Latest IPC Decisions

The ministry received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a report on the Ontario government’s approach to caring for individuals with specified medical conditions. The ministry located the report but withheld it under section 13(1) of the Act because it contained advice or recommendations to the government.
In this order, the adjudicator finds that the report does not qualify for exemption under section 13(1) because it falls within the section 13(2)(f) exception for records about the performance or efficiency of a government program. He orders the ministry to disclose the record.

This reconsideration order corrects two errors to the description of MPAC’s commercial revenue in Order MO-4626, and corrects the omission of a statutory reference in two other paragraphs. The corrections are made pursuant to section 15.01(c) of the IPC’s Code of Procedure, which permits reconsideration where there is a clerical error, accidental error or omission, or other similar error.

A student made a request to the University of Waterloo under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to his own vaccine accommodation request, as well as general information for religion-based accommodation requests. The university withheld some of the responsive records citing the discretion to refuse a requester’s own information (section 49(a)), read with the exemption for advice or recommendations (section 13) and the exemption for solicitor-client privileged information (section 19).

In this order, the adjudicator partially upholds the university’s decision, finding that some of the records are wholly exempt under section 49(a), read with section 13, and others are partially exempt under section 49(a), read with sections 13 and 19. She orders the university to disclose the non-exempt information.

An individual made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to witness statements for a specified incident. The police denied access in full to a video recording of a witness statement because its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual’s personal privacy (section 38(b)).

In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s decision. She finds that the police properly withheld another individual’s personal information under section 38(b) and that the public interest override does not apply to permit its disclosure. The adjudicator also finds that the police’s search was reasonable.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the Town of East Gwillimbury conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to the appellant’s request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
In this order, the adjudicator finds that the town conducted a reasonable search and dismisses the appeal.

An individual made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the names and contact information of her neighbours who called 911 about her. The Toronto Police Services Board denied access to the information relying on the discretionary personal privacy exemption in section 38(b).

In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s decision and finds that disclosure of the information at issue, the names and contact information of the 911 callers, would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 38(b).

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to an identified address. The city located records relating to by-law complaints and granted the appellant partial access to them. The city withheld portions of the records claiming that disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of individuals other than the appellant under section 38(b), among other exemptions.

In this decision, the adjudicator upholds the city’s decision to withhold portions of the records under the personal privacy exemption and dismisses the appeal.

An individual made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records related to complaints made about them to the Ontario Securities Commission. The OSC disclosed to the individual some records. It withheld some records on the basis that their disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal investigative techniques and procedures currently in use or likely to be used by the OSC (section 49(a), read with section 14(1)(c)) and would result in an unjustified invasion of other individual’s personal privacy (section 49(b)).
The individual disagreed with the OSC’s decision and claimed that the OSC’s search for records was not reasonable.
In this order, the adjudicator orders the OSC to disclose additional information to the appellant and otherwise upholds the OSC’s decision.

Infrastructure Ontario (IO) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for planning and design records about the proposed Eastern Ontario Correctional Complex. IO identified three responsive records (a traffic impact study, a development feasibility student, and a functional service report), and withheld them because it says their disclosure would economically harm a third party (section 17(1)) and the Ontario Government (section 18(1)).
In this order, the adjudicator finds that IO has not established that any of the harms contemplated by sections 17(1) or 18(1) could reasonably be expected to occur if the records are released, and he orders them disclosed.

Infrastructure Ontario (IO) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records about an IO review of a named employee and infrastructure projects. IO located a letter, but claimed that it was excluded from the Act under section 65(6) (employment or labour relations). IO said that additional responsive records existed, but claimed they were not in IO’s custody or control.

In this order, the adjudicator upholds IO’s decision. He finds that section 65(6) excludes the letter from the Act, and that the other records are not in IO’s custody or control.

An individual submitted a request to the municipality under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records related to emergency services budget proposals ordered disclosed in Order MO-3613. The municipality stated that it had previously disclosed all records to the individual and no further exist, and the individual said the municipality did not conduct a reasonable search. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the municipality’s search efforts and dismisses the appeal.

Infrastructure Ontario (IO) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for land survey records related to the proposed Eastern Ontario Correctional Complex. IO located a survey and withheld it under the section 18(1)(a) exemption for an institution’s economic interests. The requester appealed the decision and raised the application of the section 23 public interest override.

In this order, the adjudicator upholds IO’s decision, finding that the record is exempt under section 18(1)(a) and that the public interest override does not apply.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the Ministry of the Solicitor General conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to the appellant’s request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
In this order, the adjudicator finds that the ministry conducted a reasonable search and dismisses the appeal.

An individual made a request to the City of Toronto under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to original photographs from a red-light camera system. The city identified responsive records and granted the individual full access to them. The individual said that the city did not provide him with the original records he sought and said that additional records should still exist. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the city’s search for responsive records as reasonable and dismisses the appeal.

The complainant made an access request to a doctor for records relating to his child’s health care. The doctor located and granted access to records. The complainant filed a complaint based on his belief that additional records should exist.

In PHIPA Decision 272, the adjudicator found that the doctor did not conduct a reasonable search for the complainant’s child’s records and ordered her to conduct another search. In this final decision, the adjudicator finds that the doctor has now conducted a reasonable search and dismisses the complaint.