Latest IPC Decisions

The appellant requested a reconsideration of Order MO-4447. In this reconsideration order, the adjudicator finds that the appellant has not established any of the grounds for reconsideration in section 18.01 of the IPC’s Code of Procedure and denies the reconsideration request.

After being ordered by the IPC to search for additional records, the city located and issued a new decision for records, in which it assessed a fee. The appellant appealed the search fee and asked for a fee waiver.

In this order, the adjudicator upholds the city’s $300 search fee and the city’s decision not to waive this fee.

The appellant sought access under the Act to records about the handling of a whistleblower complaint he made to the hospital alleging improper external influences in the hospital’s decision regarding his position at the hospital. The hospital decided to withhold information, in part, denying access to some information on the basis of the discretionary exemptions at sections 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 19 (solicitor-client privilege). In this order, the adjudicator upholds the hospital’s decision.

The appellant filed a request under the Act with the police for records relating to the manner in which the police conduct investigations and execute search warrants, including but not limited to the investigations of two identified individuals. The police located responsive records and granted the appellant partial access to them. The police withheld portions of records under sections 14(1) (personal privacy) and 8(2)(a) (law enforcement report). The police also withheld records in full under the solicitor-client privilege exemption in section 12. The appellant appealed the police’s decision to the IPC and raised the application of the public interest override in section 16. In this order, the adjudicator orders the police to disclose certain records and information that she finds not exempt under section 14(1) or section 8(2)(a). She upholds the police’s decision to withhold the remainder of the information and records under sections 12 and 14(1).

This final order resolves the outstanding search issue from Interim Order MO-4430-I. Following the interim order, the Township of Severn (the township) conducted a further search for videos and photos and provided an affidavit in support of its search. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the township has now provided sufficient evidence to establish that its search efforts were reasonable, and dismisses the appeal.

This order upholds the decision of Kawartha Conservation to release redacted copies of permit application records and related correspondence in response to a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act). In this order, the adjudicator finds that the information at issue is not “personal information,” as that term is defined in section 2(1) of the Act, so it cannot be withheld under a personal privacy exemption. She also finds that it is not exempt under the mandatory exemption at section 10(1) (third party information) of the Act.

The Durham Regional Police Services Board received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for information related to the use of international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) devices. The request was narrowed to judicial authorizations for use of IMSI devices. The police located three judicial authorizations, but the adjudicator removed them from the scope of the appeal because they have been sealed by a court order. Therefore, the only issue she considers at adjudication is whether the police conducted a reasonable search, under section 17 of the Act. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s search as reasonable in the circumstances and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant submitted a request to the City of Oshawa (the city) for access to records related to certain aviation companies. The city located records responsive to the request and issued a decision denying access to them in part. The city relied on the discretionary exemptions at section 6(1)(b) (closed meeting), 7(1) (advice or recommendations), 11(d) and (e) (economic and other interests), and 12 (solicitor-client privilege), as well as the mandatory exemption at section 14(1) (personal privacy) of the Act. The appellant appealed the city’s decision. In this interim order, the adjudicator upholds the city’s decision that section 12 applies to the information at issue. She also finds that sections 6(1)(b), 7(1), 11(d), and 14(1) apply to some pages and/or portions of pages of the records at issue, and that section 11(e) does not apply to any of the information at issue.

The adjudicator orders the city to withhold the information that section 14(1) applies to and upholds its discretion to apply sections 7(1), 11(d) and 12 and withhold certain information, but orders it to re-exercise its discretion in relation to its application of section the 6(1)(b) exemption. The adjudicator orders the city to disclose to the appellant the remaining information to which she concluded none of the exemptions apply.

The appellant submitted a request under the Act to the Champlain LHIN (the LHIN) for access to general records relating to oversight of a specified health service provider. The LHIN responded stating that the requested records are not within its custody or under its control. The LHIN forwarded the request to the specified health service provider, pursuant to section 25(1) of the Act.

The appellant appealed the LHIN’s decision to forward the request, challenging the LHIN’s assertion that the records he is seeking are not in its custody or control. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the requested records are not within the custody or control of the LHIN within the meaning of section 10(1) of the Act and that the LHIN discharged its duty under section 25(1) by forwarding the request to the health service provider.

Waypoint received a request under the Act for access to documents and policies relating to the use of seclusion and restraints. After conducting a search, Waypoint decided to grant partial access to records it located, citing sections 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 18(1)(j) (evaluation of quality of health care by a hospital committee) and 19 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Act to withhold certain information. The appellant appealed the decision and also relied on section 23 (public interest override) claiming that it applied to any records found exempt under section 18(1). In this order, the adjudicator upholds Waypoint’s decision concerning sections 19 and 18(1)(j) and finds that there is no compelling public interest in disclosure of the information found exempt under section 18(1). The appeal is dismissed.

The Halton Regional Police Services Board received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to records related to the death of the appellant’s boyfriend. The police issued a decision granting partial access to the responsive records withholding information under sections 14(1) (personal privacy), 38(b) (personal privacy), and 8(1)(h) (security) of the Act. The appellant appealed the police’s decision to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s decision and orders the police to issue an access decision regarding the audio recording of the appellant’s statement.

This decision addresses a complaint of an access decision made under the Act for all of the complainant’s personal health information held by the custodian. The custodian denied access to all of the records, claiming the application of the exemption in section 52(1)(e)(i) (risk of harm, including to treatment or recovery). In this decision, the adjudicator finds that most of the records are dedicated primarily to the complainant’s personal health information while others are not, and that in either case, the exemption in section 52(1)(e)(i) does not apply. The custodian is ordered to release the records, either in whole or in part, to the complainant.

The complainant sought access under Part X of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (the Act) for her entire file with the Family and Children’s Services Niagara (the service provider). The complainant was granted access, in part, but was denied access to information the service provider says relates to other individuals pursuant to the exemption at section 312(1)(d)(iii) of the Act (identification of an individual who provided information explicitly or implicitly in confidence). The complainant filed a complaint with the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC), asking the IPC to review the service provider’s access decision.

In this decision, the adjudicator upholds the service provider’s decision in part. She upholds its decision to withhold information in records contained in the complainant’s protection file, which includes records pertaining to the complainant’s family. However, the adjudicator orders the service provider to grant greater access to records contained in the complainant’s care file. She finds these latter records are dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the complainant, and that the claimed exemption does not apply to some of the withheld information.

The complainant sought access under Part X of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (the Act) for her entire file with the Family and Children’s Services Niagara (the service provider). The complainant was granted access, in part, but was denied access to information the service provider says relates to other individuals pursuant to the exemption at section 312(1)(d)(iii) of the Act (identification of an individual who provided information explicitly or implicitly in confidence). The complainant filed a complaint with the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC), asking the IPC to review the service provider’s access decision.

In this decision, the adjudicator upholds the service provider’s decision in part. She upholds its decision to withhold information in records contained in the complainant’s protection file, which includes records pertaining to the complainant’s family. However, the adjudicator orders the service provider to grant greater access to records contained in the complainant’s care file. She finds these latter records are dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the complainant, and that the claimed exemption does not apply to some of the withheld information.

A requester sought access to G2 examiner training documents from the Ministry of Transportation (the ministry). A third party appealed, relying on the mandatory third party information exemption at section 17(1) of the Act to deny access to the records at issue. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the section 17(1) does not apply, and orders the ministry to disclose the records.