Dernières décisions

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.

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.

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.

The appellant asked the police to investigate a police officer under the Criminal Code. According to the police, they investigated the officer and dismissed the appellant’s allegations. The appellant then asked the police, under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA), for records created during the investigation. The police claimed that these records were excluded from MFIPPA under section 52(3) (employment or labour relations).

In this order, the adjudicator finds that the police have not established that the records are excluded under section 52(3) of MFIPPA. He orders the police to issue an access decision in response to the request without relying on section 52(3) of MFIPPA.

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.

The appellant made three access requests for records relating to the deaths of two pediatric patients in May or June 2024. The hospital denied access to all records in all requests under the discretionary exemption for economic and other interests (section 18(1)). The appellant appealed the hospital’s decision to the IPC. The hospital refused to provide records to the IPC so that it may resolve the appeal. In this decision, the Registrar orders the hospital to produce the records at issue in the appeal to the IPC.

An individual asked the police for specified police records. The police granted access in full to the records. The individual believes that an audio statement should exist. The police said that no more records exist.
In this order, the adjudicator determines that the police conducted a reasonable search for records and dismisses the appeal.

An environmental rights organisation made a request to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The organisation seeks access to records of requests from landowners to modify the official plans in seven regions of Southwestern Ontario and records of directions from the minister’s office to ministry staff regarding these requests.
After notifying third parties and providing them with an opportunity to comment, the ministry decided to release to the organisation some records that it had identified as possibly containing third party information. A third party appealed the ministry’s decision claiming that one of those records, a letter it sent to the former minister, should not be disclosed because of the third party information exemption in section 17(1) of the Act.
In this order the adjudicator finds that the letter and its enclosures do not contain third party information that should be withheld and upholds the ministry’s decision to disclose it to the requester.

An individual asked the Ministry of the Solicitor General (the ministry) for access to police records relating to a specified incident on a specified date. The ministry provided some information in a general occurrence report explaining that disclosure of the rest of the information would be an unjustified invasion of another individual’s personal privacy (section 49(b)).
In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision not to disclose the information it withheld.