Latest IPC Decisions

On August 28, 2023, the appellant asked the respondent under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records generated responding to their previous access requests to the respondent and related to an application to the respondent. They appealed because the respondent failed to issue a decision within the prescribed time. The decision-maker finds that the respondent has not issued a decision and is deemed to have refused the access request. The respondent is ordered to issue a final decision by May 14, 2025.

Under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, the complainant made a request to the Ministry of Health for access to certain types of records of his personal health information. The ministry told the complainant that it could not find any records. The complainant alleged that the ministry had not properly interpreted the scope of his access request and also claimed that records must exist.

In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the ministry properly interpreted the scope of the complainant’s access request and conducted a reasonable search for records of his personal health information. The adjudicator dismisses the complaint.

A media requester appealed a fee estimate of Hydro Ottawa Limited for access to records about services retained during a strike of electrical workers. The requester made a request for access to these records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

In this order, the adjudicator upholds the portion of Hydro’s fee estimate related to searching for and photocopying the records but reduces the portion of the fee estimate related to the fees for preparing the records for disclosure.

An individual made a request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to records related to an investigation into a complaint against members of the Ontario Provincial Police. The ministry issued a decision denying access to the responsive records claiming that the doctrine of issue estoppel applied to the occurrence records, while the complaint records are excluded from the Act under the employment or labour relations exclusion (section 65(6)3).
In this order, the adjudicator finds that the doctrine of issue estoppel applies to the occurrence records. She also upholds the ministry’s claim that the labour relations exclusion applies to the complaint records. She dismisses the appeal.

An individual submitted a request for reconsideration of PHIPA Decision 274, where the adjudicator found that the hospital conducted a reasonable search for records relating to the individual’s father’s hospital stay. In this reconsideration decision, the adjudicator finds that the complainant has not established grounds for reconsideration under section 27.01 of the Code of Procedure for Matters under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 and denies the request.

An individual asked the Corporation of the City of Brantford for certain correspondence of a specified employee. The city denied the request on the basis that it was frivolous or vexatious (section 4(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act).

The adjudicator finds that the request is frivolous or vexatious because it is part of a pattern of conduct that amounts to an abuse of the right of access. She upholds the city’s decision but does not order the remedy the city seeks.

An individual submitted a request to the Ministry of Solicitor General (the ministry), under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, for records related to the Security Assessment for Evaluating Risk (SAFER) program. The ministry granted partial access to the responsive records withholding some information.
The ministry denied access to the SAFER training manual relying on the exclusion in section 65(6) that excludes labour relations and employment records from the application of the Act. The ministry also denied access to the SAFER policy manual and the data definition guide based on the exemption in section 13(1) (advice or recommendation).
In this order, the adjudicator finds that the ministry did a reasonable search for records responsive to the request. She finds that the training manual is not excluded from the application of the Act and orders the ministry to issue an access decision. She upholds the ministry’s decision not to disclose the policy manual and the data definition guide as they contain advice or recommendation but orders the ministry to re-exercise its discretion under section 13(1).

The complainants were foster parents, for half a year, to a child in the temporary care of the Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto (JFCS). They asked the JFCS for access to all records about them. The JFCS released some information to them but withheld a home study (Structure Analysis Family Evaluation), records of their complaint to the JFCS’s Internal Complaint Review Panel, and information that it claims is legally privileged. The complainants argued they should be granted access to these records.
The adjudicator determines that the complainants do not have a right of access to the records under section 312(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and she dismisses the complaint.

The complainant asked the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa for all its records of a late 2021 investigation involving her, her children and the children’s father. The CAS partially released responsive records to the complainant, withholding portions containing information about the father and other individuals. The CAS withheld those portions based on its determination that the records were not dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the complainant and her children, and she was not entitled to access personal information about other individuals without their consent or a court order. The complainant asked the IPC to review the CAS’s decision, arguing that more information from the records should be released to her and that the CAS should have additional records responsive to her request.
In this decision, the adjudicator agrees with the CAS that the records are dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the entire family, including the children’s father. She upholds the CAS’s decision to withhold personal information of individuals other than the complainant and her children. However, she finds that two records contain a small amount of personal information of the complainant’s one child that can reasonably be severed from the records and released to the complainant. She orders the CAS to release that personal information to the complainant. The adjudicator upholds the reasonableness of the CAS’s search for responsive records.

An individual made a request to the City of Toronto, under the Municipal Freedom of Information, for access to building permit drawings and plans for his neighbours’ house. The city decided to grant access to the records in full.

The neighbours appealed the city’s decision, claiming that disclosure of the records would be an unjustified invasion of their personal privacy under section 14(1) and that they contain third party information exempt under section 10(1). The neighbours also claimed that the disclosure of the records would be a threat to their safety or health under the discretionary exemption at section 13 and that they should be permitted to raise the application of this discretionary exemption. Finally, the neighbours argued that that the requester’s request for access to records about their house was frivolous or vexatious under section 4(1)(b).

In this order, the adjudicator finds that the information at issue in the records is not personal information and therefore, cannot be exempt from disclosure under section 14(1). She also finds that the information is not third party information exempt under section 10(1). The adjudicator determines that the appellants should not be permitted to raise the application of the discretionary section 13 exemption and that they are not permitted to deem the appellant’s request frivolous or vexatious under section 4(1)(b). She orders the city to disclose the information at issue in the records to the requester.

The complainant asked the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa for all its records between 2013 and early 2021 of investigations involving her, her children and the children’s father. The CAS partially released responsive records to the complainant, withholding portions containing information about the father and other individuals. The CAS withheld those portions based on its determination that the records were not dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the complainant and her children, and she was not entitled to access personal information about other individuals without their consent or a court order. The complainant asked the IPC to review the CAS’s decision, arguing that more information from the records should be released to her and that the CAS should have additional records responsive to her request.
In this decision, the adjudicator finds that most of the records are dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the entire family, including the children’s father. She upholds the CAS’s decision to withhold personal information of individuals other than the complainant and her children in these records that are dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the family.
However, the adjudicator finds that the “person records” of the complainant and her children are dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to them alone and should be fully released to the complainant. She orders the CAS to release these person records to the complainant. The adjudicator upholds the reasonableness of the CAS’s search for responsive records.

An individual made a request to the Township of Severn for access to records related to the septic/sewage system at a specified address. The township granted access to all the information pertaining to that specified address. It withheld information pertaining to other properties. The individual appealed the township’s decision to withhold information related to other properties and questioned whether the search was reasonable.

In this order, the adjudicator finds that the withheld information is not responsive to the appellant’s request. She also finds that the township’s search was reasonable.

The requester, a graduate student at the University of Toronto, requested, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, records evaluating the research for her dissertation at the university. The university denied access to two responsive emails stating that it is evaluative or opinion material that is exempt under the Act (section 49(c.1)(i)).

In this order, the adjudicator finds that one of the two responsive email chains is evaluative or opinion material that is exempt under section 49(c.1)(i) and upholds the university’s decision not to disclose it. She finds that the exemption does not apply to the other email chain and orders the university to disclose it to the appellant. The adjudicator upholds the university’s search for records as reasonable.

The appellant requested access to OPP records pertaining to background checks she was required to undertake. The ministry granted partial access to responsive records, withholding CPIC coding information, police codes, internal police contact information, and other information based on the law enforcement exemption (section 49(a), read with 14(1)), the personal privacy exemption (section 49(b)) and/or on the basis that it was not responsive to the request. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision except as it relates to the internal police contact information and she orders this information to be disclosed.

On April 3, 2024, an individual asked the Ministry of the Solicitor General for records related to an animal kept at a marine-themed amusement park. They appealed because the ministry did not issue a decision within the prescribed time limit. The decision-maker finds that the ministry has not issued a decision and the request is deemed to have been refused. The ministry is ordered to issue a decision by May 8, 2025.