Decisions

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.

At issue in this appeal is whether the appellant’s request to Conservation Halton (CH) is frivolous or vexatious under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA). In this order the adjudicator finds that CH has established that the request is frivolous or vexatious under section 4(1)(b) of MFIPPA. He upholds CH’s decision to deny access on that basis and imposes conditions on any current and future requests submitted by the appellant to CH, as well as conditions on appeals of CH’s decisions.

Toronto Metropolitan University (the university) received a request from the appellant for access to information about herself. The university denied access to one of eight responsive records, an email thread discussing the appellant and student events. The university claimed that the record is exempt under section 49(a) (discretion to refuse requester’s own information) read with 13(1) (advice or recommendations) of the Act because it contains advice or recommendations, and under section 49(b) because it contains mixed personal information belonging to the appellant and a university employee. In this order, the adjudicator partially upholds the university’s decision. She finds that a portion of the record is exempt under section 49(a) read with section 13(1), and that a portion of the record is exempt under section 49(b). She orders the university to disclose a severed version of the record to the appellant.

The appellant sought access to records under the Act from the Toronto Police Services Board (the police) related to his murder conviction. The police denied access to the responsive police reports and witness interviews, relying on the discretionary personal privacy exemption in section 38(b).

In this order, the adjudicator orders disclosure of the interviews of the witnesses that were interviewed in their professional capacity and determines that the section 38(b) exemption applies to the remaining information at issue in the records.

An individual made a request under the Act to the ministry for access to all information about himself held by the Ontario Provincial Police, including records relating to allegations of him being a member of any motorcycle clubs. Citing section 14(3) of the Act, the ministry refused to confirm or deny the existence of records on the basis that any records, if they exist, would be exempt under law enforcement exemptions in the Act. The adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records under section 14(3).

This order deals with an access decision made by the Ministry of Education (the ministry) under the Act for any final products, including reports, delivered to the ministry by a named company during a specified time frame in order to fulfill its consulting contracts related to COVID-19. The ministry denied access to the records, claiming the application of the mandatory Cabinet Record exemption in section 12(1). In this order, the adjudicator finds that the records are exempt from disclosure under the introductory wording in section 12(1), and the appeal is dismissed.

North Bay Hydro Distribution Limited (NBHDL) received a request under the Act for details and results of any calculations showing financial benefits resulting from NBHDL’s purchase of Espanola Hydro. NBHDL located a responsive record and after seeking the views of an affected third party, it denied access to the record pursuant to section 10(1) (third party information) and 11 (economic and other interests). The requester appealed NBHDL’s decision. In this order, the adjudicator upholds NBHDL’s decision and finds that section 10(1) applies to exempt the record from disclosure.

The City of Sarnia (the city) received a request for permit application drawings for a specified address. The city granted access to the records and notified affected parties of their decision. An affected party appealed the decision, stating that the drawings were exempt from disclosure under section 10(1) (third-party information) of the Act.

In this order, the adjudicator upholds the city’s decision. He finds that the drawings are not exempt from disclosure and orders them disclosed.

This decision concerns a complainant’s request under Part X of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (the Act) for access to records about her deceased uncle and her entire family. It considers whether there is a right of access in Part X to records of a deceased individual’s personal information that relate to the provision of a service to the individual. It also considers the potential relevance of sections of Part X that permit or require the disclosure of personal information in some circumstances.

In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the complainant does not have a right of access to the personal information of her deceased uncle and of her family members under the Act. The records are not records of the complainant’s personal information and they do not relate to the provision of a service to her. Part X of the Act does not contain explicit authority for an individual to act on behalf of a deceased individual in respect of the deceased individual’s personal information; as a result, the complainant cannot make a request for access to her deceased uncle’s records on his behalf. In addition, the complainant has not demonstrated that she is lawfully authorized under the Act to make a request on behalf of her other family members for access to records about them. The adjudicator also upholds the service provider’s decision that none of the sections of Part X permitting or requiring disclosure of personal information applies in the circumstances. As a result, she dismisses the complaint.

Under FIPPA, the appellant made a request to Hamilton Health Sciences (the hospital) for statistical and other information relating to the work of the Child Advocacy and Assessment Program (CAAP) at a particular hospital location. The appellant asserts that her child was misdiagnosed by the CAAP team as a victim of child abuse, and she seeks information relating to the number and outcomes of similar incidents over the past 10 years. The hospital denies the appellant’s characterization of the work of CAAP, including the assertion that CAAP team members diagnose child abuse or make child abuse allegations. Ultimately the hospital denied the appellant’s request on the basis it does not compile the type of information she seeks.

In this order, the adjudicator explains her reasons for declining to conduct an inquiry of this matter under FIPPA. She accepts the evidence that the requested information does not exist in the form sought by the appellant, and finds there is no obligation under FIPPA for the hospital to conduct a search or to create a responsive record in the circumstances. She dismisses the appeal.

The appellant sought access to a police report regarding a complaint he had filed with the police. The police granted access to the report, but withheld portions of it pursuant to section 38(b) (personal privacy) of the Act. In this order, the adjudicator allows the appeal in part. He finds that portions related to statements made by affected parties to the police are exempt from disclosure, but orders portions related to statements made by the appellant disclosed.

The Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board (the board) submitted a request for reconsideration of Order MO-4354, claiming a jurisdictional defect. In this reconsideration order, the adjudicator finds that the board has not established any of the grounds for reconsideration in section 18.01 of the IPC’s Code of Procedure, including a jurisdictional defect in section 18.01(b), denies the reconsideration request and orders the board to comply with Order MO-4354.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General (the ministry) received a request for an Ontario Provincial Police occurrence report. The ministry granted partial access to the report and the appellant continued to seek the name and address of an affected party, withheld under section 49(b) (personal privacy) of the Act.

In this order, the adjudicator finds that the withheld personal information is not exempt under section 49(b). He orders the information disclosed.

In this decision, the adjudicator finds that Woburn Medical Dental Centre Inc. is the health information custodian of the records of personal health information alleged to have been abandoned. The adjudicator orders the custodian and its agent to retrieve and secure the records. The adjudicator also finds that the use and/or disclosure of the records by certain respondents is governed by section 49(1) of the Act and that some of these respondents have contravened section 49(1) of the Act by withholding some of the records from the custodian. The adjudicator orders these respondents to return these records to the custodian when the custodian attends to retrieve them. The adjudicator makes other orders against some of the respondents necessary to preserve and secure the records until the custodian has retrieved them.

The OMDC received two requests under the Act for records relating to retroactive changes to the Ontario Interactive Digital Media Tax Credit. The OMDC issued a fee estimate for each request and agreed to waive part of the fee when the appellant applied for a fee waiver. The appellant appealed the OMDC’s fee seeking a full fee waiver based on financial hardship and on the basis that dissemination of the records would benefit public health and safety. He also claimed that the FOI coordinator at the OMDC was in a conflict of interest as she was also the executive assistant to the CEO. In this order, the adjudicator does not order a further fee waiver and finds that the FOI coordinator and the CEO of the OMDC are not in a conflict of interest in responding to his requests. The appeal is dismissed.