Dernières décisions

An individual requested access from the Ministry of the Attorney General (the ministry) for records of a Special Investigations Unit investigation of his complaint against a police officer. The ministry provided access to some of the records but denied access to others. The appellant determined that he wanted to pursue access to audio recordings of witness interviews that the ministry denied access to, claiming the personal privacy exemption.
In this order, the adjudicator finds the records are exempt under the personal privacy exemption because disclosure of the personal information in those records would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. She upholds the institution’s decision not to disclose them and dismisses the appeal.

After locating additional records related to the original request, the ministry submitted a request for reconsideration of Order PO-4552, claiming a fundamental defect in the adjudication process and other errors. In this reconsideration order, the adjudicator finds that the ministry has not established grounds for reconsideration under the IPC’s Code of Procedure and denies the reconsideration request.

Cabinet Office received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for records relating to the GO Transit train service and the Milton line. Cabinet Office forwarded the request to Metrolinx under section 25(1) of the Act. Cabinet Office did so because it determined that, based on the wording of the request, it did not have custody or control of responsive records; it also reached out to Metrolinx and confirmed that it had custody or control of responsive records.
The appellant appealed Cabinet Office’s decision and argued section 25(1) implicitly requires an institution to conduct a search before forwarding a request. In this order, the adjudicator finds that section 25(1) does not require an institution to conduct a search and that it was reasonable for Cabinet Office not to conduct a search before forwarding the request, in the circumstances. She upholds Cabinet Office’s decision to forward the search under section 25(1) and dismisses the appeal.

An individual submitted a request to the London Police Services Board (the police) under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records related to a specified incident. The police granted partial access to the records withholding some information.
The police denied access to 911 calls because disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of an identifiable individual’s personal privacy (section 38(b)), and because the information could reveal a confidential source (section 38(a) read with section 8(1)(d)) of the Act. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s decision not to disclose the 911 calls and dismisses the appeal.

An individual asked the City of Markham (the city) for specific records about one of the committees of the Markham City Council. The city initially informed the individual that no records existed. Having conducted an additional search, the city located two records, which it provided to the individual in full. The individual states that more records exist. The adjudicator finds that the city conducted a reasonable search for records and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant made a request to the Town of Blue Mountains (the town) under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to the video recordings of a hearing into a by-law infraction. The town denied access to these videos pursuant to section 8(1)(a) of the Act on the basis that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter.

In this order, the adjudicator finds that disclosure of the video recordings could not reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter, and she orders the town to disclose them to the appellant.

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.

The appellant asked the Ministry of Health for records of a potential billing concern identified by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. The ministry denied the appellant access to the responsive records. To do so, the ministry relied on the discretionary exemption to refuse the requester’s own personal information in section 49(a), read with the law enforcement exemption in section 14(1) of the Act.
In this order, the adjudicator finds that the exemption in section 49(a), read with 14(1)(c), applies to the information at issue. She upholds the ministry’s decision and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant requested records of communications between the City of Greater Sudbury (the city) and the Electrical Safety Authority. The city withheld the responsive records based on section 52(2.1), the exclusion for records that relate to an ongoing prosecution, in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The appellant appealed the city’s access decision. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the city’s application of section 52(2.1) of the Act 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.