Decisions

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the Landlord and Tenant Board (the board) conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to two parts of the appellant’s multi-part request under the Act. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the board conducted a reasonable search and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant made a request to the TDSB for records relating to an investigation conducted by the TDSB’s Integrity Commissioner. The adjudicator finds that the responsive records are not within the TDSB’s custody or control. The adjudicator also finds that the TDSB conducted a reasonable search for any responsive records.

The Ministry of Transportation received two requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to records relating to the access of the appellant’s information by third parties. The ministry issued two decisions granting full access to the responsive records. The appellant appealed the ministry’s decisions to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, because he believes further records responsive to his requests should exist. In this order, the adjudicator dismisses both appeals because she finds that additional information requested by the appellant is outside the scope of one appeal and that the ministry conducted a reasonable search for responsive records in both appeals.

The complainant sought a copy of specific letter sent from his former doctor upon the transfer of his care to the custodian. The custodian conducted multiple searches and did not locate the specified letter. The complainant was not satisfied with the custodian’s response and filed a complaint to the IPC challenging the reasonableness of the custodian’s searches. In this decision, the adjudicator finds the custodian’s searches reasonable and dismisses the complaint.

The City of Belleville (the city) received three requests under the Act related to the appellant’s property. The city issued decision letters granting the appellant partial access, withholding information under the discretionary legal privilege exemption under section 38(a) in read with section 12. The city also takes the position that disclosure of some of the withheld information would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under the discretionary exemption at section 38(b). The appellant appealed the city’s decision regarding the application of the exemptions to the IPC. The appellant also claims that additional records should exist. The city, in turn, claims that the requests before me are frivolous and vexatious.

In this order, the adjudicator determines that one of the appellant’s requests is frivolous and vexatious and dismisses the appeal filed in relation to that request. The adjudicator then considers the application of the discretionary exemptions to the information withheld pertaining to the two other requests. She finds that the discretionary exemptions apply to all but two emails, which she orders the city to disclose to the appellant. The adjudicator finds that the city exercised its discretion properly in relying on the exemptions to withhold these emails.

With respect to the appellant’s claim that the city did not conduct a reasonable search, the adjudicator finds that the city failed to conduct a reasonable search for records responsive to one of the three requests and orders it to conduct a further search.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of Order PO-4413. 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.

The requester sought access under the Act to the titles of books contained in receipts for books purchased over several years by the Political Science Department at a campus of the University of Toronto. The university issued a decision denying access pursuant to the research exclusion in section 65(8.1)(a) of the Act. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the records are not excluded and orders the university to issue an access decision on the information at issue, the book titles.

The municipality received a request under the Act for an investigator’s report resulting from an allegation of harassment made against the requester by an employee of the municipality. The municipality issued a decision that no responsive records exist relating to the request. The requester appealed the municipality’s decision on the basis that responsive records should exist. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the municipality provided sufficient evidence to show that a complaint was not made against the requester and the municipality’s search was reasonable. He dismisses the appeal.

This interim order deals with the appeals from two access decisions made under the Act in response to requests for records relating to retaining walls and tree protection plans at specified addresses. The city denied access to responsive records on the basis of section 15(a) (information published or available to the public). During mediation, the appellant raised the issue of the reasonableness of the city’s search.

In this order, the adjudicator does not uphold the city’s decisions. She also finds that the city did not conduct a reasonable search. The adjudicator orders the city to disclose the records to the appellant and to conduct a further search.

The appellant submitted a six-part request under the Act to the town for records relating to a specific by-law. The town located records responsive to the appellant’s request and issued an access decision granting them partial access. The town withheld two records under the personal privacy exemption in section 14(1) of the Act. The appellant appealed the town’s decision and claimed additional responsive records ought to exist, thereby raising reasonable search as an issue. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the town’s decision to withhold the records under section 14(1) and the town’s search as reasonable. The appeal is dismissed.

The university submitted a request for reconsideration of Order PO-4423, in which the adjudicator reduced its fee estimate for the time to be spent preparing records for disclosure. The university sought reconsideration claiming an accidental error in the adjudicator’s calculation.

In this order, the adjudicator finds that the university has established grounds for reconsideration on the basis of an accidental error under section 18.01(c) of the IPC Code of Procedure and upholds the university’s original fee estimate for preparation time.

The appellant submitted a request for reconsideration of Order PO-4417, which upheld the OLG’s search for responsive records. In his reconsideration request, the appellant claimed that there was an error in the order. In this reconsideration order, the adjudicator denies the reconsideration request because the appellant has not established any of the grounds for reconsideration under section 18.01 of the IPC’s Code of Procedure.

The City of Toronto received a request for access to architectural drawings for a residential property. The city issued a decision granting access to responsive records. The homeowner appealed the city’s decision, claiming that the records are exempt under the mandatory exemption in section 10(1) (third party information) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator finds that the records at issue are not exempt under section 10(1), and upholds the city’s decision to disclose them with the appellant’s name removed.

The complainant sought access, under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (PHIPA), to a complete copy of her own medical records from her former physician (the custodian). The custodian located the requested records and granted her complete access to them. The complainant filed a complaint on the basis that additional records responsive to her request should exist. In this decision, the adjudicator upholds the custodian’s search as reasonable and dismisses the complaint.

The requester and another individual were involved in an incident to which the Ontario Provincial Police (the OPP) responded and about which police reports were generated. The requester sought access to these reports from the Ministry of the Solicitor General (the ministry) under the Act. The ministry claimed the discretionary personal privacy exemption in section 49(b) to deny access portions of the responsive reports.

In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision that the information at issue in the police reports is exempt by reason of section 49(b).