Adjudicator says disclosure not needed for injured party to participate in court process
An adjudicator for Ontario’s information and privacy commissioner has upheld the York Regional Police Services Board’s decision withholding information in a police report relating to an investigation of a child’s boat-related injury to protect the personal privacy of those involved.
The case York Regional Police Services Board (Re), 2025 CanLII 35383 (ON IPC), arose from a police investigation of a boating accident resulting in a non-fatal injury to a child. The appellant – the injured party in this case – requested access to the police report under Ontario’s Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1990 (MFIPPA).
The appellant’s counsel alleged that the appellant needed this information to know the proper parties to sue for their negligence leading to the accident and refrain from pursuing anyone other than those responsible.
The police disclosed portions of the report to the appellant but decided to withhold other parts, including witness statements obtained during the investigation. The police argued that releasing the withheld information would breach the personal privacy of the individuals involved under the discretionary exemption in s. 38(b) of the MFIPPA.
The appellant challenged the police’s decision on appeal.
An adjudicator for Ontario’s information and privacy commissioner dismissed the appeal and affirmed the police’s decision under the discretionary exemption in s. 38(b) of the MFIPPA.
First, the adjudicator determined that the police report contained personal information of the appellant and other affected individuals as defined by s. 2(1) of the MFIPPA. The adjudicator noted that the information withheld and the information that the police previously disclosed to the appellant could identify these individuals.
The adjudicator held that the witness statements – including those of the marina business owner and employees – were also personal information under s. 2(1) because the statements contained the personal information of the witnesses inextricably mixed with and incapable of being severed from the appellant’s information.
The adjudicator noted that previous IPC orders have decided that information regarding individuals collected and used for law enforcement purposes amounts to personal information under s. 2(1).
The adjudicator found that the information obtained during the witnesses’ interactions with the police revealed something personal about these individuals, which made the information personal and not merely professional.
Next, the adjudicator decided that the discretionary exemption in s. 38(b) applied. The adjudicator found that the police considered all the relevant factors when exercising discretion under s. 38(b) and did so without bad faith or improper purposes.
The adjudicator acknowledged that the police considered the MFIPPA’s purpose, including the principles that individuals had a right to access their own personal information and that individual privacy deserved protection.
Lastly, the adjudicator determined that disclosing the personal information would unjustifiably invade the personal privacy of the individuals involved. The adjudicator began this analysis by considering whether the personal information was relevant to the fair determination of the appellant’s rights under s. 14(2)(d) of the MFIPPA.
This provision weighed in favour of disclosure if the requester required the information to participate in a court or tribunal process. However, the adjudicator decided this case did not meet the four-part test for applying this factor.
The adjudicator noted that the appellant’s counsel did not dispute that the police disclosed the name of the marina business and the names and contact information of many affected individuals. The adjudicator concluded that the appellant did not need the police to disclose the personal information to participate in a court process.
The adjudicator then found the personal information highly sensitive under s. 14(2)(f) of the MFIPPA, given that it arose from police questioning about a boating accident and a child’s injury and involved some witnesses who were also young people.
The adjudicator found that the factor in s. 14(2)(f) weighed significantly against disclosure. The adjudicator said there was a reasonable expectation of significant personal distress if the police disclosed personal information about the affected individuals.
