Decisions

The ministry submitted a request for reconsideration of Order PO-4463, seeking a reconsideration on the grounds that there was a fundamental defect in the adjudication process under section 18.01(a) of the IPC’s Code of Procedure (the Code). In this Reconsideration Order, the adjudicator finds the ministry did not establish that grounds exist under section 18.01 of the Code for reconsidering Order PO-4463, including a fundamental defect in the adjudication process. She denies the reconsideration request and orders the ministry to comply with Order PO-4463.

The appellant submitted a request to the Toronto Metropolitan University (the university) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for records relating to an incident at the Student Resource Centre on a specified date. The university located responsive records and disclosed some of the records and information to him, but portions of some records were withheld under the discretionary exemption in section 49(a) (discretion to refuse requester’s own information), read with sections 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and 19 (solicitor-client privilege), and section 49(b) (personal privacy).

The appellant appealed the university’s decision and also submitted that the university had not conducted a reasonable search. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the withheld portions of the records are exempt from disclosure under section 49(a), read with sections 13(1) and 19(a), and section 49(b). She also finds that the university conducted a reasonable search. She upholds the university’s access decision and dismisses the appeal.

In this order, the adjudicator partially upholds the city’s decision to withhold certain information sought by the appellant under the exemptions for solicitor-client privilege and advice and recommendations (in the context of the exemption pertaining to a right to access one’s own personal information). The adjudicator orders the remaining information to be disclosed to the appellant.

The police received a request under the Act for records relating to the protocols and procedures for the preparation of “Wanted Posters,” including those using photographs obtained from the Ministry of Transportation as well as the specific records used to create the “Wanted in Canada” poster using the personal information of the appellant. In Interim Order MO-4266-I, the adjudicator found that the search for records in response to the request was not reasonable and ordered the police to conduct a further search for responsive records. In this final order, the adjudicator finds that the police’s search is reasonable and dismisses the appeal.

The City of Windsor (the city) received an access request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records related to specified properties. The city issued an access and fee decision granting partial access to responsive records. The appellant appealed the amount of the $256.80 fee. In this order, the adjudicator orders the final fee be reduced to $175.45 as some of the responsive records contain the appellant’s personal information.

The appellant made a request under the Act to the city for access to records relating to a specific Committee of Adjustment application for an identified address. The city issued a decision granting the appellant partial access to the responsive records, which include email correspondence. The city withheld portions of the email correspondence under the personal privacy exemption in section 38(b). The appellant appealed the city’s decision. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the city’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General (the ministry) received a request under the Act for an occurrence report related to the appellant’s deceased son. The ministry disclosed the report, but withheld portions under section 49(a) (discretion to refuse requester’s own information), read with section 14(1)(l) (facilitate commission of an unlawful act), and section 49(b) (personal privacy).

In this order, the adjudicator partially upholds the ministry’s decision. He finds that the information is exempt from disclosure under sections 49(a) and (b), but orders some withheld portions disclosed because disclosure is desirable for compassionate reasons (section 21(4)(d)). He also finds that withholding another portion provided by the appellant to the police would lead to an absurd result, and orders it disclosed.

Under the Act, the appellant sought access to a statement made by a third party to the York Regional Police Services Board (the police) concerning an incident that led to charges against the third party for assault of the appellant. The police denied the appellant access to any part of the statement on the basis its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the third party.

In this interim order, the adjudicator finds that the requested statement contains the personal information of the third party and of the appellant, so that the relevant personal privacy exemption is section 38(b) of the Act. Section 38(b) is a discretionary exemption that permits, but does not require, an institution to refuse to disclose to a requester her own personal information. The police instead applied the personal privacy exemption as if it were a mandatory exemption, based on a fundamental misapprehension of the nature of the record and of the appellant’s greater right of access under the Act to a record of her own personal information. In the circumstances, the adjudicator orders the police to issue a new access decision to the appellant, having regard to the principles set out in this interim order. She remains seized of the appeal to address issues arising from the police’s new access decision.

The Port Hope Police Services Board (the police) received a request under the Act for reports made to the police by a named individual. The police granted partial access to records, but withheld emails sent by the named individual to the police, along with police responses, under sections 38(a) (discretion to refuse requester’s own information), read with 8(1)(e) (endanger life and safety), and section 38(b) (personal privacy).

In this order, the adjudicator finds that the emails are exempt from disclosure under section 38(b) and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant is the father of Soleiman Faqiri, an inmate who died after an altercation with correctional officers at Central East Correctional Centre on December 15, 2016. The Kawartha Lakes Police Service (KLPS), which investigated the inmate’s death, disclosed some records to the appellant in response to his access request under the Act. However, it denied access to other records under a number of exemptions, including sections 8(1)(e) (endanger life or safety), 9(1) (relations with other governments), 13 (threaten safety or health), 14(1) (personal privacy) and 38(a)/(b) (discretion to refuse access to requester’s own personal information). The appellant raised the public interest override in section 16 of the Act and claimed that there is a compelling public interest in disclosing these records that clearly outweighs the purposes of the exemptions claimed by the KLPS.

In this order, the adjudicator finds that the main contents of a significant number of records that qualify for exemption under section 14(1) of the Act must be disclosed to the appellant because the public interest override in section 16 applies to them. These records include 41 typewritten brief synopses of video witness statements that correctional staff provided to the KLPS, a typewritten witness statement provided by a correctional staff person, and 15 handwritten notes prepared by KLPS officers. He orders the KLPS to disclose these records to the appellant but to sever some personal information of correctional staff and other inmates.

The adjudicator also finds that the public interest override in section 16 does not apply to records relating to an Institutional Crisis Intervention Team that was put on standby at the correctional centre on the day the inmate died and the video witness statements of correctional staff and other inmates. He upholds the KLPS’s decision to withhold those records under sections 9(1)(b) and 14(1) respectively.

Finally, the adjudicator finds that the discretionary exemptions in sections 8(1)(e) and 13 do not apply to any information of correctional staff in the records. However, he finds that some information that was found to be exempt from disclosure under section 14(1)(k) (security) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in Order PO-4428 must also be found exempt from disclosure in the records at issue in this appeal under the equivalent provision in section 8(1)(k) of the Act.

The Ministry of Health received a request under the Act for access to records pertaining to its review of the requester’s OHIP billing. The ministry decided to grant the requester partial access to responsive records relying on the law enforcement exemption in section 14(1) and the personal privacy exemption in section 21(1). The requester appealed the ministry’s decision, seeking access to the information withheld pursuant to section 14(1)(c). During mediation, it was agreed that because the records might contain the requester’s personal information, the discretionary exemption to refuse the requester’s own information in section 49(a), read with 14(1)(c), may apply.
In this order, the adjudicator finds that the exemption in section 49(a), read with 14(1)(c), applies to the information at issue. The adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision to withhold the information that she finds exempt and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant submitted a request under the Act for OPP investigative records relating to a named individual. The ministry located responsive records and denied the appellant access to them. The ministry claimed the records were exempt under the mandatory personal privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Act, among other exemptions. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision, finding that all the records are exempt under section 21(1) of the Act. The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant seeks access to four videos featuring commentary by high school students prepared for an online civics course. The videos were made available to school boards across the province until they were removed following controversy surrounding one of them. The Ministry of Education denied access to the videos on the basis that they contain personal information belonging to the students that is exempt under the personal privacy exemption in section 21(1). In this order, the adjudicator finds that the presumptions against disclosure in sections 21(3)(d) (educational history) and 21(3)(h) (racial or ethnic origin or religious or political beliefs) apply to the videos and that they are therefore exempt from disclosure under section 21(1). She upholds the ministry’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

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.