Dernières décisions

An individual made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of the Solicitor General for a police report related to a specified occurrence and any additional information about them in relation to the occurrence. The ministry disclosed to the individual some records. It withheld some information because its disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter (section 49(a), read with section 14(1)) and would result in an unjustified invasion of other individuals’ personal privacy (section 49(b)).

In this order, the adjudicator orders the ministry to disclose additional information and otherwise upholds the ministry’s decision.

The appellant asked the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board for copies of specific contracts, bid submissions for certain requests for proposal, and other related information. The Board provided access to some records but denied access to parts of an unsuccessful bid submission on the basis that the mandatory third party information exemption applies (section 17(1) of the Act).
The adjudicator upholds the Board’s decision, finding that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure under section 17(1)(a). She dismisses the appeal.

An individual made a request to the Waterloo Regional Police Services Board under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to policies and records related to an investigation about a complaint against a member of the police. The police granted access to the policies but withheld the complaint records because they claim the complaint records are excluded from the Act under the employment or labour relations exclusion (section 52(3)3). The individual believes more records should exist.
In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s claim that the labour relations exclusion applies. She also finds that the police conducted a reasonable search for responsive records and dismisses the appeal.

An individual made a request to the Ottawa Police Services Board (the police) for records relating to a specified incident involving a rental car. The police granted partial access to the police report explaining that disclosure of some of the information would endanger the security of a system (section 38(a), read with section 8(1)(i)).
In this order, the adjudicator finds that disclosure of some of the withheld information would endanger the security of a system and upholds the police’s decision to withhold that information. She orders the police to disclose the remaining information.

The ministry received multiple requests for records related to the death of the appellants’ son. This appeal deals with records about a related breach of trust investigation into a police officer who investigated the death. The ministry initially withheld the majority of the records under the law enforcement exemptions related to an ongoing investigation (sections 14(1)(a), (b), and (f)).

During the inquiry, an individual was charged with the death of the appellants’ son, and the ministry instead claimed the prosecution exclusion for some of the records (section 65(5.2)). The ministry also claimed the exemption at section 49(a), read with section 19 (solicitor-client privilege), and section 49(b) (personal privacy) for portions of other records. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the records are excluded from the Act due to the ongoing prosecution exclusion or otherwise exempt from disclosure under the sections claimed by the ministry. However, he finds that a portion of background information should be disclosed for compassionate reasons, and orders this information to be disclosed.

An individual submitted a request to the Ottawa Community Housing Corporation (the housing corporation) under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the name of an individual involved in a theft. The housing corporation granted partial access to the records, withholding some information.

The housing corporation denied access to an individual’s name and apartment number because disclosure of that information would be an unjustified invasion of that individual’s personal privacy (section 38(b)). In this order, the adjudicator upholds the housing corporation’s decision not to disclose the withheld information and dismisses the appeal.

A graduate of the University of Waterloo made a request, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, for records related to an accommodation request that he made during a certain period of time. This appeal is about the university’s decision to withhold one record completely on the basis that it contains advice and recommendations and a part of another record on the basis that it contains personal information of one or more university employees. The appeal is also about the appellant’s challenge of the reasonableness of the university’s search for records.
The adjudicator allows the appeal, in part. She finds that some of the information at issue is not personal information, so the personal privacy reason stated by the university does not apply. The adjudicator orders the university to disclose this information to the appellant.
The adjudicator upholds the university’s decision to withhold the other record for the advice and recommendation reason (section 49(a), read with section 13(1)).
The adjudicator also upholds the university’s search for records.

A joint custodial parent of a four-year-old child asked for records containing his child’s personal information. The children’s aid society denied his request on the basis that, as a parent with joint custody, the complainant requires the consent of the child’s other joint custodial parent to exercise substitute decision-making authority for his son under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.
The adjudicator upholds the decision of the children’s aid society. She finds that, as joint custodial parents, the father and the mother are equally ranked substitute decision-makers for the child under the Act; and without the mother’s consent to the father’s request, the father cannot act as an independent substitute decision-maker to request access to the child’s personal information. The adjudicator also finds that the children’s aid society appropriately considered whether the disclosure provision in section 292(1)(g) of the Act applies to permit disclosure of some information about the child to the complainant. She dismisses the complaint with no order.

An individual asked a hospital for access to correspondence, messages and documentation between specified doctors related to her deceased father’s two-day hospital stay. After receiving records from the hospital, the complainant stated that additional records should exist.
In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the hospital did not conduct a reasonable search for records as it is obliged to do under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, as it did not search for email communications to and from one named doctor. The adjudicator orders the hospital to conduct a further search for records responsive to the complainant’s request, to provide the adjudicator with a written explanation of the search, and to issue an access decision to the complainant regarding the any additional records it locates as a result of the further search.

An individual asked a hospital for records from her deceased father’s two-day hospital stay. After receiving records from the hospital, the complainant stated that additional records should exist.
In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the hospital conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to the request, as it is obliged to do under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004. The adjudicator dismisses the complaint without issuing an order.

A requester sought access to a city bus video of an incident involving a then sitting city councillor. The city relied on the personal privacy exemption at section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to deny access to the responsive record. This order upholds the city’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

An individual asked the Ministry of Health (the ministry) for records, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act), related to his employment file with the ministry, including records related to his union’s dealings with the ministry, and to harassment and discrimination complaints. The ministry found records responsive to the request but would not release them.

The reason for this decision was that the ministry said that Act does not apply to the records since they relate to employment and labour relations (under the exclusions at sections 65(6)1 and 65(6)3 of the Act). In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision and dismisses the appeal. Since she finds that records responsive to two parts of the request would also be excluded under section 65(6)3, the adjudicator does not consider the issue of reasonable search.

The appellant, a lawyer, made a request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General for records of calibration tests performed on a specific breathalyzer used by a detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police over a two-month period. The appellant was asking for results of periodic “standalone” tests conducted on the equipment to determine if it was in proper working order and not any tests conducted on actual breath samples. As the appellant would not confirm whether the requested records related to an ongoing prosecution, the ministry assumed the records related to a prosecution for an alcohol related offence under the Criminal Code and issued a decision denying access. The ministry maintained that the Criminal Code provides a complete code for disclosing records relating to breathalyzer equipment. Consequently, the ministry claimed that the doctrine of federal paramountcy applies to oust the application of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act).

During the inquiry into the appeal, the possible application of section 65(5.2) of the Act that excludes records relating to an ongoing prosecution was added as an issue to be determined.
In this order, the Commissioner finds that there is no direct conflict in the operation of the Act and the Criminal Code and that the operation of the Act does not frustrate the legislative intent of the Crown disclosure provisions of the Criminal Code. As a result, the doctrine of federal paramountcy does not apply to oust the application of the Act.

However, the Commissioner finds that the records are excluded from the scope of the Act under section 65(5.2). The right of access and the Commissioner’s jurisdiction under the Act are determined based on the facts and law existing at the time the institution issues its decision. Given that the requested records related to a prosecution that was ongoing at the time of the ministry’s decision, the exclusion at section 65(5.2) of the Act applied and the appellant did not have a right to access them. The Commissioner upholds the ministry’s decision denying access and dismisses the appeal.

The City of Mississauga (the city) received a request under the Act for access to three spreadsheets of voter information from the October 22, 2018 municipal election. The city issued a decision denying access to the responsive spreadsheets under the mandatory personal privacy exemption in section 14(1) of the Act.
In this order, the adjudicator finds that the Municipal Elections Act expressly authorizes disclosure of the eligible voters spreadsheet and, therefore, the section 14(1)(d) exception to the personal privacy exemption applies. She orders the city to disclose that spreadsheet to the appellant. However, the adjudicator finds that section 14(1) applies to exempt the actual voters spreadsheet and the ballot spreadsheet from disclosure, and she upholds the city’s decision to withhold them.

The complainant is the mother of a child who was placed in the care of Ogwadeni:deo (the service provider) by a court order. For a period while the child was in its care under the terms of the court order, the service provider received child benefits from the federal government for the child’s care and maintenance. After the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) questioned the mother’s eligibility for a similar benefit over part of this time period, the mother alleged a number of privacy breaches by the service provider. Among other complaints, she alleges the service provider inappropriately shared personal information with its finance department, which applied for the federal benefit, and with the CRA. She also asserts that the service provider shared inaccurate information, by failing to report that the child lived with her for some of the period covered by the court order.

In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the service provider did not contravene the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA) through its use and disclosure of personal information in connection with receiving federal child benefits. She dismisses the complaint.