Health Law

The appellant sought access to OHIP records relating to his children under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry of Health denied access under the personal privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant was not a custodial parent under section 66(c) of the Act, nor an access parent under section 20(5) of the Children's Law Reform Act, as his access rights had been suspended by court order.

The records contained the children's medical history, and their disclosure would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(a).

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to Ministry of Health files pertaining to his complaints against two physicians before the Health Disciplines Board.

The Ministry withheld several records, claiming they were excluded from the Act under section 65(2)(b) as psychiatric patient records, or exempt under sections 21(1) and 49(b) as unjustified invasions of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records held by the Ministry for the purpose of investigating the physicians did not have a clinical purpose, and thus section 65(2)(b) did not apply.

Regarding the privacy exemptions, the Inquiry Officer upheld the severing of the physicians' personal information but ordered the disclosure of several records where the need for an adequate degree of disclosure to the complainant outweighed privacy concerns.

The requester appealed a decision by the Archives of Ontario denying access to her deceased mother's 1948 medical records from the Ontario Hospital in Cobourg.

The Archives claimed the records were exempt under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (invasion of privacy).

The Inquiry Officer found that the records contained the personal information of the mother and her family, but not the requester.

As the requester did not provide representations to show that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(1)(f), the Inquiry Officer upheld the Archives' decision to deny access.

The complainant alleged that a Workers' Compensation Board physician improperly disclosed his personal medical information to the College of Physicians and Surgeons without consent.

The disclosure occurred after the complainant filed a complaint with the College regarding the physician's conduct and qualifications.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information was 'personal information' under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, the disclosure was permitted under section 42(c) of the Act because it was for a consistent purpose, as the complainant should have reasonably expected the physician to disclose relevant medical records to the College to respond to the allegations.

The appellant sought access to records relating to a Health Disciplines Board review of a complaint against a doctor who performed surgery on her adult daughter.

The Ministry of Health denied access to a portion of a handwritten note, citing the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the record contained highly sensitive personal information relating to the daughter's medical treatment, and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant, a non-custodial father involved in divorce proceedings, appealed a decision by the East York Health Unit denying him access to his five-year-old child's medical records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant argued that section 16(5) of the Divorce Act expressly authorized disclosure.

The Inquiry Officer found that section 16(5) lacked the specificity required to constitute express statutory authorization under section 14(1)(d) of the Act.

The Inquiry Officer also concluded that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the child's personal privacy and that the appellant could not exercise the child's rights under section 54(c) because he did not have lawful custody.

The decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant physician sought access to the health card version codes of two patients.

The Ministry of Health denied access, arguing that disclosure would result in an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and could lead to fraudulent claims.

Following a Divisional Court decision quashing an earlier order, the Inquiry Officer reheard the matter.

The Inquiry Officer found that the version codes, in association with health card numbers, constitute personal information.

Furthermore, the Inquiry Officer concluded that disclosure of the version codes could allow access to an individual's medical history, thereby satisfying the presumption of an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Health for her health records, including version codes and billing information.

The Ministry disclosed some records but severed portions containing the personal information of other individuals.

The appellant appealed, arguing the severed records should relate to her and that additional records should exist.

The Inquiry Officer found that the severed information was not responsive to the request as it contained billing information of other individuals.

The Inquiry Officer also concluded that the Ministry's search for responsive records was reasonable.

The Ministry's decision was upheld.

A patient at a psychiatric hospital requested access to tape recordings of his annual review hearings before the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board.

The Board denied access, claiming it lacked the technological means to copy the tapes, that the tapes were exempt as clinical records, and that disclosure would invade the privacy of others.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of the tapes, finding that reproducing cassette tapes is reasonably practicable and that the tapes were created for a non-clinical purpose.

A small portion of one tape containing private conversations of other individuals was severed and exempted under section 49(b).

The complainant alleged that a regional municipality improperly disclosed his HIV-positive status to a home care company providing services to his mother.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information was personal information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, that the municipality had disclosed it to the company, and that the disclosure was not authorized under section 32 of the Act.

The municipality failed to demonstrate that the disclosure was necessary for health and safety, as the company already used universal precautions.

The Commissioner recommended staff training on the Act's disclosure requirements.

The requester, a patient at a mental health centre, appealed the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board's decision to deny access to 74 records relating to his disposition hearings.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of most records, finding that the Board's recommendations constituted decisions falling outside the advice or recommendations exemption, and that clinical records provided to the Board for non-clinical purposes were not excluded from the Act.

The law enforcement exemption was also rejected for inactive investigations.

However, the exemption for publicly available court records was upheld.

The appellant requested records from the Ministry of Health relating to complaints of physical or sexual abuse by staff at a psychiatric facility.

The Ministry proposed to grant partial access but refused to waive the $147 fee.

The appellant appealed the fee waiver refusal, arguing that dissemination of the records would benefit public health or safety.

The Inquiry Officer applied a four-factor test and found that the records related directly to a public health and safety issue concerning vulnerable institutionalized patients, and that dissemination would yield a public benefit.

The Ministry was ordered to waive the fee.

The Ministry of Health denied a freedom of information request for records relating to a psychiatric patient, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(2) and that section 35 of the Mental Health Act prohibited their disclosure to the Commissioner.

The requester appealed.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the Ministry to produce the records to the Commissioner, holding that the Commissioner has the power under section 52(4) to compel production to determine whether the section 65(2) exclusion applies, and that section 35(5) of the Mental Health Act permits disclosure pursuant to such an order.

The complainant alleged that the Ministry of Health improperly disclosed her personal information to the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) when she received a targeted mailing.

The investigation found that the Ministry provided a list of names and addresses to Canada Post, which performed a mail merge with a form letter from the OBSP.

The Compliance Review Officer concluded that the information was 'personal information' under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, but that the disclosure to Canada Post was for a consistent purpose (health promotion) and therefore in accordance with section 42 of the Act.

The Ministry was recommended to sign confidentiality agreements directly in the future.

An employee of a Ministry of Health psychiatric hospital filed a privacy complaint after her medical certificate was disclosed to the Assistant Administrator, HR Administrator, and Legal Counsel.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information was personal information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The disclosure of the employee's name, date, and reason for absence to the administrators was authorized under section 42(d) as they needed it to verify her absence.

However, the disclosure of this information to Legal Counsel, and the disclosure of the physician's name and address to all three individuals, was not authorized as it was not needed in the performance of their duties.

Two requesters appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to the 'version codes' associated with the health numbers of three named individuals.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 18(1)(c) and (d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, arguing disclosure would prejudice its economic interests by facilitating fraudulent OHIP claims.

The Inquiry Officer found that version codes do not constitute 'personal information' under section 2(1) of the Act.

Furthermore, the Ministry failed to establish a clear and direct linkage between the disclosure of the version codes and the alleged economic harm.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the requested information.

The appellant, acting as an agent for four psychiatric patients, appealed the Ministry of Health's refusal to accept authorizations allowing the appellant to request the patients' personal information.

The Ministry refused the authorizations due to the sensitive nature of the records and clauses preventing direct contact with the patients.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the Ministry acted reasonably in refusing the authorizations, given the vulnerability of the patients and the need to verify identity, but ordered the Ministry to contact the patients directly to ascertain their wishes.

Six caregivers employed by the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital requested access to their personal information held by the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office (PPAO).

The Ministry of Health denied access, claiming the records were not in its custody or control.

On appeal, the Commissioner found that the PPAO is an internal program of the Ministry, meaning the records are under the Ministry's custody and control.

However, the Commissioner upheld the denial of access under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, finding that the records contained highly sensitive personal information of psychiatric patients supplied in confidence, and disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of their personal privacy.

The appellant sought access to his adult daughter's admission and treatment records from a psychiatric research institute.

The Ministry denied access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing exemptions for third-party personal information.

The appellant appealed, providing an authorization signed by his daughter, but the Appeals Officer could not verify its validity.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained the daughter's personal medical information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unjustified invasion of her personal privacy under sections 21 and 49(b) of the Act.

The appellant requested a list of structurally non-compliant nursing homes and the original reports detailing their non-compliance from the Ministry of Health.

The Ministry denied access under sections 18(1)(c) and (d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Several affected nursing homes also claimed the records were exempt under section 17(1).

The Inquiry Officer found that the information was not supplied in confidence by the third parties, so section 17(1) did not apply.

Furthermore, the Ministry failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice its economic interests or be injurious to the financial interests of the Government of Ontario under sections 18(1)(c) and (d).

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.