Dernières décisions

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 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.

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.

An individual made a request to the ministry under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records of directives from the Premier’s office to the ministry regarding the removal of lands from the Greenbelt. The ministry’s searches did not locate any responsive records, apart from the June 2022 mandate letter.
The individual believes that the records he is seeking ought to exist and appealed to the IPC challenging the ministry’s interpretation of the scope of his request and the reasonableness of its searches.
In this interim order, the adjudicator considers the published evidence and findings about how direction was delivered to ministry officials and staff during the Greenbelt project. The adjudicator finds that the appellant has established a reasonable basis for believing that the records he is seeking exist but that the ministry has applied too narrow and literal an interpretation of his request. The adjudicator finds that the ministry conducted a reasonable search for responsive emails; however, the adjudicator orders the ministry to conduct a further search for other types of responsive records.

The college received a request for a copy of a certain contract. A company whose interests might be affected by disclosure of the contract asked that the college not release the contract to the requester, claiming that the college had to withhold it under the mandatory exemption at section 17(1) (third party information). However, the college decided that the contract did not meet one of the requirements of section 17(1) and said that it would release it.

The company appealed the college’s decision. The adjudicator finds that the contract (or any part of it) was not “supplied” to the college, so she upholds the college’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

On March 14, 2023, an individual asked Tribunals Ontario (the tribunal) for records related to its training materials. They filed an appeal with the IPC because the tribunal did not issue an access decision within the prescribed time limit. The decision-maker agrees that the tribunal is deemed to have refused the access request under section 29(4) of the Act and orders the tribunal to issue a final access decision by March 19, 2025.

This reconsideration decision addresses the custodian’s request for reconsideration of PHIPA Decision 268. In that decision, the adjudicator found that the custodian was obliged to provide the complainant with an electronic copy of her records of personal health information. The adjudicator also found that the custodian charged a fee in excess of what was permitted under section 54(11) of the Act.
In this reconsideration decision, the adjudicator finds that the custodian has established grounds for reconsideration of PHIPA Decision 268 under section 27.01(a) of the Code of Procedure for Matters under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004. The adjudicator grants the custodian’s reconsideration request and rescinds one of the order provisions of PHIPA Decision 268.

An individual asked the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (the ministry) for certain records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The ministry provided partial access to the records. The ministry did not disclose some records and information because they were covered by the solicitor-client privilege exemption (section 19).
The appellant disagreed with the ministry’s decision to withhold the records and information. The appellant also argued that the ministry’s search with respect to one part of the request was not reasonable.
In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision to withhold records and information under the solicitor-client privilege exemption. However, the adjudicator does not uphold the ministry’s search. She orders the ministry to conduct another search and issue a new access decision.

A teacher who worked at a youth detention facility made a request to the ministry under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for records related to an investigation into her property. The ministry released some records but withheld others, and the appellant continued to seek access to the withheld portions of a specific record. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the Youth Criminal Justice Act governs access to the record at issue and that it is therefore not accessible under FIPPA. He dismisses the appeal.

An individual made a request to the police under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for all records related to her. The police granted partial access to several records, withholding information about other individuals for the personal privacy reason (exemption) at section 38(b) and also claiming that the individual could not obtain certain records because the Act does not apply to them [section 52(3), the employment or labour relations exclusion].
In this order, the adjudicator finds that the information related to the police complaint is excluded from the Act as set out in section 52(3), and partially upholds the police’s decision for the rest of the information. He finds that most of the information is exempt from disclosure under section 38(b), but also finds that withholding some information that the appellant provided to the police would lead to an absurd result. He orders this information disclosed.

On July 30, 2024, a non-profit organization asked the ministry for records related to medical assistance in dying in Ontario. On August 29, 2024, the ministry extended the time to respond until October 28, 2024. The organization filed an appeal with the IPC. To date, the ministry has not issued a final access decision. The decision-maker finds that the ministry is deemed to have refused the access request under section 29(4) of the Act and orders the ministry to issue a final access decision by February 28, 2025.

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 this interim decision, the adjudicator finds that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the doctor conducted a reasonable search and orders the doctor to conduct another search.

Two individuals made a request to the York Regional Police Services Board (the police) for access to a specified incident report and the related police officers’ notes. The police granted partial access to the report and police officers’ notes explaining that disclosure of some of the information would be an unjustified invasion of other individuals’ personal privacy (section 38(b)).

In this order, the adjudicator finds that disclosure of the withheld information would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and upholds the police’s decision not to disclose.

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.