Dernières décisions

The Town of Aurora (the town) received a request under the Act for access to records for building permit applications relating to two specified addresses. Following notification of two affected parties who might have an interest in the disclosure of the records, the town decided to disclose the records, in part. One of the affected parties appealed the town’s decision with respect to the records related to one of the addresses.

In this order, the adjudicator finds that the information that is at issue is not personal information and, therefore, cannot be exempt from disclosure under section 14(1) (personal privacy) of the Act. The adjudicator upholds the town’s decision to disclose the records, in part, and orders it to provide them to the requester in accordance with its original decision.

The appellant sought access to records from the Archives of Ontario (the archives) for information related to his mother’s incarceration in two Ontario prisons from 1957 to 1971. The archives conducted multiple searches and disclosed responsive records to the appellant. The appellant maintained that the archives did not conduct a reasonable search for records and that additional records existed.
In this order, the adjudicator upholds the archives’ search for responsive records as reasonable and dismisses the appeal.

The ministry received a request from the media for information from the Minister of Health’s transition binder including records regarding human health resources in provincial hospitals. The ministry located responsive records and ultimately withheld information in part of one record relating to the specific numbers of the current and estimated future shortages of personnel in the health workforce in 2022, 2023 and 2024 and the estimated gaps in these areas of the health workforce at both 5 and 10 years in the future. The ministry claimed that disclosing the withheld information would prejudice its economic interests under section 18(1)(c) and would be injurious to the financial interests of the Government or the ability of the Government to manage the economy under section 18(1)(d) of the Act. The appellant appealed the ministry’s decision and claimed that the public interest override applied to the withheld information. In this order, the adjudicator finds that section 18(1)(c) and 18(1)(d) apply to the withheld information and finds that while there is a compelling public interest in disclosure of the information at issue, this public interest does not clearly outweigh the purpose of the exemptions.

The ministry received a request from the media for information from the Minister of Health’s transition binder including records regarding human health resources in provincial hospitals. The ministry located responsive records and ultimately withheld information in part of one record relating to the specific numbers of the current and estimated future shortages of personnel in the health workforce in 2022, 2023 and 2024 and the estimated gaps in these areas of the health workforce at both 5 and 10 years in the future. The ministry claimed that disclosing the withheld information would prejudice its economic interests under section 18(1)(c) and would be injurious to the financial interests of the Government or the ability of the Government to manage the economy under section 18(1)(d) of the Act. The appellant appealed the ministry’s decision and claimed that the public interest override applied to the withheld information. In this order, the adjudicator finds that section 18(1)(c) and 18(1)(d) apply to the withheld information and finds that, while there is a compelling public interest in disclosure of the information at issue, this public interest does not clearly outweigh the purpose of the exemptions.

After the hospital commenced and settled a lawsuit, a request was made under the Act for a breakdown by year of the hospital’s costs for legal and accounting firm services, and for settlement payments made. The request was denied on several grounds and the requester appealed to the IPC.

In this order, the adjudicator first finds that the legal and accounting firm fees are not excluded from the Act under section 65(6) (employment or labour relations) as argued by the hospital. However, she upholds the hospital’s decision to withhold the legal fees and the settlement payments on the basis of sections 19(a) and (c) (solicitor-client information). She orders the hospital to disclose the accounting firm fees, finding that these are not exempt under sections 19 or 17(1).

The City of Hamilton received a request under the Act for access to information from the city’s fire and building departments relating to a municipal address. The city issued an interim access decision identifying 291 pages of responsive records. In its final access decision, the city granted the requester partial access to some responsive records citing a number of exemptions, including section 12 (solicitor-client privilege). The city denied access to some records on the basis that that they had been the subject of previous access requests and/or previously disclosed to the requester.
The requester appealed the city’s decision not to grant access to records subject to previous access requests and its application of the exemption in section 12.
In this interim order, in the absence of any representations from the city, the adjudicator finds that there is insufficient information to determine whether any responsive records have previously been disclosed to the appellant. The adjudicator orders the city to disclose the records that have previously been disclosed to the appellant and to issue an access decision in respect of any records subject to previous access requests to which the city has previously denied access. The adjudicator also orders the city to disclose to the appellant one missing record to which it has decided to grant the requester access, in accordance with its final access decision.
In addition, the adjudicator finds that the solicitor-client privilege exemption in section 12 applies to the records for which it was claimed and upholds the city’s decision to withhold them. The adjudicator defers her finding on the city’s exercise of discretion to apply section 12, ordering the city to provide representations.

In Interim Order MO-4426-I, the adjudicator found that there was a reasonable basis for the appellant’s belief that additional records exist pertaining to the City of Stratford’s arrangement with a named company or its affiliates. The adjudicator found the city’s search for responsive records unreasonable and ordered it to conduct further searches.
Pursuant to Interim Order MO-4426-I, the city conducted further searches, located additional records and issued an access decision to the appellant.
In this final order, the adjudicator finds that the city’s further searches were reasonable as required by section 17 of the Act and dismisses the appeal.

The requester sought access from the Regional Municipality of Niagara (Niagara) under the Act to records related to a septic system that the requester’s company was installing for a property.

Niagara located responsive records and denied access to them in part under sections 7(1) (advice or recommendations) and 14(1) (personal privacy). The requester appealed this decision and claimed that Niagara’s search for responsive records was not reasonable.

In this order, the adjudicator orders Niagara to disclose the information at issue in the records. She also upholds Niagara’s search for responsive records as reasonable.

Metrolinx received a request for records related to its claims management policies in public-private partnership projects. It identified five responsive records and denied access in full, citing sections 18(1)(c) and (e) (economic and other interests) of the Act. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the records are exempt from disclosure under section 18(1)(c) and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant made a request under the Act to the University of Toronto (the university) for access to records related to the compensation paid to an external law firm for a report regarding the cancellation of the recruitment process for a Director of the International Human Rights Program at the university’s Faculty of Law. The appellant also sought access to records regarding the retention of a communications consultant in relation to the cancelled hiring process. The university denied access to the records claiming that they were excluded from the scope of the Act under section 65(6)3 (labour relations or employment-related matters). In this order the adjudicator finds that all the records are excluded from the scope of the Act and dismisses the appeal.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has received a high volume of requests for access to records relating to the decision to amend the Greenbelt Plan. This appeal arises from one of those requests, in which there was delay in issuing a final access decision within the time prescribed by the Act.
The Auditor General’s Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt included observations regarding the use of personal email accounts by political staff and the deletion of emails. In light of these published observations, and on the IPC’s own initiative, the adjudicator issued Interim Order PO-4449-I and ordered the ministry to take steps to secure the preservation and recovery of records responsive to the appellant’s request.
The ministry provided the adjudicator with affidavit evidence explaining measures in place to preserve records relating to amendments to the Greenbelt Plan.
In this final order, the adjudicator is satisfied that measures are in place to secure the preservation of records relating to the subject matter of the access request giving rise to this appeal. Regarding the recovery of responsive records, the adjudicator accepts the ministry’s evidence of the steps taken to recover records relating to government business contained in personal email and messaging accounts of former staff and acknowledges the limitations to retrieving data that may have been permanently deleted prior to such measures being taken. The adjudicator makes recommendations to enhance compliance and accountability regarding record retention practices going forward.

The Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario (the tribunal) received a request under the Act for access to records related to two cases that the requester had before the tribunal. The tribunal identified records responsive to the request and took the position that the records were not subject to the Act due to section 65(3.1) and the common law concept of adjudicative privilege (or deliberative secrecy). Alternatively, the tribunal claimed the discretionary exemption at section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) in relation to some of the responsive records. The requester also alleged a conflict of interest on the part of the individual who processed her access request.
In this order, the adjudicator upholds the tribunal’s decision in part. The adjudicator finds that the claim of conflict of interest is not substantiated and dismisses that aspect of the appeal. She upholds the tribunal’s decision to withhold the adjudicators’ personal notes and draft decisions under section 65(3.1). However, she finds that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the remaining records at issue are excluded from the scope of the Act under section 65(3.1). She also finds that the common law concept of adjudicative privilege or deliberative secrecy cannot be claimed in the alternative to section 65(3.1) in response to a request under the Act. As a result, she orders the tribunal to issue an access decision in relation to those records, considering the possible application of section 49(a) (discretion to refuse requester’s own personal information), given the nature of the records requested. In addition, the adjudicator decides that the tribunal’s claim of section 19 over certain emails is permitted, although this claim was made late. However, she orders the tribunal to consider whether this exemption applies when read with section 49(a), given the nature of the records requested.

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) was the victim of a cyberattack. A threat actor gained access to its systems via a phishing attack, used malware to encrypt these systems, and exfiltrated data. The TTC notified the IPC, its employees, and the public of this privacy breach. It was later able to restore nearly all of its systems from backups and hired experts to determine the information that had been exfiltrated, and how the attack occurred. They found that the TTC’s failure to install a patch for a known security vulnerability contributed to the attack.

In this report, I conclude that the TTC did not have reasonable security measures in place to prevent unauthorized access to the personal information on its systems. However, the TTC put additional security measures in place following the attack. It also implemented detailed revised guidance on scanning for vulnerabilities and installing patches. These set out timelines and state who is responsible for these tasks. Based on the measures that the TTC has taken since the breach, I am generally satisfied with their response to the breach, though I recommend that they implement guidance on using encryption as a default.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General (the ministry) received a request under the Act for a specified Ontario Provincial Police weapons strategy report. The ministry claimed the section 14(2)(a) (law enforcement report) exemption to withhold the record in its entirety. The appellant claimed the application of the section 14(5) (success of a law enforcement program) exception to the exemption. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the record is exempt from disclosure under section 14(2)(a) and the section 14(5) exception does not apply. He upholds the decision of the ministry and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant submitted a request under the Act to the ministry for records relating to an ethics complaint he filed with the Alcohol and Gaming Commission (the AGCO). The AGCO granted the appellant partial access to the responsive records. The AGCO withheld some of the records under the solicitor-client privilege exemption in section 19 of the Act. The appellant appealed the AGCO’s decision and claimed additional responsive records ought to exist. In this decision, the adjudicator upholds the AGCO’s decision in part. She finds some of the records are exempt from disclosure under the solicitor-client privilege exemption but orders the AGCO to disclose the remainder to the appellant. The adjudicator upholds the AGCO’s search for responsive records as reasonable.