Decisions

The appellant submitted a request for reconsideration of Order PO-4455, claiming jurisdictional defects and breaches of natural justice in the decision. In this reconsideration order, the adjudicator finds that the appellant has not established any of the grounds for reconsideration contemplated in section 18.01 of the IPC’s Code of Procedure and denies the reconsideration request.

In CYFSA Decision 11, the complainant, a former child in care, sought access under Part X of the Act for her entire file with the Family and Children’s Services Niagara (the service provider). The service provider granted the complainant partial access to two files relying on certain exemptions under the Act. Following a review, the adjudicator ordered the service provider to grant the complainant greater access to records contained in the complainant’s care file having found that the records in this file are dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the complainant and that no exemption applied.

However, the adjudicator upheld the service provider’s decision to deny access to records contained in the protection file, finding that the exemption at section 312(1)(d)(iii) of the Act (identification of an individual who provided information explicitly or implicitly in confidence) applied.

The complainant requested reconsideration of CYFSA Decision 11. In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the complainant has not established any ground for reconsideration of the decision and denies the complainant’s request.

In CYFSA Decision 12, the complainant, a former child in care, sought access under Part X of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (the Act) for her entire file with the Family and Children’s Services Niagara (the service provider). The service provider granted the complainant partial access to two files relying on certain exemptions under the Act. The adjudicator ordered the service provider to grant the complainant greater access to records contained in the complainant’s care file having found that the records in this file are dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the complainant and that no exemption applied.

However, the adjudicator upheld the service provider’s decision to deny access to records contained in the protection file, finding that the exemption at section 312(1)(d)(iii) of the Act (identification of an individual who provided information explicitly or implicitly in confidence) applied.

The complainant requested reconsideration of CYFSA Decision 12. In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the complainant has not established any ground for reconsideration of the decision and denies the complainant’s request.

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (the WSIB) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to recordings of WSIB phone calls for a particular claim number. The WSIB issued a decision stating that records responsive to the appellant’s request do not exist, claiming that the WSIB only retains phone call recordings for a 90-day period. The appellant appealed the WSIB’s decision to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, because he believes recordings should exist. The appeal was transferred to the adjudication stage, where an adjudicator may conduct an inquiry under the Act.

Based on her review of the file, the adjudicator is satisfied that ordering the WSIB to conduct further searches would not yield any records because of the WSIB’s 90-day retention policy for recordings. In this order, the adjudicator exercises her discretion under section 52(1) of the Act to not conduct an inquiry and dismisses the appeal.

The requester sought access under the Act to records about a specific residential property in the City of Thunder Bay (the city). The city issued a decision denying access to some of the responsive records pursuant to section 12 (solicitor-client privilege) and some information under section 14(1) (personal privacy) of the Act. The city stated that it was charging a fee. The requester and the owners of the property appealed the city’s decision. The requester also appealed the city’s fee and claimed that the city had not conducted a reasonable search for responsive records.

In this order, the adjudicator partially upholds the application of section 14(1). She upholds the application of section 12. She does not uphold the fee. Finally, she orders the city to conduct another search for responsive records.

The complainant is a joint custodial parent of two minor children who received counselling services from the custodian, a doctor. Under PHIPA, the complainant made a request to the doctor for all communications between the doctor, the complainant, and the other joint custodial parent (the children’s father) regarding the children’s counselling services. The doctor denied the complainant’s request, including on the basis the responsive emails are not records of the children’s personal health information, and that the children’s father did not consent to release of the emails to the complainant.

The ministry submitted a request for reconsideration of Order PO-4411-F pursuant to section 18.01(a) of the IPC’s Code of Procedure, claiming fundamental defects in the decision. In this reconsideration order, the adjudicator finds that the ministry has not established a ground under section 18.01(a) for reconsideration and denies the reconsideration request.

An affected third party opposed disclosure of a record ordered disclosed by Order MO-4403. They submitted a request for reconsideration, claiming a defect pursuant to section 18.01(a) of the IPC’s Code of Procedure and submitted fresh submissions in support of their position against disclosure. The adjudicator finds that the grounds for reconsideration in section 18.01 have not been established and that the submission of additional representations does not establish a basis for reconsidering the order pursuant to section 18.02. The adjudicator denies the reconsideration request.

The appellant sought access, under the Act, to information from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (the ministry) related to the emission capacity of a proposed asphalt plant to be operated by the affected party. The ministry located a report containing this information and ultimately decided to grant access to it in full. The affected party appealed the ministry’s decision claiming that certain emission rate information is exempt under the mandatory third party information exemption in section 17(1) of the Act.

In this order, the adjudicator finds that the affected party has not established that section 17(1) applies to the report. She upholds the ministry’s decision to disclose the report to the appellant.

An affected third party opposed disclosure of a record ordered disclosed by Order MO-4403. They submitted a request for reconsideration of the order, claiming a defect pursuant to section 18.01(a) of the IPC’s Code of Procedure. The adjudicator finds that the grounds for reconsideration in section 18.01(a) have not been established and denies the reconsideration request.

The appellant sought access to the monthly number of internal disciplinary measures applied to members of the Sault Ste. Marie Police Services Board (the SSMPS) between January 2015 and April 2021. Relying on section 52(3)3 of the Act, SSMPS took the position that the responsive record is excluded from the scope of the Act. In this order the adjudicator finds that the Act does not apply to the record, upholds SSMPS’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

The complainant is the parent of a child whose sudden death was investigated by the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP). Under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (PHIPA), the complainant made a request to a named physician (Dr. X) with privileges at the respondent hospital for access to a report and related records arising from the OPP’s request for an expert opinion to assist in the OPP’s death investigation. The hospital responded to the request on behalf of Dr. X, based on its initial position that responsive records would be hospital records. Later, during the IPC’s review, it became clear that the records sought by the complainant arose from the OPP’s retainer of Dr. A (a different physician with privileges at the hospital), and not Dr. X, for an expert opinion to assist the OPP in their investigation.

Through its various searches, the hospital located responsive records in its email system. These include Dr. A’s expert opinion report for the OPP, records the OPP provided to Dr. A for the purpose of the expert opinion, and other communications between Dr. A and the OPP relating to the retainer agreement executed between them for the expert opinion. The records also include an email between Dr. A and Dr. X, with whom Dr. A consulted about the expert opinion. Ultimately, the hospital denied access to all responsive records on various grounds in PHIPA and in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The complainant took issue with the hospital’s decisions and complained to the IPC.

In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the complainant has no right of access to the records under PHIPA or under FIPPA. She finds that the responsive records are OPP records relating to the investigation into the death of the complainant’s child, and are not subject to the access provisions in PHIPA because they are not records of personal health information in the custody or under the control of the hospital, or of Drs. A or X, acting in the capacity of a health information custodian for the purposes of PHIPA. The adjudicator also finds that the records are not in the custody or under the control of the hospital for the purpose of the access provisions in FIPPA. In the result, the adjudicator upholds the hospital’s denial of access to the records under PHIPA and FIPPA and dismisses the complaint.

The complainant sought access to her records of personal health information from Pond Mills Medical Clinic (the custodian). This decision determines that the custodian is deemed to have refused the complainant’s request for access. The custodian is ordered to provide a response to the complainant regarding her request for access to records of her personal health information in accordance with the Personal Health Information Protection Act.

The complainant sought a review of the hospital’s decision to deny her request for access to her deceased son’s hospital records, under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004, because she was not authorized to exercise a right of access on the deceased’s behalf. The hospital exercised its discretion to disclose some of the deceased’s personal health information to the complainant – the circumstances of his death – as permitted by section 38(4)(b) of the Act.

The adjudicator determines that no review is warranted under sections 57(3) and 57(4)(a) of the Act because there are no reasonable grounds to review the complaint and the hospital has responded adequately to the complaint. The complainant has no right of access to her deceased son’s personal health information under the Act and she has received from the hospital the limited personal health information that may be disclosed without consent under section 38(4)(b) of the Act.

An adopted person and former child in care made a request to Family and Children’s Services Niagara (FACS Niagara) under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA or the Act), for access to all records containing his personal information, including his adoption file. FACS Niagara granted partial access to the requested records, disclosing all non-identifying information to the requester. The requester filed a complaint with the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (the IPC) because he seeks access to all records containing his personal information, without redactions.

In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the information in the records is excluded from the scope of Part X of the CYFSA under section 285(4)(a) because it is information related to an adoption. As a result of the application of the exclusion, Part X does not apply and the requester does not have a right of access to the redacted information under that part. The complaint is dismissed.