Dernières décisions

An individual asked the ministry for access to environmental information relating to an industrial site in St. Catharines formerly owned by the appellant. The appellant appealed the ministry’s decision to grant partial access to responsive records, claiming they are exempt under the mandatory exemption for third party information in section 17(1). The appellant also claimed that some of the records contain employee personal information. The adjudicator finds that the records are not exempt under section 17(1) and do not contain personal information. She upholds the ministry’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

An individual submitted a request to Lanark County (the county) under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to a specified rent form. The county issued a decision granting partial access to the rent form but withheld some personal information on the basis that its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy of the individuals to whom it relates.
In this order, the adjudicator upholds the county’s decision not to grant access to some of the information on the rent form and dismisses the appeal.

An individual asked the City of Vaughan (the city) for records related to a specified address. The city provided partial access to the records. It did not disclose some information because its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of another individual’s personal privacy [section 14(1)]. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the city’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

An individual asked, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act), for a copy of a complaint made to the ministry that led to a business inspection. The ministry granted full access to the complaint, but an affected party appealed the ministry’s decision to the IPC. In this order, the adjudicator finds that some of the information is exempt from disclosure under section 21(1) (personal privacy) of the Act and partially grants the appeal. He orders disclosure only of information in the complaint that is not personal information.

An individual asked the city for a copy of a bed and breakfast business licence application. The city decided to disclose a copy of the licence in full. The individual who applied for the licence objected and then appealed the city’s decision to disclose their signature on the application, claiming that it is personal information. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the signature on the business licence application does not constitute personal information. She upholds the city’s decision to disclose the entire licence application, including the signature, and dismisses this appeal.

A requester asked the ministry for communications related to the revoking of a grant that his organization had received. The ministry located several email chains but withheld most of them under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. In this order, the adjudicator agrees that the records should not be disclosed because of section 19, with the exception of one email chain between ministry staff. He orders this email chain disclosed.

This final order disposes of the outstanding issue of the reasonableness of a search conducted by the Ministry of the Solicitor General (the ministry) for records relating to the appellant’s interactions with the Ontario Provincial Police.

In Interim Order PO-4489-I, the adjudicator did not uphold the ministry’s search for responsive records and ordered it to conduct further searches for certain records identified by the appellant as not yet having been located.

In this final order, the adjudicator finds the ministry’s further searches conducted in accordance with Interim Order PO-4489-I to be reasonable. She upholds the ministry’s search for records responsive to the appellant’s request and dismisses the appeal.

An individual made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) to the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services (the ministry) for information about a tool used by the ministry to establish funding priority for adults with development disabilities. The ministry refused access to the tool stating that disclosure would be injurious to the financial interests of the Government of Ontario (section 18(1)(d) of the Act).

In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision to withhold the tool, in part. She finds that information relating to the purpose and business context of the tool, information included in the published version of the tool, and the score type is not exempt because its disclosure would not be injurious to the ministry’s financial interests. However, she finds that disclosure of the remaining information would be injurious to the ministry’s financial interests under section 18(1)(d) and the public interest override at section 23 does not apply to permit its disclosure.

The appellant asked the ministry for records, between March 2020 and March 2022, of scientific evidence for specific COVID-19 protocols. The ministry located seven records (totalling over 150 pages) that were responsive to the appellant’s request. However, the appellant asserted that additional records should exist. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the ministry’s affidavit evidence establishes that the ministry conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to the appellant’s request. She dismisses the appeal.

A school board received a multi-part request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a variety of records, including privacy assessments. The board withheld the records at issue, taking the position that disclosure would impact its economic interests (section 11(a)). In this order, the adjudicator finds that one record is not exempt under section 11(a) and orders the board to disclose it. The adjudicator upholds the board’s decision to deny access to the two remaining records on the basis that section 11(a) applies and finds that the public interest override (section 16) does not apply.

The police received a request from the appellant for access to information about his father’s death. The police granted partial access to responsive records. Two affected parties, individuals who lived with the deceased at the time of his death, opposed disclosure of their personal information in the records, including where it is inextricably mixed with the deceased’s personal information. She finds that the information at issue is exempt under the personal privacy exemptions in sections 14(1) and 38(b) of the Act.

An individual made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the town for access to records and information relating to third party vendors on the town’s website. The town provided a fee estimate and sought a time extension of 30 days to respond to the request.
The individual appealed the town’s fee estimate and time extension to the IPC. During mediation, the individual sought a fee waiver from the town. The town denied the fee waiver request.
In this decision, the adjudicator upholds the town’s fee estimate, time extension and denial of fee waiver.

An individual asked the city for records related to Next Generation 911. The city initially provided the individual with a fee estimate of $1180, but after processing the access request, it provided the individual with a final fee of $990. The individual disputes that the fee is reasonable. In this order, the adjudicator orders the city to reduce the fee to $645.

This final order determines whether the City of Toronto (the city) conducted a reasonable search under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to repairs to sidewalks at a specific address. In Interim Order MO-4558-I, the adjudicator determined that the city had not conducted a reasonable search and ordered it to conduct a further search for responsive records. In this final order, the adjudicator finds that the city has now conducted a reasonable search for responsive records, and she dismisses the appeal.

On April 2, 2024, an individual asked the ministry for records between it, the staff of three private sector beverage companies, and the Beer Store since 2018. On May 1, 2024, the ministry provided the appellant with a fee estimate and on June 5, 2024, the appellant paid a deposit. Upon payment of the deposit, the ministry claimed a time extension of 240 days under section 27(1) of the Act until February 3, 2025. This order partly upholds the ministry’s decision to claim a time extension, but reduces it from 240 days to 223 days, and orders the ministry to issue a final access decision by January 14, 2025.