Latest IPC Decisions

The City of Vaughan received a request under the Act for access to records relating to development applications for a particular condominium project. The city granted partial access to the responsive records, relying on the exemptions at sections 7(1) (advice or recommendation) and 12 (solicitor-client privilege). In this order, the adjudicator upholds the city’s decision, in part. She finds that section 7(1) applies to the record for which it was claimed and that the public interest override does not apply to permit its disclosure. She also finds that section 12 applies to all but one of the records for which it was claimed and orders the city to disclose that record to the appellant.

The appellant submitted a request under the Act for records related to all motor vehicle collisions involving him in 2020 and 2021 and the police located responsive records for two incidents. Portions of records for the first incident were withheld under sections 38(a) (discretion to refuse requester’s own information) read with section 8(1)(l) (facilitate commission of an unlawful act) and 38(b) (personal privacy), while records for the second were excluded from the Act under section 52(2.1) (ongoing prosecution), and in the alternative were withheld under sections 38(b) and 38(a) read with sections 8(1)(l) and 15(a) (information published or available to the public). The appellant also claimed that the police did not conduct a reasonable search for records.

In this order, the adjudicator upholds the decision of the police for the first incident and upholds the search of the police as reasonable. For the second incident, he finds that that the section 52(2.1) exclusion does not apply because the prosecution had been completed during the inquiry. He finds that the records are not exempt from disclosure under section 15(a) because, while they are available to the appellant through an alternative disclosure process, they are not available to the general public. He finds that the section 38(b) exemption applies to the withheld records, with the exception of a witness statement provided by the appellant. He orders the police to disclose this witness statement to the appellant.

This order is about an access request for certain municipal election records. The Municipal Elections Act, 1996 (MEA) makes such records public for 120 days after the election results are declared. The appellant requested access to certain of these records after the 120-day period. The town denied access on the basis of section 53(2) of the MFIPPA, referring to section 88(6) of the MEA, which overrides the general right of access of MFIPPA. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the town’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant appeals Cabinet Office’s decision in response to a request made under the Act to disclose certain records relating to iGaming in Ontario. The appellant claims two emails and an attachment are exempt under the mandatory third-party commercial information exemption in section 17(1) of the Act. In this decision, the adjudicator finds the records are not exempt under section 17(1) and upholds Cabinet Office’s decision to disclose them to the requester.

The complainant sought access to his records of personal health information from Dr. Eric Ireland (the custodian). This decision determines that the custodian is deemed to have refused the complainant’s request for access. The custodian is ordered to provide a response to the complainant in response to his request for access to records of his personal health information in accordance with the Personal Health Information Protection Act.

The Waterloo Regional Police Services Board (the police) received a request under the Act for all records relating to the death of the requester’s son. The police granted partial access to records, but withheld portions under the personal privacy exemptions in sections 14(1) and 38(b) of the Act. The police disclosed some information in the records for compassionate reasons pursuant to section 14(4)(c) of the Act.
In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s decision to withhold information under sections 14(1) and 38(b).

The appellant submitted two requests under the Act to the ministry for a record identifying the number of COVID-19 tests run each day, organized by vaccination status, for August 23 to December 11, 2021. The ministry advised the appellant the requested information is not a “record” under section 2(1)(b) of the Act due to section 2 of Regulation 460 under the Act because the process of producing the record would unreasonably interfere with the ministry’s operations. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision and dismisses the appeals.

The complainant submitted a request to a hospital to correct his personal health information contained in an intake form for an addiction treatment program. The hospital denied the correction request based on sections 55(9)(a) and (b) of the Act. The adjudicator decides not to conduct a review because the complainant has not established, under section 55(8), that the hospital has a duty to correct the record.

The requester sought access under the Act to records about a correctional centre. The Ministry of the Solicitor General (the ministry) granted full access to responsive records that were located. The ministry also advised that some of the requested records could not be located and suggested the requester make a request to another institution for those records. The requester believes that the ministry should have additional responsive records in its custody or under its control.
In this order, the adjudicator finds that the ministry has not established that additional records are not in its custody or under its control. She orders it to conduct another search.

The City of Toronto (the city) received a request for the property addresses and amounts owing of everyone who owed municipal tax arrears to the city. The city denied access to the records in full, stating that the records were publicly available through a process established under section 317(1) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, and therefore exempt under section 15(a) (information published or available to the public) of MFIPPA. The city also claimed that the records were exempt from disclosure under section 14(1) (personal privacy) of MFIPPA.
In this order, the adjudicator finds that although a system for accessing the records exists under the City of Toronto Act, 2006, the cost of the appellant accessing the specific records he requested is so high as to be prohibitive, and section 15(a) does not apply. He finds that records relating to properties owned by individuals are exempt from disclosure under section 14(1), but records relating to properties not owned by individuals are not. He orders the city to issue an access decision for records relating to properties that are not owned by individuals.

The appellant made a request under the Act for records relating to the internal police investigation of a named police officer. The police denied access to the responsive records on the basis that the records are excluded from the Act pursuant to the labour relations and employment exclusion at section 52(3)1. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the responsive records are excluded from the application of the Act by section 52(3)1. She dismisses the appeal.

The Township of Hornepayne received a request under the Act for an agreement between it and a certain company. The township identified a confidential by-law with an attached settlement agreement as the responsive record. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the records are not exempt under the discretionary exemption at section 12 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Act. However, she finds that the record is subject to common law settlement privilege and need not be disclosed under the Act.

This decision deals with two issues arising out of an access request made under the Personal Health Information Protection Act to the City of Toronto’s Seniors Services and Long-Term Care (the custodian) for records relating to a former resident of a long-term care home. The issues are the custodian’s search for records, and the legibility of records that were originally paper-based, subsequently scanned and released to the complainant by the custodian. In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the complainant has established a reasonable basis to conclude that further records exist regarding complaints that were made to the custodian about the health care provided to the resident. As a result, the custodian is ordered to conduct a further search for records relating to these complaints. Concerning the legibility of the records, the adjudicator finds that it is not necessary to order the custodian to re-scan the records because the custodian did so after the conclusion of the review of this complaint.

The complainant’s request for access to his son’s records of personal health information was denied by the hospital under section 23(3) of the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004, because the son did not consent. In this decision, the adjudicator concludes that the hospital responded adequately, and no review of the complaint is warranted.

The appellant sought access to information about individuals who had made complaints against a specified address by making a request under the Act to the city. Ultimately, the city disclosed some information to the appellant and withheld some information claiming the discretionary personal privacy exemption at section 38(b). In this order, the adjudicator upholds the city’s decision and dismisses the appeal.