Decisions

The complainant requested seven corrections be made to certain records in his Children’s Services Record under Part X of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017. The Durham Children’s Aid Society refused the correction request, and the complainant filed a complaint with the IPC for a review of the refusal. The complainant also challenged the reasonableness of DCAS’s search for records responsive to his request and alleged that certain DCAS staff who were addressing his correction request were in a conflict of interest.
DCAS subsequently granted the complainant’s request for two corrections. However, DCAS maintained that for the remaining five requested corrections the complainant had not demonstrated to its satisfaction that the records were inaccurate or incomplete, as required for the application of the duty to correct in section 315(9) of the Act.
In this decision, the adjudicator considers the correction provisions in the Act and upholds DCAS’s decision that the duty to grant a correction in section 315(9) of the Act applies in respect of two of the seven requested corrections. She also concludes that DCAS has granted the two required corrections in compliance with sections 315(1) and 315(11) of the Act. Finally, the adjudicator upholds DCAS’s refusal of the remaining requested corrections and the reasonableness of its search for responsive records, and she determines that the complainant’s conflict of interest concern is unfounded. In the circumstances, no order is issued.

The appellant made a request under the Act for the email records of seven Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) employees. The LCBO issued a fee estimate of $15,557.50. The appellant requested a waiver of this fee based on financial hardship. The LCBO denied the appellant’s fee waiver request.

In this order, the adjudicator upholds the LCBO’s denial of a fee waiver, as she finds that a fee waiver is not fair and equitable in the circumstances of this appeal.

The appellant requested a copy of a police report concerning a specified occurrence that involved an affected party and herself. The police granted partial access to the report and withheld some information pursuant to sections 14(1) and 38(b) (personal privacy). The appellant appealed the decision taking the position that the personal information in the withheld information is her own and should be disclosed to her. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s claim that section 38(b) applies to the withheld personal information and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant sought access under the Act to a police report about an incident he was involved in. The police granted partial access to the report, citing section 38(b) (personal privacy) of the Act to deny access to the remaining information. In this order, the adjudicator finds that disclosure of the withheld information would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and therefore, this information is exempt under section 38(b). She dismisses the appeal.

Two sons of a deceased patient requested under the Act that the hospital make several corrections to the death note of their mother. The hospital granted two corrections related to the date and circumstances of their mother’s death but denied a third related to the cause of death.
In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the information the sons want corrected, the impact of their mother’s mental health in her death, is a professional opinion or observation made in good faith by the attending physician, and the section 55(9)(b) exception to the duty to correct therefore applies. He upholds the decision of the hospital and dismisses the complaint.

This order involves a request for records relating to the appellant in the context of their employment with the University of Ottawa (the university). The university denied access to records including videos, claiming that they are excluded from the scope of the Act under the labour relations and employment exclusion in section 65(6)3. The appellant claims that the records are not excluded from the Act due to the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the exception in section 65(7) and that the videos were not made for an employment purpose. In this order, the adjudicator finds that promissory estoppel does not apply, section 65(6)3 applies to all of the records except the videos, and the exception in section 65(7) do not apply. She orders the university to issue a decision letter to the appellant regarding the videos without recourse to section 65(6)3.

This final order resolves the outstanding issue of the reasonableness of the City of Hamilton’s (the city’s) search following Interim Order MO-4443-I. In compliance with the interim order, the city conducted a further search for responsive records to the appellant’s requests and provided an affidavit describing its search. In this final order, the adjudicator finds that the city has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it has conducted a reasonable search for responsive records. The appeal is dismissed.

The complainant sought access under Part X of the Act for his “entire family file” with the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (the service provider). The complainant was granted access, in part, to the responsive records but was denied access to information the service provider says relates to other individuals.

In this decision, the adjudicator orders the service provider to grant the complainant full access to three records she finds are dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the complainant. The adjudicator also orders the service provider to grant the complainant greater access to the complainant’s personal information which can reasonably be severed from other information in records not dedicated primarily to the provision of service to him. The adjudicator upholds the service provider’s decision to deny the complainant access under the Act to the remaining withheld information.

At issue in this appeal are line items containing unit pricing information in the appellant’s successful bid submission. The Region of Peel (the region) took the position that the information should be disclosed to the requester. The appellant argued that it qualified for exemption under section 10(1) (third party information) of the Act. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the unit pricing information does not qualify for exemption under section 10(1) of the Act. The adjudicator orders that the region disclose it to the requester.

The appellant submitted a request to the city for information relating to the city’s winter road maintenance program. The city denied the request on the basis that it was frivolous or vexatious. In this order, the adjudicator finds the city did not sufficiently establish its claim within the meaning of section 4(1)(b) of the Act and orders it to issue an access decision to the appellant.

The appellant sought access to all notes and correspondence from two Associate Deans of the college pertaining to him. The college granted the appellant full access to correspondence it located from one Associate Dean and said that it did not identify other responsive records. The appellant challenged the reasonableness of the college’s search for responsive records.
In this interim order, the adjudicator finds that, aside from one aspect of the request, the college did not conduct a reasonable search for responsive records. The adjudicator orders the college to conduct a further search and issue a new access decision.

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 county received a detailed request under the Act for access to records related to a certain notice issued by the county. The county advised that there were no responsive records. On appeal, the appellant challenges the county’s interpretation of the scope of the request and the reasonableness of the county’s search for responsive records. The adjudicator allows the appeal in part. She upholds county’s interpretation of the scope of the request, in part, but finds that the county’s interpretation of the request was narrow in one respect. She orders the county to conduct a search in response to that aspect of the request.

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.

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).