Dernières décisions

An individual requested records from the Premier’s Office relating to the proposed Greenbelt project from January 2021 to October 2022. Cabinet Office located one responsive record. The individual appealed that decision, claiming additional responsive records ought to exist.
During the inquiry, Cabinet Office conducted another search and located additional responsive records.
In this order, the adjudicator finds the appellant provided evidence that a former member of Premier’s Office staff has government records in their personal account. She asks Cabinet Office to request copies of responsive records from this former employee and other former Premier’s Office staff who may also have government records in their personal accounts. Otherwise, the adjudicator finds Cabinet Office’s search to have been reasonable.

An individual made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for all records relating to them. The OLG provided access to several hundred records but denied access to others claiming the personal privacy exemption in section 49(b), as well as the solicitor-client privilege in section 49(a) read with section 19. The OLG also claimed that some of the information was not responsive to the access request.

In this order, the adjudicator finds that some of the information the OLG deemed not responsive is actually responsive to the request. She also finds that some records contain the personal information of other people which is exempt under the personal privacy exemption, and that other information in the records is exempt because it is solicitor-client privileged. The adjudicator further finds that certain information the OLG claimed was personal information (such as the signatures of OLG employees in records) does not qualify as personal information and, as a result, the personal privacy exemption does not apply to it. The adjudicator orders the OLG to disclose the signatures of OLG staff contained in the records to the individual who made the access request.

On June 28, 2024, an individual asked the Ministry of the Solicitor General for records about menstrual products for inmates at specified correctional facilities. They appealed because the ministry did not issue a decision within the prescribed time limit. The decision-maker finds that the ministry has not issued a decision, and the request is deemed to have been refused. The decision-maker orders the ministry to issue a decision by April 24, 2025.

This appeal deals with an access request for all records relating to the police’s use of Clearview AI technology during a specified period of time. The police provided access to records in part to the individual who made the request, but denied access to other records, claiming a number of exemptions as well as the employment or labour relations exclusion under section 52(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester raised the public interest in the disclosure of the records. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the exclusion in section 52(3)3 applies to one record, and the exemptions in sections 6(1)(b), 8(1)c), 9(1)(b) and 14(1) apply to some records but not others. The adjudicator also finds that the public interest override does not apply to the information the adjudicator finds exempt. The adjudicator orders the police to disclose certain records to the requester.

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, a member of the media requested, from Cabinet Office, communications between Metrolinx and the Chief of Staff of the Premier of Ontario related to two transit projects.

Cabinet Office denied access to two responsive emails and their attachments, relying on the exemptions for advice recommendations (section 13(1)), third party information (section 17(1)) and information that might affect an institution’s economic and other interests if disclosed (section 18(1)).

In this order, the adjudicator upholds Cabinet Office’s decision to withhold one email, because it contains advice or recommendations but finds that its attachment does not qualify under any of the claimed exemptions. She does not uphold Cabinet Office’s decision to apply any of the exemptions to the second email and its attachments. The adjudicator orders Cabinet Office to disclose one of the emails and all attachments to the appellant.

An individual made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to the police’s use of Clearview AI facial recognition technology.

The police granted partial access to records. The police withheld some information on the basis that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual’s personal privacy (section 14(1)). The police also withheld other information on the basis that it was non-responsive to the request.

In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s decision. She finds that the police properly withheld the information as either not responsive to the request or under the personal privacy exemption. She also finds that the public interest override (section 16) does not apply to permit its disclosure.

The appellant, a member of the media, made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to the Premier’s security/protective detail that reveal the dates the Premier attended a specific restaurant.
The ministry denied the appellant access to the requested information, claiming it is exempt under the mandatory personal privacy exemption at section 21(1) of the Act because its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of the Premier’s personal privacy. The appellant appealed the ministry’s decision and raised the possible application of the public interest override in section 23.
In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision to deny access to the dates the Premier attended the restaurant because disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of his personal privacy. The adjudicator also finds the public interest override does not apply to the information at issue. She dismisses the appeal.

In a request made under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, a law firm asked the Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre (the hospital) for records related to a COVID-19 outbreak at a long-term care home. The hospital issued a decision to grant partial access to the responsive records. The long-term care home appealed the hospital’s decision to disclose the information and said that the mandatory exemption for third party information at section 17(1) of FIPPA applied to all the information. The long-term care home also claimed that the records were protected from disclosure by section 3 of Quality of Care Information Protection Act. Additionally, it said that the law firm’s request was an abuse of process and asserted that it should be permitted to apply various discretionary exemptions that the hospital did not apply. In this decision, the adjudicator dismisses the long-term care home’s appeal and upholds the hospital’s access decision.

An individual made a request to the Belleville Police Services Board under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to records related to police training.
The police withheld some information in a specific police training procedure under the law enforcement exemption at section 8(1) of the Act. The police also claimed that the procedure is excluded from the Act under the exclusion for information related to employment or labour relations (section 52(3)3).

In this order, the adjudicator does not uphold the police’s claim that the procedure is employment or labour relations information excluded under section 52(3)3. She upholds the police’s decision to withhold some information in the procedure because its disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of police officers or other persons (section 8(1)(e)). However, she finds disclosure of the remainder of the withheld information could not reasonably be expected to lead to that result, and she orders the police to disclose it to the individual.

In a request made under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, a law firm asked Orillia Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital for records related to a COVID-19 outbreak at a long-term care home. The hospital issued a decision to grant access to some of the records. An affected party appealed the hospital’s decision and said the mandatory exemption for third party information at section 17(1) of the Act applied. The long-term care home also claimed that the records were protected from disclosure by section 3 of Quality of Care Information Protection Act. Additionally, it said that the law firm’s request was an abuse of process and asserted that it should be permitted to apply various discretionary exemptions that the hospital did not apply. In this decision, the adjudicator dismisses the affected party’s appeal and upholds the hospital’s access decision.

In a request made under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, a law firm asked Ontario Health atHome (OHH), for records related to a COVID-19 outbreak at a long-term care home. OHH issued a decision to grant partial access to the responsive records. The long-term care home appealed OHH’s decision to disclose the information and said the mandatory exemption for third party information at section 17(1) of the Act applied. The long-term care home also claimed that the records were protected from disclosure by section 3 of Quality of Care Information Protection Act. Additionally, it said that the law firm’s request was an abuse of process and asserted that it should be permitted to apply various discretionary exemptions that OHH did not apply. In this decision, the adjudicator dismisses the long-term care home’s appeal and upholds OHH’s access decision.

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, an individual asked the Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development for access to specific labour data for a specified timeframe.

The ministry issued a decision stating that records responsive to the appellant’s request do not exist. The individual believes more records should exist. In this order, the adjudicator determines that the ministry conducted a reasonable search for records and dismisses the appeal.

In a request made under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, a law firm asked Ontario Health (OH), for records related to a COVID-19 outbreak at a long-term care home. OH issued a decision to grant access to the records. The long-term care home appealed OH’s decision and said that the mandatory exemption for third party information at section 17(1) of FIPPA applied to all of the information. The long-term care home also claimed that the law firm’s request was an abuse of process and said that it wanted to apply various discretionary exemptions that OH did not apply. In this decision, the adjudicator dismisses the affected party’s appeal and upholds OH’s access decision.

An individual made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for information about a fire in the home occupied by her and her family. The police disclosed most of the investigation file to her, but withheld records related to statements made by an affected party, because their disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of the affected party’s personal privacy (section 38(b)). The appellant also sought to correct some of the information and asked for records from a meeting with the police that took place after she made the access request.
The adjudicator upholds the police’s decision, finding that the withheld information is exempt under section 38(b), the corrections should not be made to the information at issue, and the records from the meeting are outside of the scope of the original request.

The appellant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for information about her missing husband. The Ministry of the Solicitor General denied access to the records relying on section 49(a) (discretion to refuse requester’s own information) read with the law enforcement exemption at section 14(1), or section 14(1) on its own, and the personal privacy exemptions in sections 21(1) or 49(b).

In this interim order, the adjudicator finds that because of an ongoing law enforcement investigation, the records are exempt under the law enforcement exemptions at section 49(a) read with section 14(1), or section 14(1) on its own. However, she does not uphold the ministry’s exercise of discretion under section 49(a) with section 14(1), or under section 14(1) on its own, and orders it to re-exercise its discretion to consider disclosing certain responsive information in the records.