Dernières décisions

The appellant asked the hospital for seven years of patient satisfaction survey results and other data. The hospital granted the appellant complete access to most of the requested records. For the written patient comments in the records, the hospital estimated a fee of $967.50 to redact personal health information from the records before releasing them to the appellant. The appellant asked the hospital to reduce or waive the fee. The hospital reduced the fee by 50% to $483.75, but the appellant remained dissatisfied with the fee estimate.

In this order, the adjudicator does not uphold the hospital’s fee estimate. She orders the hospital to reduce its fee to $150.

The city received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records related to a fire at a specified property. The city provided some records, but the appellant believed that additional records about a city order being revoked should also exist. The adjudicator finds that the city conducted a reasonable search for records and dismisses the appeal.

An individual sought access under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to police records relating to two incidents that involved her. The police granted partial access to reports and officers’ notes, withholding some information on the basis that it was not responsive to the request (section 17) and other information on the basis that disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of another individual’s personal privacy (section 38(b)). The individual appealed the police’s access decision and also took issue with the reasonableness of the police’s search. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the police properly withheld the information and conducted a reasonable search. She upholds the police’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

An individual made a request to the township for emails exchanged between himself, other individuals and the township’s Chief Building Official regarding a renovation project. The township located two emails which it disclosed, in part, to the appellant. The township claimed that disclosure of the withheld information would be an unjustified invasion of another individual’s personal privacy under section 38(b). The individual appealed the township’s access decision to the IPC seeking access to the withheld information. The individual also took the position that additional records responsive to his request should exist.

The adjudicator upholds the township’s decision to withhold personal information under section 38(b). She dismisses the appellant’s claim that the township should have located additional records on the basis that the records the appellant says should exist do not reasonably relate to the request.

The appellant, a member of the media, seeks access to records relating to two specific research grants. The university did not provide this information to the appellant, claiming the application of an exclusion that removes research records from the scope of the Act. In this order, the adjudicator finds the records are excluded from the scope of the Act due to the research exclusion and dismisses the appeal.

An individual asked a school board for correspondence to or from a specified group of individuals relating to him found in emails and Microsoft Teams chat logs. The school board granted full access to the emails it found but stated that it could not search Microsoft Teams messages. The school board later found a way to search Microsoft Teams and provided the individual with access to the messages that it located from this search. The individual believes more records should exist. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the school board’s search for records was reasonable, and she dismisses the appeal.

The requester sought access to financial information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act contained in contracts for caretaking and security services provided to the university. The university denied access to some of this information, relying on the mandatory third party exemption in section 17(1). Both the requester and one of the service providers appealed the university’s decision to the IPC.

In this order, the adjudicator finds that the financial information in the contracts does not qualify as information subject to the exemption for third party information in section 17(1). She orders the university to disclose it to the requester.

The ministry denied a request for access to probation records of an individual who, while on probation, was charged with homicide and is awaiting trial. The adjudicator finds that the records relate to an ongoing prosecution and are excluded from the Act due to the time limited exclusion in section 65(5.2) for records connected to ongoing prosecutions. The adjudicator dismisses the appeal, noting that the appellant may seek access once all proceedings in respect of the prosecution have been completed.

A school board received a request for information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for the fees charged by student transportation operators contained in contracts. The board denied access to this information, stating that it is third party information subject to the mandatory exemption in section 10(1) of the Act.

In this order, the adjudicator finds the fee information at issue is not third-party information exempt under section 10(1) and orders the board to disclose it.

An individual requested statistical records relating to an animal control services provider that the city had contracted with. This included a request for the number of animals euthanized, and the reasons for the euthanization, for a five-year period. The city provided a fee estimate of $33,333.00 based on the quote provided by the animal services provider. The adjudicator finds that the fee estimate is unreasonable and reduces the fee to $11,111.00.

An individual, a member of the media, seeks access to records relating to the government’s consideration of changes to the Greenbelt. Cabinet Office located responsive records but denied the appellant access to them, claiming the records should not be disclosed due to the cabinet records exemption in section 12(1) of the Act. In this decision, the adjudicator upholds Cabinet Office’s decision not to disclose the records and dismisses the appeal.

An individual asked the municipality for records concerning a zoning issue. The municipality provided records but denied access to some information. It said that its decision was based on three reasons (exemptions) set out in the Act: that disclosure would reveal the substance of deliberations in a closed council meeting (section 6(1)(b)), that disclosure would reveal information that would harm an ongoing law enforcement matter (section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(b)) and that disclosure would reveal solicitor-client privileged information (section 12). The requester appealed the decision and also stated that the municipality’s search was not reasonable as more information should be available.

In this order, the adjudicator upholds the municipality’s decision that section 6(1)(b) and 8(1)(a) apply to exempt the information from disclosure. He does not agree with the municipality that record 49 is exempt under section 12. Finally, he finds that the municipality’s search was reasonable.

A person asked the ministry for specific information contained in inspection reports of animal research and related supply facilities. The ministry denied access to some information. The ministry said, in part, that the disclosure of the withheld information might endanger the life or physical safety of an individual or the security of a building [sections 14(1)(e) and (i)]. The appeal was narrowed to specific information in one record.
In this order, the adjudicator agrees with the ministry’s decision to withhold the information at issue and dismisses the appeal.

An individual asked the ministry for records about real estate property value assessments for the GTA West Corridor highway. The ministry gave the individual some records, but denied access to some information about specific costs for two reasons (exemptions) set out in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, sections 12(1) (Cabinet records) and 18(1)(c) and (d) (economic and other interests).
The adjudicator agrees that some of the information is not required to be provided under the Act because its disclosure would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations, allowing it to be withheld under section 12(1). For other parts of the records, he does not agree that they would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations, and he also does not agree that they would harm the economic interests of the province. He orders this information disclosed.

The requester asked the municipality for the winning bid submission for sponsorship rights. The municipality disclosed parts of the submission but denied access to some financial information stating that it is third party information subject to the mandatory exemption in section 10(1).

In this order, the adjudicator finds the financial information is not subject to the exemption for third party information and orders the municipality to disclose it to the requester.