Dernières décisions

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 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.

The requester sought access to information about individuals who called the Ontario Provincial Police about his mental health status. He made a request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The ministry denied access to the information in the records in part under the discretionary exemption permitting an institution to refuse a requester’s own information at section 49(a), read with the law enforcement exemption at section 14(1)(l) (facilitate commission of an unlawful act), and the discretionary personal privacy exemption at section 49(b) of the Act.

In this order, the adjudicator finds that some of the information that has been withheld is not personal information and orders the ministry to disclose it to the appellant. The adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision to deny access to the remaining information under section 49(a), read with section 14(1)(l), and section 49(b).

The appellant submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for the calendar of the former Executive Director of Stakeholder Relations in the Premier’s Office for the period from June 1 to December 31, 2022. Cabinet Office located responsive records in the individual’s government Outlook calendar and granted the appellant partial access to them.
The appellant appealed Cabinet Office’s decision, claiming that it did not conduct a reasonable search because it ought to have also searched the individual’s personal calendar. In this interim order, the adjudicator finds the individual’s personal calendar as a whole is not within the scope of the appellant’s request and upholds Cabinet Office’s decision not to search it.
However, the adjudicator finds Cabinet Office’s search of the individual’s government Outlook calendar was not reasonable because it did not provide sufficient evidence to support its claim that the entries marked “Private” in the individual’s government Outlook calendar were, in fact, private or personal in nature. The adjudicator orders Cabinet Office to obtain a sworn affidavit from the individual confirming the nature of the calendar entries marked “Private” in their government Outlook calendar. If any of the specific entries marked “Private” are found to relate to government business, the adjudicator orders Cabinet Office to require the affected party to search their personal calendar for any corresponding entries and provide any such records to Cabinet Office so it can render a revised access decision.

An individual asked the Ministry of the Solicitor General for video footage which he says shows him being attacked by another inmate while he was in a detention centre. The ministry denied access to the footage claiming that disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of another individual’s personal privacy (section 49(b)). The ministry also claimed that the footage qualified for exemption under various law enforcement exemptions (section 49(a), read with section 14(1)).
The adjudicator orders the ministry to disclose a redacted copy of one of four videos which contains images of the appellant and detention centre employees. The adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision to withhold the remaining footage.

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.