Decisions

This matter arises from a community health centre’s report to the IPC about the publication of a magazine article describing the experiences of an unnamed child involved in the child welfare system. The centre identified the child as a recipient of its services, and the article’s author as the partner of a centre employee who provided health care services to the child. The centre asserts that through her involvement in the article, the employee breached the child’s privacy, in violation of the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (PHIPA).
In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the employee breached PHIPA through the improper use of the child’s personal health information in the custody or control of the centre, for purposes unrelated to her duties as an agent of the centre. The resulting magazine article does not contain identifying information of the child that qualifies as “personal health information” within the meaning of PHIPA; as a result, its publication was not a disclosure of personal health information to the broader public. In the circumstances, which include the employee’s departure from the centre, the adjudicator declines to make any orders. However, she recommends some changes to the centre’s information practices to address some gaps, including around its agents’ publication of client information.

The appellant asked Agricorp for records containing data about grape production in Ontario. Agricorp denied the appellant access to some of the responsive records, claiming that the exemption for third-party information at section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applied to them. In this decision, the adjudicator finds the third-party exemption applies to the information Agricorp withheld and she dismisses the appeal.

The city of Hamilton (the city) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records related to the receipt of social assistance by tenants at a particular address (where the requester is the landlord). The city decided that it could not confirm or deny whether there were responsive records [section 14(5) of the Act]. The adjudicator upholds the city’s decision to do so and finds that there is no public interest in disclosure of the records, if they exist, under the “public interest override” (section 16 of the Act).

An individual made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery for access to an agreement with a named company for record storage services. The ministry issued a decision granting full access to the agreement. The named company appealed the decision on the basis that the exemption for third party information at 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 upholds the ministry’s decision to disclose the information and dismisses the appeal.

A school board received a request for information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for pricing information contained in a contract with student transportation operators. The board denied access to this pricing information, stating that it is third party information subject to the mandatory exemption in section 10(1) of the Act.
In this order, the adjudicator finds the pricing information at issue is not third party information exempt under section 10(1) and orders the board to disclose it.

An individual asked the ministry for information about eligibility criteria and appointments to Professional Engineers Ontario committees under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act). The ministry located records and provided some of them to the individual. The ministry said that it was withholding other information because the Act either permitted or required it to do so. The individual appealed and in this decision, the adjudicator upholds some parts of the ministry’s decision. She orders the ministry to withhold other people’s personal information and agrees with the ministry that some of the information is not responsive to the Act. However, she finds that other information is responsive to the request and orders the ministry to issue an access decision. She does not uphold the ministry’s decision to apply sections 13(1) or 17(1) of the Act and orders the ministry to disclose that information.

A deceased woman’s mother asked the ministry for records relating to her daughter’s death. The ministry decided to grant partial access to the deceased’s personal information contained in Ontario Provincial Police records. The deceased woman’s surviving husband opposes disclosure to her mother of any information about her death. The adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision that there are compassionate reasons to disclose some of the deceased’s personal information to her mother under section 21(4)(d) (compassionate reasons). She discusses how to consider competing positions of spouses and close relatives where compassionate reasons are established under section 21(4)(d).

The Ottawa Community Housing Corporation (OCH) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for records related to three types of contracts. OCH took steps to clarify the request. OCH identified 26 responsive records and decided to disclose 24 of them in full. It decided it needed to withhold parts of the remaining two contracts for certain reasons (exemptions): to protect the personal privacy of individuals whose personal information in one contract [section 14(1)] and to protect third party information in both contracts [section 10(1)]. The requester appealed this decision and raised three more issues: the scope of the request (section 17), the reasonableness of OCH’s search (section 17), and OCH’s compliance with section 23 (which relates to giving a copy of a record or a chance to examine it).
The adjudicator allows the appeal on the issue of section 10(1) because she finds that the information withheld under that exemption does not qualify for that exemption. However, the adjudicator agrees with OCH that the information withheld under section 14(1) is personal information that cannot be disclosed. She also agrees with OCH’s interpretation of the scope of the request and the reasonableness of its search. In addition, the adjudicator finds that OCH complied with section 23 and that the reasons that the appellant raised this issue do not apply in these circumstances.

An individual submitted a request to the South Simcoe Police Services Board (the police) under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for records related to three specific police occurrences. The police granted partial access to the responsive records withholding information under the discretionary personal privacy exemption (section 38(b)), and because some of the information could facilitate commission of an unlawful act (section 38(a) read with section 8(1)(l)) of the Act. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

An individual made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the City of Toronto for its investigation file of a dog bite incident in which he was involved. The city provided some information, including the dog owner’s name and address. The city decided not to provide other details relating to the dog owner because they were exempt under the personal privacy exemption in the Act. The individual appealed stating that they needed the additional information to pursue an action for damages in the small claims court.
In this order, the adjudicator finds that the individual does not have a right of access to additional information about the dog owner because to disclose it would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. The adjudicator upholds the city’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

This final order determines whether the Township of Oro-Medonte (the township) conducted a reasonable search for responsive records in response to Interim Order MO-4561-I about an individual’s request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to records about the municipal water system. In Interim Order MO-4561-I, the adjudicator determined that the township had not conducted a reasonable search for two parts of the individual’s request and ordered it to conduct a further search for records responsive to those parts. In this final order, the adjudicator finds that the township has now conducted a reasonable search for responsive records, and she 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 PHIPA Decision 256, the adjudicator found the custodian did not conduct a reasonable search for the complainant’s medical records and orders him to conduct another search. The custodian conducted another search and did not find any additional records. In this final decision, the adjudicator finds the custodian did not conduct a reasonable search for records but finds no useful purpose in ordering another search. She dismisses the complaint.

An individual made a request to the Regional Municipality of Halton (the municipality) under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to their entire disability management file. The municipality granted partial access to the responsive records. Some of the records were not provided because the municipality claims they are excluded from the Act under the employment or labour relations exclusion (section 52(3)3)). In this order, the adjudicator upholds the municipality’s exclusion claim and finds that it conducted a reasonable search for responsive records.

An individual’s substitute decision maker asked a care home to remove a progress note from the individual’s file, claiming that the progress note is not a record of personal health information and although accurate, implies wrongdoing on the substitute decision-maker’s part. The adjudicator finds that the progress note is a record of personal health information. She finds that it is not incomplete or inaccurate for the purposes for which the care home uses the information, and that no duty to correct the record exists under section 55(8) of the Personal Health Information Protection Act. No order is issued.

A person asked for records about the police’s attendance at her home. The police provided the person with records in response to the request. The person asserts that additional records exist. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s search for records as reasonable and dismisses the appeal.