Dernières décisions

Under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (PHIPA), the complainant made requests to a public hospital for deletions and other changes to her records of personal health information. The complainant alleges that the information she seeks to have removed relates to a doctor’s factually incorrect diagnosis of her. The hospital refused the requests, including on the basis the information at issue consists of professional opinions or observations made in good faith, and thus qualifies for the exception at section 55(9)(b) to the duty to correct in section 55(8) of PHIPA.

After considering the circumstances of the complaint, the adjudicator exercises her discretion not to conduct a review of the matter under PHIPA. Among other reasons, she finds that the hospital has responded adequately to the complaint in the circumstances, and that no useful purpose would be served by reviewing a complaint in which the complainant seeks deletions to her records and other remedies that are not available in PHIPA. She dismisses the complaint.

The adjudicator also addresses as a preliminary matter the complainant’s allegations that the IPC discriminated against her and failed to accommodate her disability in the IPC complaint process. She finds that in the absence of information from the complainant to support an accommodation request, it is reasonable to proceed with her consideration of the complaint.

An individual submitted a correction request under the Personal Health Information Protection Act to St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital, seeking correction to a consulting doctor’s report about him because he believed it to be inaccurate. The hospital denied the correction request, pursuant to the exception for good faith professional opinion or observation in section 55(9)(b) of PHIPA. The adjudicator finds that section 55(9)(b) applies and she upholds the hospital’s decision not to make the requested correction. No order is issued.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario received a complaint alleging that the Ministry of Transportation (the ministry) contravened the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) when it disclosed the complainant’s personal information to a parking lot operator and a collection agency. This report finds that the information at issue is “personal information” as defined in section 2(1) of the Act and that the personal information was disclosed in accordance with sections 42(1)(c) and 43 of the Act.

The complainant made a request under the Act for records relating to her late mother’s admittance at the Southlake Regional Health Centre (the custodian). The custodian located records responsive to the request and granted the complainant complete access to them. The complainant filed a complaint to the IPC on the basis that additional records ought to exist. In this decision, the adjudicator upholds the custodian’s search and dismisses the complaint.

An adopted person made a request to the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (CASO) under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (the CYFSA or the Act), for access to all information about himself, including information about his birth parents. The CASO granted partial access to the requested records, having severed all identifying information about the requester’s birth parents. The requester filed a complaint with the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario (the IPC) because he seeks access to his birth parents’ identifying information.

The adjudicator finds that the identifying information about the requester’s birth parents is excluded from the scope of Part X of the CYFSA under the exception at section 285(4)(a) as information that relates to an adoption. As a result of the application of the exception, Part X does not apply to the requested information and the requester does not have a right of access to his birth parents’ identifying information under that part. The complaint is dismissed.

This decision addresses both an individual complaint and an IPC-initiated investigation into a hospital’s practices around its agents’ use of personal health information for education purposes. In the individual complaint, a hospital patient alleged that a doctor had improperly accessed her health records while claiming an education purpose for the accesses. The patient’s allegations raised broader questions about whether the hospital had in place adequate information practices to govern this use of personal health information by its agents. The IPC opened the self-initiated investigation to address those systemic issues.

In this decision, the adjudicator finds there were a number of unauthorized accesses to the patient’s health records. These accesses were made in violation of the hospital’s policy on education use, which permits patients to refuse consent to this use, and the patient’s withdrawal of consent under the policy. The adjudicator finds these accesses were violations of the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (PHIPA). After considering the circumstances surrounding the accesses, she concludes they were largely the result of systemic deficiencies in the information practices around education use that the hospital had in place at the time. These were failures by the hospital to comply with its obligations under PHIPA, including its duty to take reasonable steps to protect personal health information in its custody or control.

The adjudicator then considers a number of changes the hospital has already made or has committed to making to its information practices in response to the breaches, as well as the hospital’s cooperation throughout the IPC process. In view of all the circumstances, she finds it unnecessary to issue orders against the hospital. However, she provides guidance to the hospital in the form of three key recommendations, as well as some additional recommendations, for further improvements to its information practices in relation to the use of personal health information for education purposes.

The complainant, a patient of a regional cancer centre within a public hospital, alleged that Cancer Care Ontario collected and used his personal health information, obtained through a cancer symptoms survey, without his valid consent and without legal authority. He also expressed concerns about the survey, including that it should have clearly stated that its completion was voluntary. Cancer Care Ontario responded that various sections of the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 and its regulations authorize it to provide the survey to the hospital, collect personal health information from the hospital and store personal health information from the survey in a database. In some of these transactions, Cancer Care Ontario acts in its capacity as a health information network provider, while in others, it acts in its capacity as a prescribed entity. Cancer Care Ontario also took steps to address the complainant’s concerns, including updating the survey to make it clearer that completion of the survey was voluntary.
The adjudicator determines that Cancer Care Ontario has responded adequately to the complaint and there are no reasonable grounds to conduct a review. As a result, she declines to conduct a review and she dismisses the complaint.

The complainant, a patient of a regional cancer centre within a public hospital, filed a complaint against the hospital about a cancer symptoms survey he completed at the cancer centre. He complained that the hospital collected his personal health information through the survey and then disclosed it to Cancer Care Ontario, without a valid consent. He also complained about the hospital’s privacy practices and privacy training in respect of how hospital staff registered him for his appointment and how a hospital volunteer assisted him with the survey, and regarding the placement of the survey kiosks. Finally, the complainant asked that his survey responses be removed from his health records with the hospital.
The hospital responded that it had the complainant’s implied consent to collect and use his personal health information in the survey, in accordance with the requirements of the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004. The hospital also responded that the Act permitted the hospital to use the services of Cancer Care Ontario (in its capacity as a health information network provider) to collect the complainant’s personal health information through the survey and use it, and to disclose personal health information to Cancer Care Ontario (in its capacity as a prescribed entity). In addition, the hospital confirmed that it provided additional training to its staff and volunteers, added language to the survey to highlight that it was voluntary, and determined that the privacy screen software it used for the kiosks was adequate. Finally, the hospital acknowledged the complainant’s concerns about the validity of his consent and advised him that while it could not remove his survey responses from his health records, it could take steps to preclude the use of his survey responses going forward.
The adjudicator determines that the hospital has responded adequately to the complaint and there are no reasonable grounds to conduct a review. As a result, she declines to conduct a review and she dismisses the complaint.

The complainant, a teacher named in two reports made by a third party to the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto about a child in need of protection, sought access to “records of service” relating to himself. CAST refused the complainant’s access request on the basis that it did not provide a “service” to him within the meaning of section 312(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and, therefore, he has no right of access under the Act. The complainant sought a review of CAST’s decision by the IPC.

The adjudicator upholds CAST’s decision that the complainant has no right of access to the records under section 312(1) of the Act because the records do not relate “to the provision of a service” to him. The adjudicator dismisses the complaint.

The complainant submitted a correction request under section 55(1) of the Personal Health Information Protection Act (the Act) to the Appletree Medical Group (Appletree) with respect to information contained in a record relating to a walk-in visit at a clinic run by Appletree. Appletree denied the correction request under section 55(8) of the Act, on the basis that the complainant had not established that the record is incomplete or inaccurate for the purposes for which the Appletree uses the information. In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the complainant has not established that the record is incomplete or inaccurate for the purposes for which Appletree uses the information and she upholds Appletree’s refusal to correct the record. No order is issued.

The complainant alleged that a staff member of the Ontario Provincial Police (the OPP) had inappropriately accessed and disclosed an OPP incident report that contained her personal information. The ministry responsible for the OPP admitted that the complainant’s personal information had been accessed in violation of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act).

In this report, I find that the complainant’s incident report was accessed by an OPP sergeant without authorization on at least two occasions. In the absence of sufficient evidence, I do not find that the incident report was subsequently disclosed to the complainant’s spouse, but I do conclude that the incident report number was disclosed by an unknown OPP employee contrary to the Act. I conclude that the ministry does not have reasonable measures in place to protect personal information in its database, as required by section 4(1) of Regulation 460. I recommend improvements to the privacy policies and procedures, privacy training, and auditing of accesses to personal information. I also recommend that the ministry disclose the disciplinary measures imposed on the sergeant as a result of the inappropriate accesses.

The complainant submitted a request to the hospital for access to video surveillance clips of herself during an involuntary hospitalization ordered under the Mental Health Act. The hospital denied the complainant access to the responsive records. The hospital claims that granting the complainant access to the records could reasonably be expected to result in a risk of serious harm to the treatment or recovery of the complainant or a risk of serious bodily harm to the complainant or another person under section 52(1)(e)(i) of PHIPA.

The adjudicator finds that the records are not “dedicated primarily to” the complainant’s personal health information (PHI). Accordingly, the complainant’s right of access under PHIPA is limited to her PHI that can reasonably be severed from the records. The adjudicator finds that the exemption under section 52(1)(e)(i) of PHIPA does not apply to the records and that the records are comprised wholly of the complainant’s PHI. Accordingly, the adjudicator orders the hospital to grant the complainant access to the records in full.

A public hospital (the hospital) contacted the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) to report a privacy breach under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (PHIPA or the Act). Specifically, a hospital employee inappropriately accessed highly sensitive personal health information (phi) of a family member. In light of the steps taken by the hospital to address the breach, no formal review of this matter will be conducted under Part VI of PHIPA.

The complainant submitted a correction request under the Personal Health Information Protection Act to a neurologist to correct two consultation reports the neurologist had prepared. The neurologist refused to make the requested corrections, relying on section 55(8) and/or 55(9) and the complainant filed a complaint with the IPC. The adjudicator finds that the complainant has failed to demonstrate that the information in the records is incomplete or inaccurate for the purposes for which the neurologist uses the information. As a result, the neurologist’s decision not to make the requested corrections is upheld.

The complainant sought access to video footage of events leading up to, and including his restraint and placement in a seclusion room by hospital staff.

In PHIPA Decision 123, the adjudicator ordered the hospital to grant the complainant access to the portions of the video footage containing his personal health information that she determined can reasonably be severed from the exempt portions.

The hospital sought a reconsideration of PHIPA Decision 123. In this reconsideration decision, the adjudicator finds that the claimed grounds for reconsideration in sections 27.01(d) of the Code of Procedure for Matters under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 and/or section 64(1) of the Personal Health Information Protection Act is established. Accordingly, the hospital’s reconsideration request is granted in part, and as a result the adjudicator varies the order provisions in PHIPA Decision 123.