|
|
Document
|
|
P-1213
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
P-9500069
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Health Professions Board
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
BACKGROUND:
This order sets out my decision on the reconsideration of Order P-1088 (issued December 22,
1995). To place this order in context, I will briefly set out the history of the matter.
The Appeal and Order P-1088
The appellant, a former psychiatric patient, submitted complaints to the Ontario College of
Physicians and Surgeons (the College), against two physicians. Subsequently, these complaints
were considered by the Health Disciplines Board (which is now called the Health Professions
Board, and is referred to throughout this order as “the Board”). Under the Freedom of
Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act), the appellant submitted a request for access
to the contents of the Board’s files pertaining to these two complaints.
The request was sent to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Office at the Ministry of Heath
(the Ministry), although the Ministry was not actually mentioned in the request letter.
The response to the appellant’s request was issued on the Ministry’s letterhead and signed by the
Ministry’s Acting Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator. The decision letter
indicates that a search was conducted in the Ministry’s Health Boards Secretariat, and the two
complaint files were located. Access was granted to a large number of records found in these
files. In addition, some records were withheld, in whole or in part, based on the following
exemptions in the Act:
× invasion of privacy - sections 21(1) and 49(b).
A number of records were also withheld under section 65(2)(b), which removes some
information pertaining to patients in a psychiatric facility from the scope of the Act.
The Ministry’s decision letter indicates that the Chair of the Health Professions Board was
responsible for the decision to deny access to records which were fully or partially withheld.
The appellant filed an appeal of the denial of access under the exemptions and under section
65(2)(b).
A Notice of Inquiry was sent to the appellant and the Ministry. This Notice was also sent to two
physicians and another individual, all of whom are mentioned in the records. Representations
were received from the appellant and the Ministry only.
After reviewing the decision letter, the letter of appeal, the records and the representations, I
issued Order P-1088. I found that section 65(2)(b) did not apply to the records for which it had
been claimed, and ordered the Ministry to make an access decision under the Act. Contrary to
statements contained in the representations of several of the parties who have requested a
reconsideration, Order P-1088 did not order disclosure of these records.
With respect to the records for which section 65(2)(b) was not claimed, I considered whether the
exemptions claimed for them in the decision letter were applicable. I upheld the Ministry’s
decision to withhold one record in its entirety, and parts of nine others. I ordered the Ministry to
disclose three records in their entirety, and parts of one other record.
- 2 -
[IPC Order P-1213/June 20, 1996]
The records at issue are described in more detail in Appendix “A” to this order, which also lists
the reason given in the initial decision letter for not disclosing each record which was withheld
either in whole or in part.
The Reconsideration Requests
Subsequent to the issuance of Order P-1088, I received letters from counsel acting for each of the
Board, the College and the College of Nurses, and also from the Ministry, all requesting a
reconsideration of the order.
The Board argued that there was a fundamental defect in the adjudication process amounting to a
denial of natural justice because it was not given notice of its right to make submissions
regarding the appeal. The Board also argued that the order contained a jurisdictional error
because the records should be seen to fall within the exclusions from the Act set out in sections
65(2)(a) and (b).
The College made a similar argument to the effect that it should have been notified of the appeal,
and argued that the interpretation of section 65(2) in the order constituted an error of law.
The College of Nurses supported the requests for reconsideration of the Board and the College,
and asked to be added to the reconsideration and appeal as an interested party.
The Ministry argued that the order contains serious and substantive errors of law in its
interpretation of section 35(1) of the Mental Health Act and section 65(2) of the Act.
The IPC’s Reconsideration Policy Statement describes the threshold for proceeding with a
reconsideration, as follows:
When an application for reconsideration of an order is received, the order should
be reconsidered only where:
1. there is a fundamental defect in the adjudication process
(for example, lack of procedural fairness) or some other
jurisdictional defect in the order, or;
2. there is a typographical or other clerical error in the order
which has a bearing on the decision or where the order does
not express the manifest intention of the decision maker.
An order should not be reconsidered simply on the basis that new evidence is
provided, whether or not that evidence was obtainable at the time of the inquiry.
In the submissions supporting the reconsideration requests, as outlined above, the main
substantive issue raised is the interpretation of section 65(2) of the Act. If it applies, section
65(2) has the effect of excluding records from the scope of the Act, which removes such records
from the IPC’s jurisdiction. Therefore, this “substantive” issue is also a threshold issue in this
reconsideration.
- 3 -
[IPC Order P-1213/June 20, 1996]
For this reason, I sent a letter inviting representations on both threshold and substantive issues
relating to the reconsideration requests. This letter was sent to the appellant, the Board, the
Ministry, the College, the College of Nurses, the hospital where many of the records apparently
originated (the hospital), and the two doctors. When the initial Notice of Inquiry was sent to the
other individual mentioned in the records, it could not be delivered by Canada Post. Without a
current address, it was not possible to contact this individual concerning this reconsideration.
In response to my letter, the appellant, the Board, the College, the College of Nurses, the
Ministry and the hospital all submitted representations.
PRELIMINARY ISSUES:
SHOULD ORDER P-1088 BE RECONSIDERED?
As noted above, an order will be reconsidered if it contains a jurisdictional error. Since section
65(2) excludes records from the scope of the Act, and since my jurisdiction depends, in part, on
the records at issue being subject to the Act, an incorrect finding in Order P-1088 to the effect
that records are not excluded from the scope of the Act by section 65(2) would constitute a
jurisdictional error.
This reconsideration is somewhat unusual because this major substantive issue -- the question of
jurisdictional error and section 65(2) -- is also a threshold issue which must be resolved in
deciding whether to proceed with the reconsideration.
For the sake of simplicity in explaining my decision on the question of whether to reconsider
Order P-1088, I will indicate that, in the substantive discussion below, my conclusion is that
section 65(2)(a) applies to all of the records for which section 65(2)(b) was claimed, and several
additional records, and that these records are, therefore, all excluded from the scope of the Act.
By contrast, in Order P-1088, I found that these records were subject to the Act. Therefore, as
regards these records, Order P-1088 did contain a jurisdictional error. Accordingly, I have
concluded that Order P-1088 must be reconsidered.
STATUS OF PARTIES
As will be apparent from the cover page of this order, I am of the view that the institution in this
case is the Health Professions Board. The Board is listed as a separate institution in the schedule
to Ontario Regulation 460 (made under the Act). While the schedule lists the head of the Board
as the Minister of Health, both the Board and the Ministry agree that the decision-making aspect
of this function has been delegated to the Chair of the Board. These parties also agree that the
Chair of the Board was responsible for the decisions to sever and withhold records, as set out in
the decision letter. Moreover, the records came from the Board’s files, which are in the
possession of the Ministry’s Health Boards Secretariat.
In my view, with the exception of the appellant, all the other participants in this appeal should be
described as intervenors rather than parties, affected parties or affected persons. Although these
other parties clearly have an interest in these proceedings, I find that their interest is not
sufficiently direct to entitle them to be parties. However, because of their experience in the
- 4 -
[IPC Order P-1213/June 20, 1996]
health care field, and in particular, their familiarity with clinical records, I have carefully
considered their representations in reaching my decision in this reconsideration.
DISCUSSION:
PSYCHIATRIC PATIENT RECORDS
Section 65(2) of the Act states as follows:
This Act does not apply to a record in respect of a patient in a psychiatric facility
as defined by section 1 of the Mental Health Act, where the record,
(a) is a clinical record as defined by subsection 35(1) of the
Mental Health Act; or
(b) contains information in respect of the history, assessment,
diagnosis, observation, examination, care or treatment of
the patient.
Section 35(1) of the Mental Health Act (the MHA), referred to in section 65(2)(a) of the Act,
states as follows:
“Clinical record” means the clinical record compiled in a psychiatric facility in
respect of a patient, and includes part of a clinical record.
The Ministry’s decision letter did not refer to section 65(2)(a) of the Act, and this section was
therefore not considered in Order P-1088. The Board, the Ministry, the College, the College of
Nurses and the hospital all referred to it in their reconsideration requests. Because section
65(2)(a) is a jurisdiction-limiting provision, I will consider it in the context of the reconsideration
even though it was not raised until the reconsideration requests were submitted.
One of the requirements of the preamble of section 65(2) is that the records must pertain to a
patient in a “psychiatric facility as defined by section 1 of the [MHA]”. Section 1 of the MHA
defines “psychiatric facility” as one designated as such by regulation under that statute. I am
satisfied that the hospital in question is so designated. I am also satisfied that the appellant was
an in-patient of the hospital between February 22, 1986 and April 17, 1986, and again between
April 23, 1986 and June 19, 1986.
The appellant argues that, because of the reference to a patient “in” a psychiatric facility, section
65(2) cannot apply after discharge. I do not agree with this interpretation. In my view, there is
nothing in the wording of this section to indicate that its provisions are intended to be timelimited
in this way.
Records for which section 65(2) was initially claimed
In the circumstances of this case, it is clear that the records for which section 65(2)(b) was
initially claimed originated with the hospital. Copies of these records were subsequently sent to
- 5 -
[IPC Order P-1213/June 20, 1996]
the College, and later transferred to the Board, in the context of the appellant’s complaints
against two physicians.
In Order P-389, Assistant Commissioner Tom Mitchinson accepted the Ministry’s submissions
to the effect that a copy of a clinical record loses its character as such, for the purposes of section
65(2)(a), once it leaves the psychiatric facility. The following is the relevant extract from Order
P-389:
The representations provided by [the Ministry] support the appellant's view, and
state: ...
... a distinction should be made between clinical records and copies
of clinical records ... only the original clinical record compiled by a
psychiatric facility is a clinical record within the meaning of the
[MHA].
There is no dispute that the records at issue in this appeal are in the custody and
control of [the Ministry of Community and Social Services]. I accept the
representations of [the Ministry] and the appellant, and find that the records are
not "clinical records" as defined by the MHA and, therefore fall outside the scope
of section 65(2)(a) of the Act.
The Board and the other intervenors now argue that this is an incorrect interpretation of section
65(2)(a). This argument is founded on the view which these parties take of the “plain meaning”
of the section. In addition, several of these parties refer to the decision of the Ontario Court
(General Division) in Everingham v. Ontario (1992), 7 O.R. (3d) 291 (leave to appeal to the
Court of Appeal denied at (1992), 9 O.R. (3d) 478).
In Everingham, the applicants were residents of a mental health facility. The Court was
considering whether information derived from the applicants’ clinical records could be
introduced into evidence, in affidavit form, by the respondents. Parts of this evidence derived
from information which had originated in the clinical record but had subsequently been provided
to the Lieutenant Governor’s Board of Review. The Court found that the information taken
directly from the clinical records, and the information from the clinical records obtained from the
Board of Review materials, should all be struck from the affidavit. The Court stated:
In my view, the requirements of section 35 [of the MHA] cannot be disregarded
simply because copies of the clinical records have somehow come into the
Board’s possession.
In other words, the Court found that the fact that some clinical records had left the psychiatric
institution, and were in the possession of some other body, did not alter their character as clinical
records, and the prohibitions against disclosure in section 35 of the MHA would still apply. This
would also be the case for information taken from clinical records which appears in another
document.
- 6 -
[IPC Order P-1213/June 20, 1996]
In my view, the Everingham case is relevant to the interpretation of section 65(2)(a), since it
refers to clinical records as defined in section 35(1) of the MHA. In my view, therefore, a record
does not lose its status as a “clinical record” just because it has been copied and forwarded to
another institution such as the Board.
I am satisfied that all of the records for which the Ministry claimed section 65(2)(b) are, in fact,
copies of parts of the clinical record compiled by the hospital. This includes Records 18, 34, 41
and 43, which I excluded from the scope of section 65(2)(b) in Order P-1088 because of their
contents. It also includes Records 19, 21, 22 and 27, which I excluded from the scope of section
65(2)(b) because they were not created during the periods when the appellant was an in-patient
of the hospital. I will explain my conclusions about these particular records in more detail.
Record 18 is a consent by the appellant to disclosure of a clinical record. Records 34, 41 and 43
are authorizations re: personal effects. It might appear that, given their contents, these records
are not properly part of a “clinical record”.
On this point, the Health Professions Board submits that:
... parts of the clinical record cannot be severed for disclosure purposes.
Subsection 35(1) of the [MHA] provides that the terms “clinical record” includes
“part of a clinical record”. ... There do not exist multiple “records” in this matter
for the purposes of subsection 35(1) of the [MHA].
Similarly, the College submits:
Nor is it correct, in my respectful submission, to take clinical records apart and
treat each page or section as if it were a separate “record” for subsection 65(2)
purposes. That provision speaks of a “record” and refers by inference to a
“compiled” record. It is not proper to “uncompile” the record and then analyze
the resulting ingredients to see whether each of them meets the criteria in
subsection 65(2).
Based on the reference to “the clinical record compiled in a psychiatric facility” (emphases
added) in the definition of “clinical record” in section 35(1) of the MHA, I agree with these
submissions, up to a point. In my view, however, there must be some logical connection
between a document and the patient in order for it to be part of that individual’s clinical record
within the meaning of section 65(2)(a) of the Act and section 35(1) of the MHA. For instance, it
would not be reasonable to find that these provisions are intended to include misfiled documents
which have no connection whatsoever to the patient. It is clear that Records 18, 34, 41 and 43 all
relate to the appellant, and are part of the hospital’s compiled record concerning him. In the
circumstances, I am satisfied that Records 18, 34, 41 and 43 are copies of parts of the “clinical
record” within the meaning of section 65(2)(a).
Records 19, 21, 22 and 27 consist of “progress notes” recorded by a physician, but they fall
outside the periods when the appellant was an in-patient of the hospital. However, I note that
section 35(1) of the MHA defines “patient” as follows:
- 7 -
[IPC Order P-1213/June 20, 1996]
“Patient” includes former patient, out-patient, former out-patient and anyone who
is or has been detained in a psychiatric facility.
In my view, this definition is relevant to a consideration of section 65(2) of the Act because that
section refers to the definition of “clinical record” in section 35(1) of the MHA, which itself
includes the word “patient”. Therefore, in my view, I am obliged to consider the definition of
“patient” in section 35(1) of the MHA in determining the meaning of “clinical record”.
I conclude that, when Records 19, 21, 22 and 27 were created, the appellant was a “former
patient”, and therefore he meets the definition of “patient” in section 35(1) of the MHA.
Because I am also satisfied that, in all other respects, these records formed part of the hospital’s
clinical record regarding the appellant, I conclude that they are copies of part of the “clinical
record” within the meaning of section 65(2)(a).
Therefore, because of the Everingham decision and my conclusion that all of the records for
which the Ministry originally claimed section 65(2)(b) are, in fact, copies of parts of the
hospital’s “clinical record”, they are all excluded from the scope of the Act under section
65(2)(a).
Other Records
As previously noted, the decision letter issued in response to the appellant’s request, which set
out the Board’s decision to withhold some records in their entirety, and parts of others, did not
claim that section 65(2) applied to all of the records at issue. The decision letter treated the
remaining records as being subject to the Act, and the exemptions in sections 21(1) and, in some
cases, 49(b), were claimed (see Appendix “A”).
The records which were treated as being subject to the Act consist of Records 1 though 5,
inclusive, Records 10 through 17, inclusive, and Record 45.
These records consist of correspondence between the Board and the physicians against whom the
appellant filed complaints, record of complaint forms regarding these two physicians,
correspondence between one of the physicians and the College, and a letter to the College
pertaining to one of the complaints. There is no suggestion that these records were themselves
ever part of the hospital’s clinical record concerning the appellant.
I have not been provided with any specific argument to the effect that any of these records
should be excluded from the scope of the Act by either section 65(2)(a) or (b) of the Act.
However, because this issue has jurisdictional implications, I will consider it.
I have reviewed the records in question. Records 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 consist of
administrative documents relating to the investigations of the appellant’s complaints by the
College and the Board. None of the information in these records derives from the appellant’s
clinical record at the hospital, and section 65(2)(a) does not apply to them. Nor do they contain
any information which could possibly attract the application of section 65(2)(b) no matter what
standard is applied in that regard. I find that these records are subject to the Act.
- 8 -
[IPC Order P-1213/June 20, 1996]
Record 15 is a letter from one of the physicians to the College in connection with one of the
complaints. Record 17 consists of a letter to the College from an individual who was not
involved in the appellant’s care and/or treatment. In my view, neither of these records contains
any information derived from the clinical record, and section 65(2)(a) does not apply to them.
Nor do they contain any information to which section 65(2)(b) could reasonably be found to
apply. I find that these records are subject to the Act.
Records 5, 16 and 45 all contain a significant amount of information which derives from the
clinical record. Based on the principles enunciated in Everingham, as outlined above, I find that
these three records fall outside the scope of the Act by virtue of section 65(2)(a).
Summary
To summarize, I have found that Records 5 through 9, inclusive, Record 16, and Records 18
through 45, inclusive, fall outside the scope of the Act because they are records to which section
65(2)(a) applies. I have also found that the Act does apply to Records 1 through 4, inclusive,
Records 10 through 15, inclusive, and Record 17.
Because I do not have jurisdiction to consider records which fall outside the scope of the Act, I
will not deal further with the records which are subject to section 65(2)(a).
I do have jurisdiction to consider the records which are subject to the Act. I will, therefore,
consider the exemptions claimed for these records.
INVASION OF PRIVACY
The representations provided in connection with this reconsideration do not provide any new
information or argument concerning the application of the “invasion of privacy” exemptions in
sections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Act. With regard to the records which I have found to be subject
to the Act, my conclusions about the application of these exemptions are the same as those
reached in Order P-1088. However, since I have decided to reconsider Order P-1088, I will set
out these reasons, as they apply to the records properly before me. Therefore, this order entirely
supersedes Order P-1088.
The access decision in this matter (which is set out in a decision letter issued to the appellant on
Ministry letterhead) reflects the decisions of the Chair of the Board, who has delegated decisionmaking
authority from the Minister as “head” of the Board. This decision letter claims that the
withheld parts of Records 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, and Records 15 and 17 in their
entirety, are exempt under section 21(1) or 49(b).
Under section 2(1) of the Act, "personal information" is defined, in part, to mean recorded
information about an identifiable individual, including the individual's name where it appears
with other personal information relating to the individual or where the disclosure of the name
would reveal other personal information about the individual.
I have reviewed the records to determine whether they contain personal information, and if so, to
whom the personal information relates.
- 9 -
[IPC Order P-1213/June 20, 1996]
Records 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15 all pertain to the appellant’s complaint against one of the
physicians (whom I will refer to as “Physician A”). Some of these records consist of
correspondence between the Health Disciplines Board and Physician A, and others are
completed Record of Complaint forms pertaining to Physician A. These documents all identify
the appellant as the complainant and Physician A as the subject of the complaint, and on this
basis, I find that all of them contain the personal information of these individuals.
Record 14 is the Record of Complaint pertaining to the appellant’s complaint against the other
physician (whom I will refer to as “Physician B”). Again, this document identifies the appellant
as the complainant and Physician B as the subject of the complaint, and on this basis, I find that
it contains the personal information of these individuals.
Record 17 is a letter from an individual other than the appellant to the College of Physicians and
Surgeons, pertaining to the appellant’s complaint against Physician A. This letter identifies the
appellant as the complainant and Physician A as the subject of the complaint, and on this basis, I
find that it contains personal information pertaining to both of these individuals. It recounts the
author’s own experiences with Physician A, and on this basis, I find that it also contains the
author’s personal information.
In this appeal, the Ministry has raised the possible application of two “invasion of privacy”
exemptions, namely, sections 21(1) and 49(b).
The section 21(1) exemption can only apply to records which do not contain the requester’s
personal information. As I have found that all the records for which this section has been
claimed do contain the requester’s personal information, section 21(1) is not applicable
(Order M-352).
However, under section 49(b) of the Act, where a record contains the personal information of
both the requester and other individuals and the institution determines that the disclosure of the
information would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy, the
institution has the discretion to deny the requester access to that information. As noted, the
records do contain the personal information of the requester and other individuals, and
accordingly, I will consider whether section 49(b) applies.
In this situation, sections 21(2), (3) and (4) of the Act provide guidance in determining whether
the disclosure of personal information would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal
privacy. Where one of the presumptions found in section 21(3) applies to the personal
information found in a record, the only way such a presumption against disclosure can be
overcome is where the personal information falls under section 21(4) or where a finding is made
that section 23 of the Act applies to the personal information.
If none of the presumptions contained in section 21(3) apply, the institution must consider the
application of the factors listed in section 21(2) of the Act, as well as all other considerations that
are relevant in the circumstances of the case.
The Ministry claims that the factors favouring non-disclosure in sections 21(2)(f) (highly
sensitive information) and 21(2)(h) (information supplied in confidence) apply to the birth date,
licence number and residential address of the physicians. The severances in Records 1, 2, 3, 4,
- 10 -
[IPC Order P-1213/June 20, 1996]
10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 all contain information falling into one or more of these categories. In the
absence of any representations from the physicians, I find that there is insufficient evidence for
me to conclude that sections 21(2)(f) and (h) are relevant considerations with respect to this
information. However, in my view, the nature of this information, and its lack of connection to
the substance of the complaints, is a relevant circumstance favouring non-disclosure. I find that
its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and I uphold the Ministry’s
severances in these records.
Record 15 consists of a letter from Physician A to the College of Physicians and Surgeons
relating to the complaint against him. It contains the personal information of the appellant and
Physician A only. It sets out Physician A’s responses to various matters raised during the
complaint investigation process. The Ministry submits that the factors favouring non-disclosure
in sections 21(2)(f) (highly sensitive information) and 21(2)(h) (information supplied in
confidence) apply. The circumstances support a view that this record was submitted in
confidence, and the existence of a complaint regarding a physician is highly sensitive. I find that
these two factors are relevant considerations with respect to this record.
In Order P-1042, I considered the necessity for an adequate degree of disclosure to one of the
parties in a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment investigation to be a “relevant
circumstance” to be considered under section 21(2). In this regard, I stated:
This factor, which favours disclosure, has not been referred to in previous orders.
It relates to the fairness of administrative processes, and the need for a degree of
disclosure to the parties which is consistent with the principles of natural justice.
In my view, this factor applies to Record 15. In the circumstances, particularly in view of the
fact that Physician A did not submit representations opposing disclosure, I find that this factor
outweighs the factors favouring privacy protection. Therefore, disclosure of Record 15 would
not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and I find that it is not exempt under
section 49(b).
The Ministry argues that the presumed unjustified invasion of privacy in section 21(3)(a)
(medical history, etc.) applies to Record 17. This record outlines the medical history and
treatment of an individual other than the appellant. On this basis, I agree that this presumption
applies. The appellant has raised several subsections of section 21(2) and submits that they
support disclosure. However, even if I were to apply them, they cannot rebut a presumption
under section 21(3) (Order M-170). Sections 21(4) and 23 do not apply to this record, and I find
that it is exempt under section 49(b).
OTHER ISSUES RAISED BY THE APPELLANT
In his representations submitted prior to the issuance of Order P-1088, the appellant indicated his
dissatisfaction with the amount of information disclosed to him by the College in connection
with its investigation of his complaints. He also asked whether there were any notes or
transcripts of the Board’s proceedings to which he might have access. These issues were not
explicitly addressed in Order P-1088, a fact mentioned by the appellant in his representations
submitted in connection with this reconsideration.
- 11 -
[IPC Order P-1213/June 20, 1996]
The College is not an institution under the Act, and I have no jurisdiction to make rulings
concerning its disclosure policies. For this reason, I did not address the appellant’s submission
on this point in my earlier order, and it would not be appropriate for me to deal with it now.
With respect to notes and transcripts of the Board’s proceedings, this issue was not raised as a
ground of appeal in the notice of appeal which the appellant sent to initiate these proceedings.
As a consequence, the parties were not invited to make submissions on it in the initial Notice of
Inquiry. Generally speaking, the representation stage is too late to add new issues to an appeal,
and for this reason, I did not consider this issue as being properly before me in this appeal, and
therefore it was not addressed in Order P-1088.
Moreover, in my view, if the appellant wanted access to notes and transcripts, he should have
submitted a request for them. They are not mentioned in the request which forms the basis for
this appeal. Therefore, if the appellant is still interested in this material, I suggest that he submit
a new request for it.
The appellant has also indicated his objection to the Board, the College and the College of
Nurses gaining knowledge of this case in some allegedly improper way. I would point out to the
appellant that the orders issued by this office are public documents. In my view, there was
nothing improper in the fact that the Board, the College and the College of Nurses became aware
of Order P-1088 and asked that it be reconsidered.
In his representations respecting section 65(2), the appellant has included a reference to the rules
governing disclosure of personal information in section 42 of the Act. These rules relate to
unilateral disclosures by institutions and are irrelevant to an access appeal arising from a request
(Order P-1014).
The appellant’s representations also contain comments on the adequacy of the investigative
processes and the conclusions of the College and the Board, as well as concerns about the
Ontario Health Insurance Plan and the Ontario Legal Aid plan. These submissions have no
bearing on the issues before me.
ORDER:
1. Records 5 through 9, inclusive, Record 16, and Records 18 through 45, inclusive, fall
outside the scope of the Act because they are records to which section 65(2)(a) applies.
2. I uphold the Board’s decision to deny access to Record 17 in its entirety, and to the
information it severed from Records 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.
3. I order the Ministry to disclose Record 15 to the appellant in its entirety by sending a
copy to the appellant on or before July 25, 1996, but not earlier than July 19, 1996.
4. To verify compliance with Provision 3, I reserve the right to require the Ministry to
provide me with a copy of the record which is disclosed to the appellant pursuant to
Provision 3.
- 12 -
[IPC Order P-1213/June 20, 1996]
Original signed by: June 20, 1996
John Higgins
Inquiry Officer
[IPC Order P-1213/June 20, 1996]
APPENDIX A
INDEX OF RECORDS AT ISSUE
RECORD
NUMBER
MINISTRY
PAGE
NUMBER(S) DESCRIPTION
SECTION(S)
ORIGINALLY
CLAIMED
1 3
Letter to Physician A from Health Disciplines
Board dated December 16, 1988
21(1) (record withheld in part)
2 6
Letter to Physician A from Health Disciplines
Board dated April 20, 1988
21(1) (record withheld in part)
3 11
Letter to Physician A from Health Disciplines
Board dated October 3, 1988
21(1) (record withheld in part)
4
C Record of Complaint re Physician A dated
January 4, 1988
21(1) (record withheld in part)
5
64-66 Letter from Physician B to College of
Physicians and Surgeons dated
October 26, 1987
21(1), 49(b)
(whole record withheld)
6
46-49 History and Physical Examination form re
appellant, dated February 26, 1986
65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
7
50-52 Summary of Hospitalization re appellant,
dated May 31, 1986
65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
8
53-54 History and Physical Examination form re
appellant, dated April 23, 1986
65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
9
55-56 Summary of Hospitalization re appellant,
dated June 22, 1986
65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
10
D Letter to Physician A from Health Disciplines
Board dated April 23, 1991
21(1) (record withheld in part)
11
J Letter to Physician A from Health Disciplines
Board dated December 11, 1990
21(1) (record withheld in part)
12
Q Letter to Physician A from Health Disciplines
Board dated April 5, 1990
21(1) (record withheld in part)
13
C Record of Complaint re Physician A dated
November 13, 1989
21(1) (record withheld in part)
14
D Record of Complaint re Physician B dated
November 13, 1989
21(1) (record withheld in part)
15
28-29 Letter from Physician A to College of
Physicians and Surgeons, April 22, 1989
21(1) (whole record withheld)
16
195-196 Letter from Physician A to College of
Physicians and Surgeons dated
October 15, 1989
21(1), 49(b)
(whole record withheld)
- 2 -
[IPC Order P-1213/June 20, 1996]
RECORD
NUMBER
MINISTRY
PAGE
NUMBER(S) DESCRIPTION
SECTION(S)
ORIGINALLY
CLAIMED
17
82-85 Letter to College of Physicians and Surgeons
re Physician A dated May 18, 1989
21(1) (whole record withheld)
18 23
Appellant’s consent to disclosure of a clinical
record dated February 22, 1989
65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
19 34 Progress Note re appellant by Physician B 65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
20 35
Department of Social Work referral of
appellant to Physician B dated
August 3, 1987
65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
21
36-38 Progress Notes and handwritten notes re
appellant by Physician B
65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
22 40-44 Progress Notes re appellant by Physician B 65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
23
45-46 History and Physical Examination form re
appellant, dated April 22, 1986
65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
24
47-49 Summary of Hospitalization re appellant,
dated May 31, 1986
65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
25
50-51 Summary of Hospitalization re appellant,
dated June 22, 1986
65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
26
52-53 Psychological Assessment re appellant, dated
March 18, 1986
65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
27 54-55 Progress Notes re appellant by Physician B 65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
28 87
Hospital Registration Form re appellant, dated
February 22, 1986
65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
29
88-93 History and Physical Examination re
appellant, dated February 1986
65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
30 94-105 Progress Notes re appellant 65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
31
106-108 Summary of Hospitalization re appellant,
dated May 31, 1986
65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
32 109-111 Progress Notes re appellant 65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
33 112-120 Test results re appellant 65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
34 121-123 Authorizations re personal effects 65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
35 124
Hospital Registration form re appellant, dated
April 23, 1986
65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
36 125 Emergency Treatment Record, date illegible 65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
37
126-128 History and Physical Examination form re
appellant, dated April 23, 1986
65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
- 3 -
[IPC Order P-1213/June 20, 1996]
RECORD
NUMBER
MINISTRY
PAGE
NUMBER(S) DESCRIPTION
SECTION(S)
ORIGINALLY
CLAIMED
38 129-135 Progress Notes, re appellant 65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
39
136-137 Summary of Hospitalization, dated
June 22, 1986
65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
40
138-139 Report of consultation re appellant,
April 23, 1986
65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
41 140-142 Authorizations re personal effects 65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
42 143 Test Results re appellant 65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
43 144 Authorization re personal effects 65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
44 145-151 Test results re appellant 65(2)(b) (whole record withheld)
45
197-200 Letter from Physician A to College of
Physicians and Surgeons dated
November 28, 1987
21(1), 49(b) (whole record
withheld
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
John Higgins
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Jun 20, 1996
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Reconsideration Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orders and Reports Considered
|
|
P-1088
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judicial Review
|
|
Requester's application dismissed for delay July 28, 2005
John Doe v. Leroy Franklin, Charles Blazic, The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, Ontario (Health Professions Appeal and Review Board) [formerly Ontario (Health Disciplines Board)], and Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), Tor. Doc. 62/2001 (Div. Ct.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|