Dernières décisions

On April 3, 2024, an individual asked the Ministry of the Solicitor General for records related to an animal kept at a marine-themed amusement park. They appealed because the ministry did not issue a decision within the prescribed time limit. The decision-maker finds that the ministry has not issued a decision and the request is deemed to have been refused. The ministry is ordered to issue a decision by May 8, 2025.

An individual requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act from Cabinet Office to records of directives from the Premier’s Office to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing regarding the removal of lands from the Greenbelt. Cabinet Office located two responsive records: a mandate letter and a draft mandate letter.

The individual appealed Cabinet Office’s decision because he believes additional responsive records ought to exist.

In this order, the adjudicator finds Cabinet Office conducted a reasonable search for records and dismisses the appeal.

A children’s aid society contacted the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario to report privacy breaches under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (the Act). The breaches involved 73 incidents of unauthorized uses of personal information by nine of its employees. In this Decision, I find that although the CAS did not have reasonable measures in place to protect personal information at the time of the breaches, it has since taken steps to effectively remediate the breaches. As a result, I find that a review of this matter under section 318(1) of the Act is not necessary.

The township received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records related to the appellant. The request also asked for information about the township’s personal information banks and associated indices. The township attempted to clarify the appellant’s access request but was not able to do so, and decided to deny the request on the basis that it was frivolous or vexatious within the meaning of section 4(1)(b) of the Act. The appellant then submitted a substantially similar request, which the township also deemed to be frivolous or vexatious.
In this order, the adjudicator upholds both of the township’s decisions, finding that the requests were made for a purpose other than to obtain access.

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act), the appellant asked the Ministry of the Solicitor General for Ontario Provincial Police records relating to allegations he made that a hospital technician had sexually assaulted him. The appeal arises because the appellant objects to the ministry’s decision to withhold the technician’s last name and her home address and telephone number from the records it disclosed to him. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the ministry’s claim of section 49(b) (personal privacy) of the Act to withhold this information from the appellant. Although this information is contained in records of the appellant’s own personal information (i.e., records to which the appellant has a greater right of access under the Act), disclosing the technician’s personal information in these circumstances would be an unjustified invasion of her personal privacy. The adjudicator dismisses the appeal.

An adopted person made a request to the Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay under Part X of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 for access to information from her adoption file, including a copy of her birth registration. The society provided partial access to information from the requester’s adoption file, disclosing all information except for identifying information of individuals other than the requester. The society did not locate a birth registration in its records, and the requester was not satisfied with its search efforts.

In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the adoption file is excluded from the scope of the Act because of section 285(4)(a), which excludes information that relates to an adoption. As a result, Part X of the Act does not apply to the withheld information, and she does not have a right of access to it under the Part X of the Act. The adjudicator also finds that because the adoption file is excluded from the Act, he cannot review the society’s search efforts.

The appellant made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for all police records relating to him. The police granted partial access to a five-page report, withholding some information because its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual’s personal privacy (section 38(b)) and other information because it is not responsive to the request.
In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s decision in part. She finds that the police properly withheld another individual’s personal information under section 38(b). She also finds that the police properly withheld some of the information they identified as non-responsive. However, she finds that other information that the police withheld as non-responsive is responsive to the request and orders them to issue an access decision with respect to that information.

The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks received a request for records relating to a proposed amendment of the habitat regulation for a species of fish. The ministry issued an interim decision, including a fee estimate of $990 under section 57(3) of the Act and a time extension of 270 days from the completion of the appellant’s other request under sections 27(1) of the Act. In this order, the decision-maker does not uphold the ministry’s fee estimate. While she upholds the ministry’s time extension of 270 days, she orders this time period to start as of December 6, 2024, and for the ministry to issue a final decision by September 2, 2025.

The police investigated a boat-related injury of a child. They received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for their report. The police disclosed parts of the report to the requester but decided that they could not release other parts of it. The reason for this decision to withhold parts of the police report was that disclosing those parts of the report would violate the personal privacy of the people involved (section 38(b) of the Act). In this order, the adjudicator agrees with the police that the information they withheld in the police report should not be disclosed.

The appellant submitted a request for reconsideration of Order PO-4591, which upheld the ministry’s decision to deny access to OHIP investigation records about a potential billing concern. Order PO-4591 held that section 49(a) of the Act, allowing the ministry to refuse the appellant access to his personal information, read with section 14(1)(c), allowing the ministry to refuse to disclose records that could reveal investigative techniques or procedures, applied to the OHIP investigation records.
The appellant argues that there was a fundamental defect in the adjudication process because the ministry did not specify which part of section 14(1) it relied on to withhold the records or provide evidence of an ongoing law enforcement investigation, and because his representations were not considered before Order PO-4591 was issued.
The adjudicator allows the reconsideration of Order PO-4591, which erroneously states that the appellant did not submit representations. As the appellant’s representations were not considered in Order PO-4591, the adjudicator finds that there was a fundamental defect in the adjudication process.
The adjudicator considers the appellant’s representations, which do not address section 14(1)(c) of the Act, and she finds that they do not affect the result in Order PO-4591. The adjudicator confirms her finding in Order PO-4591 that section 49(a), read with section 14(1)(c), applies to the withheld records.

This interim order is one of two orders being issued together that arise in similar appeals. In both orders, the adjudicator considers the issue of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s control over personal emails in the possession of a former employee.
A media reporter asked the ministry for access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to personal emails of the former minister’s Chief of Staff relating to the Greenbelt amendment. The ministry provided some emails but the reporter believes that additional records ought to exist and appealed the ministry’s decision. The ministry takes the position that any additional records are not within its custody or control.
In this order, the adjudicator finds that the records the reporter is seeking, if they exist, are within the ministry’s control. The adjudicator orders the ministry to assert its control of the records by directing the former employee to identify and provide any responsive records to the ministry. The adjudicator reserves her findings on the reasonableness of the ministry’s searches.

This interim order is one of two orders being issued together that arise in similar appeals. In both orders, the adjudicator considers the issue of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s control over personal emails in the possession of a former employee.
A media reporter asked the ministry for access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the personal emails of the former minister’s Chief of Staff containing the word “Greenbelt”. The ministry provided some emails but the reporter believes that additional records ought to exist and appealed the ministry’s decision. The ministry takes the position that any additional records are not within its custody or control.
In this order, the adjudicator finds that the records the reporter is seeking, if they exist, are within the ministry’s control. The adjudicator orders the ministry to assert its control of the records by directing the former employee to identify and provide any responsive records to the ministry. The adjudicator reserves her findings on the reasonableness of the ministry’s searches.

The Town of Newmarket received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for information relating to a certain bidding process and work awarded for a project. The requester later limited the scope of the request to information relating to the winning bidder. The town refused to disclose the information because it considered it to be third party information protected from disclosure under the mandatory exemption at section 10(1) of the Act.
The affected party consented to the disclosure of some information at issue in the records, and the adjudicator orders the town to disclose that to the appellant. The adjudicator also finds that section 10(1) does not apply to any of the remaining information at issue and orders the town to disclose that as well.

An individual requested records from the Premier’s Office relating to the proposed Greenbelt project from January 2021 to October 2022. Cabinet Office located one responsive record. The individual appealed that decision, claiming additional responsive records ought to exist.
During the inquiry, Cabinet Office conducted another search and located additional responsive records.
In this order, the adjudicator finds the appellant provided evidence that a former member of Premier’s Office staff has government records in their personal account. She asks Cabinet Office to request copies of responsive records from this former employee and other former Premier’s Office staff who may also have government records in their personal accounts. Otherwise, the adjudicator finds Cabinet Office’s search to have been reasonable.

An individual made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for all records relating to them. The OLG provided access to several hundred records but denied access to others claiming the personal privacy exemption in section 49(b), as well as the solicitor-client privilege in section 49(a) read with section 19. The OLG also claimed that some of the information was not responsive to the access request.

In this order, the adjudicator finds that some of the information the OLG deemed not responsive is actually responsive to the request. She also finds that some records contain the personal information of other people which is exempt under the personal privacy exemption, and that other information in the records is exempt because it is solicitor-client privileged. The adjudicator further finds that certain information the OLG claimed was personal information (such as the signatures of OLG employees in records) does not qualify as personal information and, as a result, the personal privacy exemption does not apply to it. The adjudicator orders the OLG to disclose the signatures of OLG staff contained in the records to the individual who made the access request.