-client privilege).
Following the inquiry, the Ontario government released one of the records (a lease) to the public, and it was no longer at issue in the appeal. The adjudicator finds that one of the two remaining records (an amendment to the lease) should not be disclosed because of section 19, but orders that IO disclose the other one (a draft report).

At issue in this appeal is whether the appellant’s requests to Metrolinx for access to information are frivolous or vexatious under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act). In this order the adjudicator finds that Metrolinx has not established that the appellant’s requests are frivolous or vexatious within the meaning of section 10(1)(b) of the Act. The adjudicator does not uphold Metrolinx’s denial of access on the basis of section 10(1)(b) of the Act and orders Metrolinx to issue access decisions in relation to all the appeals without the ability to claim the requests are frivolous or vexatious.

An individual asked the ministry for a copy of a report relating to a carbon monoxide leak at her place of employment. The ministry granted the individual partial access to the requested records claiming that some portions were not responsive to the request and that disclosure of other portions would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The appellant appealed the ministry’s decision and also claimed that additional records should exist. The adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision to withhold portions of the records and finds that it conducted a reasonable search.