Latest IPC Decisions

The appellant made a request for records relating to their ex-partner to the ministry and the ministry denied access to those records under the mandatory and discretionary personal privacy exemptions. The appellant appealed the ministry’s decision to the IPC. The ministry refused to provide records to the IPC so that it may conduct an inquiry. In this decision, the adjudicator orders the ministry to produce the records at issue in the appeal to the IPC.

The appellant submitted a request to the city under the Act for records relating to specified complaints to the city’s animal services department. The city located responsive records and disclosed a number to her, but an audio/video recording was withheld under the discretionary exemption in section 38(b) (personal privacy).

In this order, the adjudicator finds that portions of the recording are exempt from disclosure, but portions of the recording should be disclosed to the appellant.

The City of Ottawa (the city) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The city asked for clarification about what was meant by the wording in the request, but did not receive clarification from the requester. On appeal, during mediation, the city offered a re-formulation of the request, based on what it believed the requester could be asking for. The requester rejected this offer, and asked that his file be moved to adjudication. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the appellant’s representations do not establish that he assisted the city with clarifying or confirming the scope of his request. As a result, she dismisses the appeal.

The City of Guelph received a request under the Act for access to information relating to the sale of the District Energy system. The city denied access to the information at issue under section 10(1) (third party information). In this order, the adjudicator finds that the information at issue is not exempt under section 10(1) and orders it disclosed.

The appellant sought access to records from the OPP pertaining to an investigation it conducted regarding Correctional Service Canada’s use of a cell-site simulator at the penitentiary at which the appellant worked. The appellant also challenged the reasonableness of the search for a videotape of his interview with a named OPP detective. The ministry released some information to the appellant but relied on a number of exemptions under the Act to deny access to the portions it withheld. The ministry also took the position that it conducted a reasonable search for the videotape, but none could be found. In this order the adjudicator partly upholds the ministry’s decision. He finds that the ministry conducted a reasonable search for the videotape, but that certain claimed exemptions do not apply to some withheld information. He orders that this information be disclosed to the appellant.

The ministry received a request under the Act for records including occurrence reports, officer notes, emails and reports that involve the appellant for a specified time period. Ultimately, after receiving consent to disclose personal information from one affected party, the ministry issued a decision providing access to some information but withholding information pursuant to section 49(b) (personal privacy) and section 49(a) read with sections 14(1)(c) and 14(1)(l) (law enforcement). In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (the ministry) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to records relating to the withdrawals of land from the Greenbelt Plan. To date, the ministry has not issued a final access decision in response to the request. An appeal was made to the IPC and Appeal file PA23-00098 was opened to determine the issue of the ministry’s deemed refusal under section 29(4) of the Act.

In light of the Auditor General’s observations in her Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt, the appeal file was moved to the adjudication stage. In this interim order, the adjudicator finds that the Auditor General’s observations regarding the use of personal email accounts by political staff and their record retention practices, provide reasonable grounds for the belief that records responsive to the appellant’s request may be irretrievably lost or destroyed. Accordingly, the adjudicator orders the ministry to take steps to secure the preservation and recovery of responsive records within its custody or control, in accordance with its duties set out in section 10.1 of the Act and the Archives and Recordkeeping Act, 2006.

Infrastructure Ontario (IO) received a request under the Act for environmental assessment records regarding the proposed Kemptville jail. IO conducted a search and advised the appellant that no responsive records exist.

In this interim order, the adjudicator orders IO to conduct another search for responsive records.

The Township of Russell (the township) received an access request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to township committee meetings. The township issued a final access and fee decision granting partial access to the responsive records. The appellant appealed the amount of the $1,510.00 fee. In this order, the adjudicator orders the final fee be reduced to $340.50.

The appellant sought access to records from the Durham District School Board (the board) related to educational software used by the board. The board searched for and disclosed responsive records to the appellant. The appellant maintained that the board did not conduct a reasonable search for responsive records.

In this order, the adjudicator upholds the board’s search for responsive records and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant filed two requests under the Act with the ministry for records relating to two incidents that took place on his property. The ministry granted the appellant partial access to them. Relevant to this order, the ministry withheld portions of the records under the discretionary personal privacy exemption in section 49(b). The adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision, in part. The adjudicator orders the ministry to disclose to the appellant one portion of the records that relates solely to him, but finds the remainder of the information at issue is exempt under the personal privacy exemption and upholds the ministry’s exercise of discretion.

The complainant, a mother, sought access under the Act to her family’s entire file with the Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto (JFCS). JFCS granted the complainant partial access to the responsive records, denying access to some information pursuant to sections 312(1)(a) (legal privilege) and 312(1)(d)(iii) (identification of a source) of the Act. The complainant asked the IPC to review JFCS’s decision not to grant access to the information withheld under those sections.

In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the exemptions at sections 312(1)(a) and 312(1)(d)(iii) apply to the information for which they were claimed. She upholds JFCS’s decision not to grant the complainant access to the withheld information.

The Town of Pelham (the town) received a request for access to information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to records relating to contracts with specified media organizations. The town granted partial access to invoices and emails, but withheld portions under section 10(1) (third party information) and section 11 (economic and other interests) of the Act.

In this order, the adjudicator allows the appeal in part. He finds that emails related to pricing information are exempt from disclosure, but finds that invoices provided by the media organizations to the town are not and orders them disclosed.

This appeal is about access to records relating to the granting and renewal of a firearms licence to an individual with a conviction for a violent offence and who later used a legally-owned weapon to kill his former girlfriend and himself in a murder-suicide. The ministry denied access to responsive records on the basis of the law enforcement exemptions in sections 14(1)(c) (reveal investigative techniques and procedures), 14(1)(i) (endanger security of a system or procedure), and 14(1)(l) (facilitate commission of an unlawful act or hamper control of crime), and the mandatory personal privacy exemption in section 21(1). The appellant raised the application of the public interest override in section 23.

In this order, the adjudicator partially upholds the ministry’s decision. The adjudicator finds that some of the records contain confidential law enforcement information that is exempt under sections 14(1)(c) and (i). She finds that disclosure of some of the remaining records, except where they contain the personal information of individuals other than the victim or the licensee, would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(2)(a) because disclosure is desirable for subjecting the activities of government to public scrutiny. The adjudicator also finds that the public interest override in section 23 does not apply to the personal information she finds to be exempt under section 21(1). The adjudicator orders the ministry to disclose a severed version of the records to the appellant by removing information that is exempt under sections 14(1)(c) and (i), and some of the personal information belonging to the licensee and some individuals other than the licensee.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the Landlord and Tenant Board (the board) conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to two parts of the appellant’s multi-part request under the Act. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the board conducted a reasonable search and dismisses the appeal.