Dernières décisions

This final order determines whether the Township of Oro-Medonte (the township) conducted a reasonable search for responsive records in response to Interim Order MO-4561-I about an individual’s request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to records about the municipal water system. In Interim Order MO-4561-I, the adjudicator determined that the township had not conducted a reasonable search for two parts of the individual’s request and ordered it to conduct a further search for records responsive to those parts. In this final order, the adjudicator finds that the township has now conducted a reasonable search for responsive records, and she dismisses the appeal.

An individual made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Toronto for its investigation file of a dog bite incident in which he was involved. The city provided some information, including the dog owner’s name and address. The city decided not to provide other details relating to the dog owner because they were exempt under the personal privacy exemption in the Act. The individual appealed stating that they needed the additional information to pursue an action for damages in the small claims court.
In this order, the adjudicator finds that the individual does not have a right of access to additional information about the dog owner because to disclose it would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. The adjudicator upholds the city’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

An individual asked the appointed guardian of her late doctor’s medical records (the custodian) for access to her complete medical records. While the custodian originally claimed he found the individual’s medical records, he later said he did not find any. In PHIPA Decision 256, the adjudicator found the custodian did not conduct a reasonable search for the complainant’s medical records and orders him to conduct another search. The custodian conducted another search and did not find any additional records. In this final decision, the adjudicator finds the custodian did not conduct a reasonable search for records but finds no useful purpose in ordering another search. She dismisses the complaint.

An individual made a request to the Regional Municipality of Halton (the municipality) under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to their entire disability management file. The municipality granted partial access to the responsive records. Some of the records were not provided because the municipality claims they are excluded from the Act under the employment or labour relations exclusion (section 52(3)3)). In this order, the adjudicator upholds the municipality’s exclusion claim and finds that it conducted a reasonable search for responsive records.

An individual’s substitute decision maker asked a care home to remove a progress note from the individual’s file, claiming that the progress note is not a record of personal health information and although accurate, implies wrongdoing on the substitute decision-maker’s part. The adjudicator finds that the progress note is a record of personal health information. She finds that it is not incomplete or inaccurate for the purposes for which the care home uses the information, and that no duty to correct the record exists under section 55(8) of the Personal Health Information Protection Act. No order is issued.

A person asked for records about the police’s attendance at her home. The police provided the person with records in response to the request. The person asserts that additional records exist. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s search for records as reasonable and dismisses the appeal.

A school board received a request for information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for pricing information contained in contracts with student transportation operators. The board denied access to this pricing information, stating that it is third party information subject to the mandatory exemption in section 10(1) of the Act.

In this order, the adjudicator finds the pricing information at issue is not third party information exempt under section 10(1) and orders the board to disclose it.

A public hospital contacted the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario to report a breach under the Personal Health Information Protection Act (the Act). The breach involved an unauthorized use of personal health information of patients by a physician. In response to the breach, the hospital updated its privacy training, confidentiality agreements and privacy policies. In this Decision, I find that the hospital was in breach of sections 10 (Information practices) and 12 (Security) of the Act. However, given the steps taken by the hospital to address the breach, I have also found that no formal review of this matter will be conducted under Part VI of the Act.

A journalist asked the ministry for a record listing each complaint filed against a police officer to the Complaints Director of the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency during an 11-year period. The journalist did not want aggregate information, but rather, several details about each complaint (such as the police’s officer’s name and badge number, the police service where they were employed, the seriousness of the allegation, and the status of the complaint). The ministry responded to the request and produced a spreadsheet about 40,000 lines long. The ministry disclosed all information in the record except the names and badge numbers of the police officers who had been complained about. The ministry said that it had to protect another person’s personal information (section 21(1)).

The adjudicator agreed that the names and badge numbers are personal information and should not be shared for that reason. She considered the journalist’s view that it is in the public interest (section 23) to disclose the names and badge numbers anyway, but she was not persuaded of that. As a result, she agrees with the ministry’s decision to withhold the names and badge numbers in the spreadsheet.

An individual submitted a request for reconsideration of Order MO-4512, which upheld the town’s decision to disclose some portions of building permit application records relating to their address. The individual claimed that there was a fundamental defect in the adjudication process, a jurisdictional defect in the decision and/or a clerical error, accidental error or omission or other similar error in the decision. In this reconsideration order, the adjudicator finds that none of the grounds under section 15.01 of the IPC’s Code of Procedure for reconsideration has been established and denies the request for reconsideration.

A person asked a hospital for access to records of their personal health information. The hospital issued a fee estimate charging the person $702.01 for the records. The person disputes the amount of the fee.
In this decision, the adjudicator does not uphold the hospital’s fee estimate and instead finds that the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 permits the hospital to charge $40 for the records.

On August 8, 2023, the appellant asked the city for access to records related to a recreational centre. The appellant filed an appeal because the city failed to provide a decision within the prescribed time. This order finds the city to be in a deemed refusal situation and orders the city to issue a final decision by October 29, 2024, and November 14, 2024, where third party notification is required.

An individual requested four insurance policies taken out by the County of Norfolk (the county). The county decided that the records were excluded from the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) under the labour relations and employment exclusion in section 52(3) and, alternatively, exempt from disclosure under the third party information exemption in section 10(1), as well as the economic interests exemption in section 11(d). In this order, the adjudicator disagrees with the county and orders it to disclose the records to the individual.

The appellant, a member of the media, made a request under the Act for access to an email chain relating to an academic review of an article published by the Lancet. The hospital denied the appellant access to the email chain, claiming it is excluded from the scope of the Act due to the research exclusion. The hospital also withheld certain emails within the chain, claiming they are not responsive to the appellant’s request. In this decision, the adjudicator finds the research exclusion applies to the entire email chain. The appeal is dismissed.

On February 28, 2024, a media appellant asked the ministry for the final version of a report. The requester filed an appeal because the ministry failed to provide a decision within the prescribed time. This order finds the ministry to be in a deemed refusal situation and orders the ministry to issue a final decision by October 30, 2024.