Dernières décisions

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.

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.

The complainant asked a hospital to remove personal health information from records of his visits to a hospital’s pacemaker clinic. The custodian denied the correction request, but later added information to one of the visit notes that addressed some of the complainant’s concerns. In her decision, the adjudicator finds that the hospital provided an adequate response to the complainant’s correction request. She finds no purpose would be served by conducting a review of the complaint because deletion of personal health information is not permitted as part of a patient’s right to seek correction of records under the Act.

The city submitted a request for reconsideration of Order MO-4530, claiming a fundamental defect in the adjudication process and a jurisdictional defect. In this reconsideration order, the adjudicator finds that the city has not established grounds for reconsideration under the IPC’s Code of Procedure and denies the reconsideration request.

An individual asked the ministry for the names of the public servants who participated in the selection of lands proposed for removal from the Greenbelt. The ministry located a spreadsheet containing a list of names and other information and decided not to grant access to it.

This interim order disposes of the preliminary issue of whether all the information in the spreadsheet is responsive to the request.

The adjudicator finds that the scope of the request does not include all the information in the spreadsheet. Accordingly, portions of the spreadsheet are not responsive to the appellant’s request and have been removed from the scope of this appeal.

In a request made under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, an individual asked the ministry for records of the Ontario Provincial Police that relate to him. The ministry provided access to the records in part. It did not disclose some information saying that it contained the personal information of other individuals (section 49(b)), that, if disclosed, could reveal investigative techniques and procedures (section 14(1)(c)) or could facilitate the commission of an unlawful act (section 14(1)(l)). In this order, the adjudicator finds that some of the withheld information should be provided to the appellant. However, he upholds the decision of the ministry not to disclose the remaining information to the appellant.

In a request made under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, an individual asked the City of Hamilton’s fire and building departments for records relating to a specified city address. The city found relevant records and decided to provide some records to the individual. The city decided not to provide other records because they had previously been given to the individual in response to earlier requests and some were protected by solicitor client privilege.

In Interim Order MO-4510-I, the adjudicator ordered the city to provide the records previously released and to issue a decision for any records it had previously withheld. The adjudicator agreed that the other records withheld by the city were protected by solicitor-client privilege but ordered the city to make submissions showing the factors it had considered in reaching that decision.

In this final order, the adjudicator is satisfied that the city has now provided the relevant records to the individual and that it properly reached its decision not to provide the records protected by solicitor-client privilege. The adjudicator dismisses this appeal.

The appellant asked the hospital for seven years of patient satisfaction survey results and other data. The hospital granted the appellant complete access to most of the requested records. For the written patient comments in the records, the hospital estimated a fee of $967.50 to redact personal health information from the records before releasing them to the appellant. The appellant asked the hospital to reduce or waive the fee. The hospital reduced the fee by 50% to $483.75, but the appellant remained dissatisfied with the fee estimate.

In this order, the adjudicator does not uphold the hospital’s fee estimate. She orders the hospital to reduce its fee to $150.

An individual sought access under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to police records relating to two incidents that involved her. The police granted partial access to reports and officers’ notes, withholding some information on the basis that it was not responsive to the request (section 17) and other information on the basis that disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of another individual’s personal privacy (section 38(b)). The individual appealed the police’s access decision and also took issue with the reasonableness of the police’s search. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the police properly withheld the information and conducted a reasonable search. She upholds the police’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

An individual made a request to the township for emails exchanged between himself, other individuals and the township’s Chief Building Official regarding a renovation project. The township located two emails which it disclosed, in part, to the appellant. The township claimed that disclosure of the withheld information would be an unjustified invasion of another individual’s personal privacy under section 38(b). The individual appealed the township’s access decision to the IPC seeking access to the withheld information. The individual also took the position that additional records responsive to his request should exist.

The adjudicator upholds the township’s decision to withhold personal information under section 38(b). She dismisses the appellant’s claim that the township should have located additional records on the basis that the records the appellant says should exist do not reasonably relate to the request.

The city received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records related to a fire at a specified property. The city provided some records, but the appellant believed that additional records about a city order being revoked should also exist. The adjudicator finds that the city conducted a reasonable search for records and dismisses the appeal.

An individual asked a school board for correspondence to or from a specified group of individuals relating to him found in emails and Microsoft Teams chat logs. The school board granted full access to the emails it found but stated that it could not search Microsoft Teams messages. The school board later found a way to search Microsoft Teams and provided the individual with access to the messages that it located from this search. The individual believes more records should exist. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the school board’s search for records was reasonable, and she dismisses the appeal.

The requester sought access to financial information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act contained in contracts for caretaking and security services provided to the university. The university denied access to some of this information, relying on the mandatory third party exemption in section 17(1). Both the requester and one of the service providers appealed the university’s decision to the IPC.

In this order, the adjudicator finds that the financial information in the contracts does not qualify as information subject to the exemption for third party information in section 17(1). She orders the university to disclose it to the requester.