Decisions

The requester and another individual were involved in an incident to which the Ontario Provincial Police (the OPP) responded and about which police reports were generated. The requester sought access to these reports from the Ministry of the Solicitor General (the ministry) under the Act. The ministry claimed the discretionary personal privacy exemption in section 49(b) to deny access portions of the responsive reports.

In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision that the information at issue in the police reports is exempt by reason of section 49(b).

The City of Richmond Hill (the city) received a request for a bid summary and the winning submission for a storm sewer project. The city identified responsive records and withheld them under sections 10(1)(a) and (c) (third-party information) of the Act. In this order, the adjudicator partially upholds the city’s decision. He finds that the bid summary and parts of the winning submission are not exempt from disclosure, and orders them disclosed.

The complainant made a request to the custodian for records relating to his visits with two doctors at the custodian’s office. The custodian disclosed the complainant’s health records to him. The complainant challenged the reasonableness of the custodian’s search, claiming additional responsive records ought to exist. In this decision, the adjudicator finds the custodian conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to the complainant’s request and dismisses the complaint.

The Hamilton Police Service (the police) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for records relating to an incident involving the requester. The police conducted a search for responsive records and issued an access decision. The requester challenges the adequacy of that access decision in this appeal, as well as the police’s proposed method of access. In addition, he seeks access to the information withheld by the police in the responsive police reports and officers’ notes, and 911 calls. He also raised the issue of reasonable search. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the adequacy of the police’s access decision and finds that their proposed method of access is consistent with the Act. She also upholds the police’s decision to withhold police codes, under the discretionary exemption at section 38(a) (discretion to withhold requester’s own personal information), read with section 8(1)(l) (facilitate commission of an unlawful act). She finds that the personal information withheld in the records is exempt under the discretionary exemption at section 38(b) (personal privacy). She also upholds the reasonableness of the police’s search. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.

The Toronto Police Services Board (the police) received a freedom of information request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records related to a fire that broke out at a certain location. The police issued an access decision advising that there is no video record responsive to the request. The requester challenged the reasonableness of the police’s search, in large part on the basis of evidence he believes the police should have collected at the time of the fire, as well as a past negative experience involving the same police service and a request for video evidence. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s search for a video record responsive to the request as reasonable in the circumstances, and dismisses the appeal.

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (the TRCA) received an access to information request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) from a requester seeking access to all records relating to his address during a certain timeframe. The TRCA located responsive records, and granted partial access to them. In this order, the adjudicator finds that most of the information requested is exempt from disclosure under the discretionary exemption at section 38(a) (discretion to refuse requester’s own personal information), read with the discretionary exemption at sections 8(1)(a) (law enforcement matter), and that the rest of it is exempt under section 38(a), read with section 12 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Act. As a result, she upholds the TRCA’s decision to withhold this information, and dismisses the appeal.

The complainant made a correction request under the Act to the hospital. The complainant asked that a record relating to the genetic testing of his minor child and all references to it be removed in their entirety from the child’s records of personal health information. In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the hospital does not have a duty to correct the record under section 55(8) by upholding its refusal to correct based on the application of section 55(8) itself. She also finds that the complainant’s request that the record be removed from the child’s health record is not a remedy that is available under section 55(10) or any other section of the Act. The complaint is dismissed.

This reconsideration decision addresses the complainant’s request for reconsideration of PHIPA Decision 207. In that decision, the adjudicator ordered the clinic to correct certain records under section 55(8) of PHIPA. The complainant remained dissatisfied and filed a reconsideration request. In this reconsideration decision, the adjudicator finds that there are no grounds to reconsider PHIPA Decision 207 and she denies the request.

The complainant made a correction request under the Act to the hospital. The complainant asked that a record relating to the genetic testing of his minor child and all references to it be removed in their entirety from the child’s records of personal health information. In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the hospital does not have a duty to correct the record under section 55(8) by upholding its refusal to correct based on the application of section 55(8) itself. She also finds that the complainant’s request that the record be removed from the child’s health record is not a remedy that is available under section 55(10) or any other section of the Act. The complaint is dismissed.

The IPC issues an interim order directing a number of the respondents to ensure the security and preservation of records of personal health information transferred from a medical clinic to a storage facility for a three month period, pending the IPC’s review.

The complainant, the husband of a deceased individual, sought a complete copy of the deceased individual’s medical records from a group of hospitals (the custodian). The custodian provided access to the responsive records. The complainant was not satisfied with the completeness of the records he received, and filed a complaint with this office challenging the reasonableness of the custodian’s search for records. In this decision, the adjudicator upholds the custodian’s search as reasonable and dismisses the complaint.

The complainant made a request to Halton Healthcare Services (the custodian) under PHIPA for records containing her personal health information, including images taken from endoscopic ultrasound procedures. The complainant filed a complaint to the IPC claiming that additional ultrasound images should exist. In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the custodian conducted a reasonable search and dismisses the complaint.

The complainant through his legal representative submitted an access request to Dr. Bohdan Pich Medicine Professional Corporation (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 regarding his request for access to his records of personal health information in accordance with the Personal Health Information Protection Act and without a recourse to a time extension.

The complainant made a request to the Ottawa Fertility Clinic (the clinic) under PHIPA for the clinic’s complete paperwork regarding vials of donor sperm she had provided to the clinic for the purpose of fertility treatment. After examining the records released by the clinic, the complainant made a complaint to the IPC on the basis the clinic had not provided her with the records she seeks. Through the IPC review process, the issues were narrowed to the reasonableness of the clinic’s search for responsive records in its custody or control.

In this interim decision, the adjudicator finds that the complainant has established a reasonable basis to believe there exist responsive records in the clinic’s custody or control that it has not identified or located. In particular, the complainant referred to federal health legislation that requires the clinic to create and maintain documentation around donor sperm handling, which the clinic failed to adequately address during the review. The adjudicator orders the clinic to conduct another search for responsive records, and to provide her with a written explanation regarding the results of its search. She remains seized of the complaint to address issues that may arise from the clinic’s further search.

The issue in this complaint is whether information withheld under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (the Act) and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) by Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (Waypoint) in response to an access request is upheld. The access request was for a copy of the requester’s health records, including any records relating to ethics reviews of the requester’s time spent confined or in seclusion at Waypoint. Waypoint denied access to portions of these records, claiming the application of section 52(1)(f)(ii)(A) of the Act, allowing it to withhold information under the exemption in section 49(a) FIPPA, read with the discretionary solicitor-client privilege exemption in section 19 of FIPPA. In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the records are “dedicated primarily” to the complainant’s personal health information within the meaning of section 52(3) of the Act. She also finds that the withheld portions of the records are exempt under section 49(a) of FIPPA, read with the solicitor-client exemption in section 19 of FIPPA. She upholds Waypoint’s exercise of discretion under sections 49(a) and 19 of FIPPA, and dismisses the complaint.