Dernières décisions

MPAC denied access to two transferred requests for GIS Shapefiles. MPAC claimed that the requested records are available under a licensing framework for a fee and are therefore publicly available (section 15).

MPAC later issued revised decisions, adding sections 9 (relations with other governments), 10(1) (third party information), and 11 (economic interests) to deny access.

The adjudicator finds that the records are exempt under sections 11(c) and (d). She finds that disclosure under the Act outside the existing licensing framework could reasonably be expected to cause harm to MPAC’s economic and financial interests. The adjudicator finds that the public interest override in section 16 does not apply to the records. She dismisses both appeals.

A person asked the police under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records related to a specific police report. The police provided responsive records to the person, withholding some information on the basis that it consists of other individuals’ personal information (section 14(1)) and that it is non-responsive.
In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s decision not to disclose the withheld information on the basis that both the mandatory and discretionary personal privacy reasons (exemptions) (sections 14(1) and 38(b)) apply and that some information is non-responsive. She dismisses the appeal.

A real estate developer that owned land in Oshawa asked Metrolinx for records about the eastward expansion of GO Transit from Oshawa to Bowmanville, including those relating to recommended routing for the train line and Metrolinx’s expropriation of land from private businesses to build stations and other infrastructure.

Metrolinx gave the developer some records but denied access to others under several exemptions in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act: sections 12(1) (Cabinet records), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 17(1) (third party information), 18(1) (economic and other interests), 19 (solicitor-client privilege) and 21(1) (personal privacy).

In this order, the adjudicator finds that most of the records are exempt from disclosure under the exemptions claimed by Metrolinx. However, he finds that some records are not and orders Metrolinx to give them to the developer.

An appellant sought access to a copy of his video interview with the Ontario Provincial Police (the OPP) under Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The Ministry of the Solicitor General (the ministry) did not locate the responsive video interview.

In this interim order, the adjudicator orders the ministry to conduct another search for the video interview of the appellant.

A journalist made a request to the Ministry of Health (the ministry) for access to patient-level granular billing information for all Ontario physicians who billed for one million dollars or more during a specified time-period.

The ministry denied access to the requested information on the basis that it is personal health information under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (PHIPA) and PHIPA prohibits its release. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

On July 17, 2024, an individual asked the town for records about a specific address. The town extended the time to respond to the request until December 16, 2024. On December 18, 2024, the town issued a notice of delay under section 21(4) of the Act for an additional 60 days, instead of the 30 days permitted by that section. The town has not issued its final decision as of today’s date. This order finds the town to be in a deemed refusal situation and orders it to issue a final decision by February 10, 2025.

This decision concludes an IPC-initiated file arising from allegations made by two different information sources about unauthorized disclosures of personal health information by the respondents Dr. Rita Kilislian, the owner and operator of Kawartha Endodontics (the clinic), and/or Andrew Curnew, her former spouse. Some of the allegations concern the dissemination of a memo authored by Andrew Curnew in the context of a Health Services Appeal and Review Board proceeding in which he represented Dr. Kilislian. The respondents denied the allegations, including based on claims the information in the memo is not personal health information and is information available in the public domain.

The IPC conducted a self-initiated review of the matter under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (PHIPA). During the IPC review, the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) issued decisions on complaints made to Dr. Kilislian’s regulatory college about some of the same events at issue in the IPC review. The IPC considered the impact the HPARB decisions ought to have on its disposition of the allegations made to the IPC. The IPC also addressed in a private interim decision Andrew Curnew’s request that the IPC disclose to him the identities of the information sources to the IPC, and the information provided by them.

In this final decision, the adjudicator declines to issue orders in respect of three of the allegations made to the IPC, in view of other proceedings that appropriately addressed the same matters. With respect to the remaining allegation—concerning the posting of personal health information on social media—the adjudicator describes the steps taken during the review to seek the respondents’ cooperation in containing a potential contravention of PHIPA. While the adjudicator is unable in the circumstances to make finding on whether Andrew Curnew made the social media posts at issue, she orders Dr. Kilislian to take all steps that are reasonable in the circumstances to remedy the potential contravention of PHIPA. This includes retrieving from Andrew Curnew any personal health information still in his possession for which there is no authority under PHIPA for his ongoing use or disclosure of that information.

An individual asked the ministry under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for any final products, including reports, delivered to the ministry by a consulting company in order to fulfill its consulting contracts related to COVID-19. The ministry decided to withhold the records in their entirety, claiming the mandatory Cabinet record exemption in section 12(1). In this order, the adjudicator finds that most of the records are exempt from disclosure, but that others are not either in whole or in part. The adjudicator orders the ministry to disclose the records that are not exempt to the individual who requested them.

A media requester sought access to information regarding COVID-19 workplace outbreaks from a health unit. After notifying the workplaces, the health unit denied access to the information claiming disclosure would reveal third party information (section 10(1)), endanger the health or safety of an individual (section 13), and result in an unjustified invasion of personal privacy (section 14(1)).
In this order, the adjudicator finds that portions of the records containing the personal information of identifiable individuals qualify for exemption because disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. The adjudicator finds that no mandatory or discretionary exemption applies to the remaining information at issue. The health unit is ordered to disclose most of the withheld records but for portions found exempt under section 14(1).

The appellant sought access to certain records of a specific lawyer that related to an investigation of him. The ministry granted the appellant access to some of the records responsive to his access request. It denied access to information and records that it claimed were solicitor-client privileged. It also withheld information in the records that it viewed as not being reasonably related to the request. The appellant challenged the ministry’s decision and the reasonableness of its search for responsive records.
In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision that the withheld information and records are either exempt solicitor-client privileged communications or information that is not responsive to the appellant’s request. She upholds the ministry’s exercise of discretion and its search for records, and she dismisses the appeal.

A doctor requested records from the Ontario Medical Association’s Physician Health Program (OMA PHP). She had previously been referred to that program by her hospital employer and participated in its assessment services. The OMA PHP denied access to records of interviews with an identified individual, stating that granting access to this could result in risk of harm to another person. The OMA PHP also denied access to a draft report, on the basis that it was an independent medical evaluation, and therefore not a record of personal health information.
In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the complainant does not have a right of access to the records of the interviews, as these are not primarily dedicated to the complainant’s personal health information. She finds that the draft PHP report is a record of the complainant’s personal health information that she should be granted access to. The adjudicator also finds that the OMA PHP performed a reasonable search for records responsive to the complainant’s request.

An individual seeks access under the Act to a copy of an arbitrator’s decision relating to the termination of an identified college professor. The ministry refused to confirm or deny the existence of the record.

In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision, accepting that the disclosure of any responsive records, if they exist, and disclosure of whether the responsive records exist would be an unjustified invasion of privacy. She also finds no compelling public interest in disclosing whether the responsive records exist that would outweigh the purpose of the exemption claimed.

A media requester sought access to certain dates related to a police official’s interaction with a subordinate while off-duty. The police denied access to the responsive information, relying on the exclusion in section 52(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that excludes labour relations and employment records from the application of the Act.

In this order, the adjudicator finds that the record that contains the responsive information is excluded from the application of the Act as it concerns the police’s management of their own workforce. The adjudicator, therefore, upholds the police’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

In Order MO-4520-I, the adjudicator reserved her finding regarding whether disclosure of three emails would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy (section 14(1)), pending the notification of the individuals who might be affected by disclosure.
In this final order, the adjudicator orders the town to disclose the three emails to the appellant finding that they do not contain the personal information of these individuals.

An individual asked for records from the ministry under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for any final products, including reports, delivered to the ministry by a consulting company in order to fulfill its consulting contracts related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The ministry decided to withhold the records in their entirety, claiming the mandatory Cabinet record exemption in section 12(1). In this order, the adjudicator finds that most of the records are exempt from disclosure, but that others are not, in part. The adjudicator orders the ministry to disclose the portions of the records that are not exempt to the individual who requested them.