Dernières décisions

In this decision, the adjudicator finds that Woburn Medical Dental Centre Inc. is the health information custodian of the records of personal health information alleged to have been abandoned. The adjudicator orders the custodian and its agent to retrieve and secure the records. The adjudicator also finds that the use and/or disclosure of the records by certain respondents is governed by section 49(1) of the Act and that some of these respondents have contravened section 49(1) of the Act by withholding some of the records from the custodian. The adjudicator orders these respondents to return these records to the custodian when the custodian attends to retrieve them. The adjudicator makes other orders against some of the respondents necessary to preserve and secure the records until the custodian has retrieved them.

The appellant sought access to records from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (the ministry) related to the Office of the Provincial Land and Development Facilitator. The ministry searched for and disclosed responsive records to the appellant. The appellant maintained that the ministry did not conduct a reasonable search for responsive records.

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

The OMDC received two requests under the Act for records relating to retroactive changes to the Ontario Interactive Digital Media Tax Credit. The OMDC issued a fee estimate for each request and agreed to waive part of the fee when the appellant applied for a fee waiver. The appellant appealed the OMDC’s fee seeking a full fee waiver based on financial hardship and on the basis that dissemination of the records would benefit public health and safety. He also claimed that the FOI coordinator at the OMDC was in a conflict of interest as she was also the executive assistant to the CEO. In this order, the adjudicator does not order a further fee waiver and finds that the FOI coordinator and the CEO of the OMDC are not in a conflict of interest in responding to his requests. The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant made a request under the Act to the police for access to records relating to a specific case number. The police issued a decision granting the appellant partial access to the responsive record, a general occurrence report. The police withheld portions of the record under the personal privacy exemption in section 38(b). The appellant appealed the police’s decision. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of Order MO-4447. In this reconsideration order, the adjudicator finds that the appellant has not established any of the grounds for reconsideration in section 18.01 of the IPC’s Code of Procedure and denies the reconsideration request.

After being ordered by the IPC to search for additional records, the city located and issued a new decision for records, in which it assessed a fee. The appellant appealed the search fee and asked for a fee waiver.

In this order, the adjudicator upholds the city’s $300 search fee and the city’s decision not to waive this fee.

The appellant sought access under the Act to records about the handling of a whistleblower complaint he made to the hospital alleging improper external influences in the hospital’s decision regarding his position at the hospital. The hospital decided to withhold information, in part, denying access to some information on the basis of the discretionary exemptions at sections 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 19 (solicitor-client privilege). In this order, the adjudicator upholds the hospital’s decision.

The appellant filed a request under the Act with the police for records relating to the manner in which the police conduct investigations and execute search warrants, including but not limited to the investigations of two identified individuals. The police located responsive records and granted the appellant partial access to them. The police withheld portions of records under sections 14(1) (personal privacy) and 8(2)(a) (law enforcement report). The police also withheld records in full under the solicitor-client privilege exemption in section 12. The appellant appealed the police’s decision to the IPC and raised the application of the public interest override in section 16. In this order, the adjudicator orders the police to disclose certain records and information that she finds not exempt under section 14(1) or section 8(2)(a). She upholds the police’s decision to withhold the remainder of the information and records under sections 12 and 14(1).

This final order resolves the outstanding search issue from Interim Order MO-4430-I. Following the interim order, the Township of Severn (the township) conducted a further search for videos and photos and provided an affidavit in support of its search. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the township has now provided sufficient evidence to establish that its search efforts were reasonable, and dismisses the appeal.

This order upholds the decision of Kawartha Conservation to release redacted copies of permit application records and related correspondence in response to a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act). In this order, the adjudicator finds that the information at issue is not “personal information,” as that term is defined in section 2(1) of the Act, so it cannot be withheld under a personal privacy exemption. She also finds that it is not exempt under the mandatory exemption at section 10(1) (third party information) of the Act.

The Durham Regional Police Services Board received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for information related to the use of international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) devices. The request was narrowed to judicial authorizations for use of IMSI devices. The police located three judicial authorizations, but the adjudicator removed them from the scope of the appeal because they have been sealed by a court order. Therefore, the only issue she considers at adjudication is whether the police conducted a reasonable search, under section 17 of the Act. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s search as reasonable in the circumstances and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant submitted a request under the Act to the Champlain LHIN (the LHIN) for access to general records relating to oversight of a specified health service provider. The LHIN responded stating that the requested records are not within its custody or under its control. The LHIN forwarded the request to the specified health service provider, pursuant to section 25(1) of the Act.

The appellant appealed the LHIN’s decision to forward the request, challenging the LHIN’s assertion that the records he is seeking are not in its custody or control. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the requested records are not within the custody or control of the LHIN within the meaning of section 10(1) of the Act and that the LHIN discharged its duty under section 25(1) by forwarding the request to the health service provider.

Waypoint received a request under the Act for access to documents and policies relating to the use of seclusion and restraints. After conducting a search, Waypoint decided to grant partial access to records it located, citing sections 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 18(1)(j) (evaluation of quality of health care by a hospital committee) and 19 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Act to withhold certain information. The appellant appealed the decision and also relied on section 23 (public interest override) claiming that it applied to any records found exempt under section 18(1). In this order, the adjudicator upholds Waypoint’s decision concerning sections 19 and 18(1)(j) and finds that there is no compelling public interest in disclosure of the information found exempt under section 18(1). The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant submitted a request to the City of Oshawa (the city) for access to records related to certain aviation companies. The city located records responsive to the request and issued a decision denying access to them in part. The city relied 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. In this interim order, the adjudicator upholds the city’s decision that section 12 applies to the information at issue. She also finds that sections 6(1)(b), 7(1), 11(d), and 14(1) apply to some pages and/or portions of pages of the records at issue, and that section 11(e) does not apply to any of the information at issue.

The adjudicator orders the city to withhold the information that section 14(1) applies to and upholds its discretion to apply sections 7(1), 11(d) and 12 and withhold certain information, but orders it to re-exercise its discretion in relation to its application of section the 6(1)(b) exemption. The adjudicator orders the city to disclose to the appellant the remaining information to which she concluded none of the exemptions apply.

The Halton Regional Police Services Board received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to records related to the death of the appellant’s boyfriend. The police issued a decision granting partial access to the responsive records withholding information under sections 14(1) (personal privacy), 38(b) (personal privacy), and 8(1)(h) (security) of the Act. The appellant appealed the police’s decision to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s decision and orders the police to issue an access decision regarding the audio recording of the appellant’s statement.