Dernières décisions

Under the Act, the appellant made a request to the Toronto Police Services Board (the board) for a line-by-line breakdown of the 2020 Toronto Police Service budget for six specified units. He asked that the breakdown be organized by individual program area, function, and service delivered, in accordance with a recommendation of the board chair tabled at an August 2020 public meeting of the board. He also requested any related correspondence between the board and the police service. The board denied the request based on a claim that responsive information is publicly available. The board also asserted that line-by-line budget information is exempt under certain discretionary law enforcement exemptions at section 8 of the Act. After the appellant appealed the board’s decision to the IPC, the board issued a revised decision and disclosed certain budget information in full.

In this interim order, the adjudicator finds that the newly disclosed record containing aggregate budget information does not fully respond to the appellant’s request for a detailed breakdown organized by individual program area, function, and service delivered. She orders the board to issue a decision on access to the requested budget information, and, in the circumstances, that it do so without recourse to a time extension. The adjudicator also dismisses a number of other issues raised by the appellant, including allegations of bias on the part of the police chief. She finds no reasonable basis to order further searches for the requested correspondence between the board and the police service. She remains seized of the appeal to address issues arising from the board’s new access decision.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General (the ministry) received a request under the Act for records related to the site selection for a new correctional facility in Kemptville, Ontario. The ministry issued an access decision denying access to portions of the records pursuant to sections 12(1) (Cabinet records), and 13(1) (advice or recommendations) of the Act.

The requester, now the appellant, appealed the ministry’s decision to the IPC and raised the application of the public interest override at section 23 of the Act.
In this order, the adjudicator partially upholds the ministry’s decision that portions of the responsive records are exempt by reason of sections 12(1) and 13(1). She finds that the public interest override in section 23 does not apply to override the section 13(1) exemption.

Metrolinx received a request under the Act for a track audit report that they received from a private company. Metrolinx denied access to the report under sections 17(1) (third party information) and 18(1) (economic and other interests) of the Act. The appellant appealed the decision to the IPC and raised the application of section 23 (public interest override). In this order, the adjudicator finds that the report is exempt from disclosure under section 17(1) and that the public interest override does not apply.

Health Sciences North received a request under the Act for information relating to the requester and the centre operated by the requester. HSN located 15 responsive records and issued a decision granting access to some records in their entirety, and denying access to other records in their entirety, claiming they were excluded from the Act under the exclusion for employment or labour relations matters at section 65(6). The appellant appealed and also claimed that HSN’s search for responsive records was not reasonable. In this interim order, the adjudicator finds that all of the records are excluded from the Act pursuant to section 65(6)3 except for one email which he also finds is not excluded under section 65(5)1. He defers his decision on access to this email so that the parties can submit representations on HSN’s exemption claim. He also finds that HSN’s search for responsive records is reasonable.

The appellant made a request under the Act to the Toronto Metropolitan University (the university) for access to records relating to a complaint made against him under the university’s Sexual Violence Policy. The university took the position that the records are 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 except for an invoice, which is subject to the Act, the balance of the records are excluded from the scope of the Act under section 65(6)3. He orders the university to issue an access decision with respect to the invoice and upholds its decision not to disclose the remaining records.

The Peel Regional Police Services Board (the police) received an access request under the Act for records relating to certain police records involving the requester. The police provided partial access to the responsive records. They withheld information under the discretionary exemptions at section 38(a) (discretion to refuse a requester’s own personal information), read with section 8(1)(g) (intelligence information), as well as section 38(b) (personal privacy). On appeal, these exemptions were challenged, along with the reasonableness of the police’s search for responsive records, under section 17. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s application of the exemptions and the reasonableness of their search. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

The appellant sought access to all records related to a harassment complaint she filed with the municipality, including the final investigation report and all invoices, emails and details of the investigation services provided. The municipality issued a decision granting the appellant access to some emails, in part. The municipality did not locate any other records responsive to the appellant’s request. The appellant challenged the reasonableness of the municipality’s search for responsive records.

In this interim order, the adjudicator finds that the municipality did not conduct a reasonable search for records, and she orders the municipality to conduct a further search and issue a new access decision.

The appellant made a request to the City of Oshawa (the city) under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for council minutes, reports and correspondence on a specific topic. The city denied access to them in part, relying 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 and in Interim Order MO-4455-I, an adjudicator upheld some aspects of the city’s decision, but ordered other information disclosed. She also ordered the city to re-exercise its discretion to apply the section 6(1)(b) exemption. In this final order, the adjudicator finds that the city has now exercised its discretion under section 6(1)(b) and she dismisses the remainder of the appeal.

A group of hunters, including the appellant, were charged with improper hunting offences. They complained about the conduct of the investigation into the incident and sought access under the Act to the investigative records from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (the ministry).

In Interim Order PO-4370-I, I found that the responsive investigative report and supporting records were not excluded from the application of the Act under section 65(6)3 (employment or labour relations) and ordered the ministry to issue an access decision. The ministry denied access to portions of the records relying on the personal privacy exemption in section 49(b) and the solicitor-client privilege exemption in section 19(a). In this order, the adjudicator partially upholds the application of the claimed exemptions and also finds that section 49(a) applies in conjunction with section 19(a).

The appellant sought access to police reports related to an incident she was involved in. The police granted partial access to the reports, withholding portions of them under section 38(b) (personal privacy) of the Act. In this order, the adjudicator finds that disclosure of the withheld information would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant submitted a request to the City of Ottawa (the city) for access to records relating to a specific by-law complaint. The city located responsive records and provided the appellant with access to them. The appellant appealed the city’s decision because he believes additional responsive records should exist. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the city conducted a reasonable search for responsive records. The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant made a request for records relating to the Premier’s OPP security detail and the ministry denied the appellant access to officers’ notes under the discretionary law enforcement exemption in section 14(1) of the Act. The appellant appealed the ministry’s decision to the IPC. The ministry refused to provide records to the IPC so that the adjudicator may conduct an inquiry. In this interim decision, the adjudicator orders the ministry to produce the records at issue to the IPC.

The Barrie Police Services Board received a request under the Act for records relating to complaints involving the appellant. The police granted the appellant partial access to an occurrence report and officer’s notes claiming that the withheld portions qualified for exemption under section 38(a)(discretion to refuse a requester’s own information), read with section 8(1)(d)(confidential source). The police withheld an audio recording provided by an affected individual on the basis that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b)(personal privacy). The appellant appealed the police’s decision to the IPC. The adjudicator finds that the records qualify for exemption under sections 38(a) and (b) and dismisses the appeal.

The complainant made a correction request under the Act to a health information custodian (the custodian) for the correction of his personal health information in a consultation report. The custodian denied the correction request on the basis that he does not have a duty under section 55(8) of the Act to make the correction. In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the custodian was not required to make the requested corrections as the complainant has not established that the information he seeks corrected is inaccurate for the purposes for which the custodian uses it. The adjudicator issues no order and upholds the custodian’s decision.

The complainant submitted a correction request under PHIPA to a hospital to correct her personal health information in two forms completed by a physician. The hospital denied the complainant’s request citing section 55(8). The adjudicator finds that the complainant did not demonstrate that the information in the records was incomplete or incorrect for the purpose the hospital uses the information. As a result, the hospital’s decision to not make the requested corrections is upheld.