Dernières décisions

An individual who was involved in an incident with the Toronto Police asked for the video footage recorded by the body-worn cameras of the three officers who attended the incident. The police did not provide the video footage claiming it relates to labour relations or employment matters (section 52(3)) which are excluded from the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act). The police also claimed that if the video footage was not found to be excluded from the Act, it should not be disclosed, even though it contains information about the individual requesting the information, because disclosure would deprive another individual of the right to a fair trial or an impartial hearing under sections 38(a) and 8(1)(f) of the Act.

The adjudicator finds that the video footage is an operational record not related to labour relations or employment matters and is therefore subject to the Act. She also finds that the police have not shown that disclosure of the video footage would deprive another individual of the right to a fair trial or an impartial hearing. She orders the police to disclose the video footage to the appellant, with the personal information of other identifiable individuals withheld.

An individual asked the Toronto Police Services Board to provide her with all records in which she is named. The police decided to disclose a significant number of records to her but refused to provide her with some records and parts of records. The individual wanted access to the information not provided to her and also believed that the police had not located all records in their search. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s decision to withhold some records because they are excluded from the Act under the exclusion for labour relations or employment records (section 52(3)3). He also upholds the police’s decision to withhold information that they received from a law enforcement agency in the United States (section 38(a), read with section 9(1)(d)), and the names and other personal information of individuals other than the appellant, because disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of those individuals’ personal privacy (section 38(b)). He orders the police to provide the appellant with the names of two individuals identified in a professional capacity in the records. Finally, he finds that the police conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to the appellant’s request.

An individual asked the city for records related to a complaint made against his property. The city provided him with full access to photographs and emails but only provided him with partial access to a city staff note explaining that disclosure of some of the information would be an unjustified invasion of another individual’s personal privacy (section 38(b)). The individual seeks access to the information that was not provided to him on the basis that the public interest override (section 16) applies to allow the city to disclose it to him. The individual also questions whether the search conducted by the city was reasonable.
In this order, the adjudicator upholds the city’s decision not to disclose the information it withheld and finds that the public interest override does not apply to permit its disclosure. She also finds that the city’s search for records was reasonable.

The appellant asked the ministry for access to specific records about the recommendation and decision to delist travel medicine services from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan in 1998.
The ministry responded by stating that it had disclosed the requested 1998 records in part in response to a prior access request that was the subject of an IPC appeal and order. The ministry maintained the same position that it took in the prior request, except that it decided to give the appellant access to some previously withheld cabinet records because they were now over 20 years old and could be disclosed under the exception in section 12(2) of the Act. However, the ministry denied access to one of these records claiming that the section 65(6) exclusion applies to it.
In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision that the one record at issue is excluded from the application of the Act because it relates to labour relations in which the ministry has an interest. She also finds she has no jurisdiction to address the remaining records, which were addressed in a prior IPC order.

On November 8, 2022, the requester asked for records related to a long-term care facility. The requester filed an appeal because the ministry failed to provide a decision within the prescribed time. This order finds the ministry to be in a deemed refusal situation and orders the ministry to issue a final decision by September 27, 2024 and October 15, 2024 where third party notification is required.

An individual requested access to general occurrence reports and officers’ notes for incidents that occurred in 2018 on a specified street. The police provided her with some information but refused to provide certain information stating that its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of another individual’s personal privacy (38(b)). In this order the adjudicator upholds the police’s decision not to disclose the information they withheld. She dismisses the appeal.

A dog owner sought access to records under the Act related to complaints made to the city about her dog biting individuals in two separate incidents. The city provided access to some of the responsive emails, forms, and medical records, relying on the personal privacy exemptions in sections 14(1) and 38(b) to withhold some information.

In this order, the adjudicator upholds the city’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

An individual asked the township for records about the municipal water system. The township granted access to part of the responsive records, withholding information because it might endanger life or safety or security (sections 8(1)(e)) and 8(1)(i)), and cause danger to safety or health (section 13). In this order, the adjudicator does not uphold the township’s decision and disagrees that disclosure of the information could endanger a system, threaten the health or safety of any individuals, or be a threat to health and safety. She also finds that the township has not established that it conducted a reasonable search for some of the records and orders the city to conduct a further search.

The appellant asked the ministry for records about a particular incident involving him. The ministry provided records but denied access to some information. The ministry said that it made this decision to protect another person’s personal privacy, a reason set out in section 49(b) of the Act. The ministry also said that the information in the record was exempt under the discretionary exemption for personal information (section 49(a)) read with the law enforcement exemption at section 14(1).
The adjudicator does not uphold the ministry’s decision and orders it to disclose the relevant information to the appellant.

The city received a request for electronic communications of elected officials and city staff during two city meetings. The city claimed that portions of the communications are subject to solicitor-client privilege (section 12) and should not be disclosed. The city also claimed that it did not have custody or control over certain records. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the city’s claim that portions of the records are subject to solicitor-client privilege. He also finds that the city has custody or control over communications between city staff but not over communications between elected officials, including the mayor. The adjudicator upholds the city’s decision in part and orders it to issue a decision regarding access to communications between city staff.

A person asked the police for records related to a specific file number. The police provided some information from two records but denied access to the other information in those two records and to one record in its entirety. The police said that it denied access to some information and to one record because they contain another person’s personal information [section 38(b)].

The adjudicator agrees with the police’s decision that the disclosure of the information at issue would constitute an unjustified invasion of another person’s privacy. She dismisses the appeal.

An individual asked the city for records relating to sidewalk repairs at a specific address. The city granted access in full to the records. The individual believes more records should exist. The city said that no more records exist. In this order, the adjudicator determines that the city did not conduct a reasonable search for records and orders it to conduct another search.

The municipality denied an individual’s request for access to records that it says contain advice or recommendations used in decision-making. The adjudicator finds that the records contain advice and recommendations on how to respond to a complaint. She finds that the records containing the individual’s personal information are exempt under section 38(a) (right to refuse requester’s own information) read with section 7(1) (advice or recommendations), and that those that do not contain the individual’s personal information are exempt under section 7(1). The adjudicator also finds that the public interest override in section 16 does not apply to the records. She dismisses the appeal.

An individual made a request under the Act to the ministry for records relating to the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council. The ministry located records and disclosed some of them to the appellant. In this decision, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision not to disclose some information under the advice or recommendations and solicitor client privilege exemptions. She dismisses the appeal.

This final order follows Interim Order MO-4473-I, in which the adjudicator required the police to issue a new access decision in response to the appellant’s request for a statement made by a third party who was later charged and convicted of assaulting the appellant. The police initially denied the request because they erroneously believed the Act prohibited them from disclosing the third party’s personal information to her. In response to the interim order, the police reconsidered the appellant’s access request, this time recognizing that the statement contains the personal information of the appellant as well as that of the third party. In their revised decision, the police rely on the personal privacy exemption at section 38(b) of the Act, which permits an institution to withhold a record that contains the personal information of both the requester and another party. In this final order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s decision to withhold the statement in full under section 38(b). She dismisses the appeal.