Dernières décisions

The municipality received a request under the Act for records relating to its mandatory vaccination policy. This appeal deals with part 3 of the request for access to meeting dates and documents of closed door meetings of its Council that discussed the mandatory vaccination policy. Ultimately, the municipality claimed the responsive record was excluded from the Act by section 52(3)3 (labour relations and employment-related information) and, in the alternative, it claimed the record was exempt by section 6(1)(b) (closed meeting). At mediation, the appellant also raised the issue of scope and the municipality’s search for responsive records. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the record is not excluded from the Act by section 52(3)3 but finds that the exemption at section 6(1)(b) applies to the information. He also finds that the municipality’s search for responsive records was reasonable and dismisses the appeal.

The complainant made a request under the Act for access to her and her child’s charts. The custodian charged the complainant $30 for each chart. The complainant’s request to the custodian to waive the fees was denied. As a result, the complainant filed a complaint under the Act with respect to the amount of the fee and the custodian’s decision not to waive the fee.
In this decision, the adjudicator finds that $30 constitutes “reasonable cost recovery” for each chart. The adjudicator upholds the custodian’s exercise of discretion not to waive the fee..

An individual made two requests to the ministry. One request was for access to a named company’s application to receive funding from the ministry’s Skills Development Fund (SDF) to operate a training program for Home Support Workers and the other request was for a related agreement between the named company and the ministry. The ministry issued a decision on each request granting access, in part, to the SDF application and the agreement, relying on section 17(1) (third party information) to withhold some information. The named company appealed the decision on the basis that section 17(1) applies to the information the ministry is prepared to disclose. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the information remaining at issue is not exempt under section 17(1). She orders the ministry to disclose the information in accordance with its revised decisions and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant was the victim of fraud, losing a large amount of money when he transferred Bitcoin to another individual under false pretences. The police conducted an investigation but did not have enough information to proceed with criminal charges. The appellant received an occurrence report under the Act with an individual’s information withheld under section 14(1) (personal privacy). He appealed the police’s access decision, stating that he required this information to recover the lost money.
In this order, the adjudicator finds that the information is exempt from disclosure under section 38(b) (personal privacy, with the report containing the appellant’s personal information). He finds that the extent, if any, of the individual’s involvement in the crime is not known, favouring withholding the information. Additionally, he finds that the appellant has not adequately explained how the information at issue would assist with recovering the lost money. He upholds the police’s decision.

The appellant asked the City of Ottawa for information about amendments to a by-law. The city granted access to some information. The appellant asked for more information at mediation that the city says went beyond the scope of the original request. The adjudicator finds that the new details are outside the scope of the original request and that the city was not required to search for additional records based on the new information. She dismisses the appeal.

Toronto Metropolitan University (which was previously called Ryerson University) received a request under the Act for briefs or communications made to it during a public engagement period relating to Egerton Ryerson. After the appellant received disclosure of the responsive emails (without identifying details), she raised the issue of reasonable search. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the reasonableness of the university’s search and dismisses the appeal.

The township received a request under the Act, in part, for a report that was discussed at a closed session of the township council. The township relied on section 6(1)(b) of the Act to deny access to the report on the basis that it revealed the substance of deliberations of the closed session. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the township’s decision.

The Toronto Transit Commission (the TTC) received a multi-part request under the Act for records relating to its investigation into the requester’s complaint and to information about transit fare enforcement and revenue. The TTC granted partial access to responsive records, withholding portions on the basis of the exemptions in sections 14(1) (personal privacy) and 38(b) (discretion to refuse requester’s own information) of the Act. The TTC denied access to the investigation file claiming the exclusion in section 52(3)3 (employment or labour relations). In addition, the TTC stated that other requested records did not exist. The requester appealed the TTC’s decision to pursue access to the withheld information and records and stated that additional records ought to exist.
In this order, the adjudicator upholds the TTC’s search as reasonable. The adjudicator finds that the exclusion in section 52(3)3 applies to the investigation file. In addition, the adjudicator upholds the TTC’s decision to withhold portions of the records because they are exempt under section 14(1) and section 38(b). She dismisses the appeal.

The City of Kawartha Lakes (the city) received a request under the Act for all city expenses over $1,000 over three and a half years. The city determined that it had reasonable grounds to consider the request as frivolous or vexatious under section 4(1)(b) of the Act. In this order, 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 this interim decision, the adjudicator finds the custodian did not conduct a reasonable search for the individual’s medical records and orders him to conduct another search.

The appellant sought access from the WSIB to records relating to his claims. The WSIB granted partial access, withholding information from one of 17 responsive records because it contains another individual’s personal information. The appellant challenges the WSIB’s claim that the withheld information is exempt and claims that the WSIB narrowed the scope of his request, resulting in a restricted search for responsive records. The adjudicator finds that the WSIB’s clarification of the request and its search for responsive records were reasonable and that the withheld information at issue is exempt under the discretionary personal privacy exemption in section 49(b). She dismisses the appeal.

The appellant sought access to records related to investigations conducted by the Thunder Bay Police Services Board (the board). The board withheld some of the responsive records pursuant to the law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions, and the labour relations exclusion, in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act). The appellant appealed the access decision to this office, and also challenged the reasonableness of the board’s search.
During the inquiry process, the board took the position that the ongoing prosecution exclusion at section 52(2.1) applied to all the records at issue. The adjudicator added this issue and sought representations from the appellant. In this decision, she upholds the board’s application of section 52(2.1) and its search for responsive records and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant made a request under the Act to the Halton Regional Police Services Board (the police) for records revealing inquiries made about him by all police services across Canada on several identified law enforcement databases. The police took the position that they do not have custody or control over the information sought by the appellant. In this order, the adjudicator finds that while the police do not have custody or control over records relating to whether officers or employees of other police services made inquiries about the appellant on the identified databases, they have custody or control over records, if they exist, regarding whether their own officers or employees accessed those databases in relation to the appellant. The adjudicator orders the police to conduct a search for records relating to inquiries made about the appellant on the identified databases by their own officers or employees and to issue a decision on access to the appellant.

In February 2022, the respondent Halton Children’s Aid Society (CAS) was the subject of a ransomware attack. While the CAS’s investigation did not find any evidence that the threat actor had accessed or exfiltrated any data stored in the CAS’s environment, it found that the threat actor had encrypted several CAS servers, including those containing personal information.

The IPC initiated a review of the matter under Part X of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA). Section 308(2) of the CYFSA sets out a duty on service providers like the CAS to notify individuals at the first reasonable opportunity if their personal information is stolen, lost, or used or disclosed without authority. The CAS asserts that because the ransomware attack targeted its servers at the external or “container” level, the attack did not “individually impact” file folders and files of personal information held inside the encrypted containers. The CAS takes the position that the encryption event did not result in a theft, loss, or unauthorized use or disclosure of personal information within the meaning of section 308(2), and that the duty to notify does not apply.

In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the threat actor’s encryption of CAS servers at the container level affected the personal information in those servers, by making that personal information unavailable and inaccessible to authorized users. The ransomware attack resulted in both an unauthorized use and a loss of personal information within the meaning of section 308(2). As a result, the CAS had a duty to notify affected individuals “at the first reasonable opportunity” of the incident. After taking into account relevant circumstances, including the evidence of diligent efforts by the CAS to contain and to mitigate the risks of the privacy breach, the adjudicator finds that the notice requirement can be met in this case through the posting of a general notice on the CAS’s website, or another form of indirect public notice. The adjudicator orders the CAS to provide this notice within 30 days of the date of this decision.

In July 2022, the respondent Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit (SMDHU) was the subject of an email phishing attack. As a result of the attack, a threat actor gained access to one SMDHU email account containing approximately 20,000 emails, including about 1,000 emails containing personal health information. SMDHU reports that the threat actor’s access to the compromised email account was limited to one hour, and that its forensic analysis found no evidence that the threat actor viewed, downloaded, copied, sent, forwarded, or removed any emails while in the compromised account.
The IPC initiated a review of the matter under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (PHIPA). Section 12(2) of PHIPA sets out a duty on health information custodians like SMDHU to notify individuals at the first reasonable opportunity if their personal health information is stolen, lost, or used or disclosed without authority. SMDHU asserts that there is no evidence to conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that any such privacy breach occurred, and on this basis takes the position that the duty to notify does not apply.
In this decision, the adjudicator concludes, on a balance of probabilities, that the threat actor’s undisturbed access to an SMDHU email account containing a considerable amount of personal health information resulted in both an unauthorized disclosure and an unauthorized use of personal health information. As a result, the duty to notify in section 12(2) applies. During the IPC review, SMDHU decided to send detailed letter notices to individuals whose personal health information may have been affected by the phishing attack. The adjudicator finds that through its direct notification of individuals during the review, SMDHU provided notice as required by section 12(2) of PHIPA, although it should have done so at the first reasonable opportunity. In the circumstances, she concludes the review without issuing an order.