CYFSA DECISION 27

Complaint FA21-00055

Children's Aid Society of Ottawa

April 29, 2025

Summary: The complainant asked the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa for all its records between 2013 and early 2021 of investigations involving her, her children and the children’s father. The CAS partially released responsive records to the complainant, withholding portions containing information about the father and other individuals. The CAS withheld those portions based on its determination that the records were not dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the complainant and her children, and she was not entitled to access personal information about other individuals without their consent or a court order. The complainant asked the IPC to review the CAS’s decision, arguing that more information from the records should be released to her and that the CAS should have additional records responsive to her request.

In this decision, the adjudicator finds that most of the records are dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the entire family, including the children’s father. She upholds the CAS’s decision to withhold personal information of individuals other than the complainant and her children in these records that are dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the family.

However, the adjudicator finds that the “person records” of the complainant and her children are dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to them alone and should be fully released to the complainant. She orders the CAS to release these person records to the complainant. The adjudicator upholds the reasonableness of the CAS’s search for responsive records.

Statutes Considered: Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, c 14, Sch 1, sections 2 (definitions), 312(1) and 312(3); Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act , RSO 1990, c F.31, section 2  (definition of “personal information”).

BACKGROUND:

[1] This decision addresses a mother’s entitlement to access records of the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (the CAS) about services it provided to her family. The CAS is a service provider[1] within the meaning of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (the Act) and is subject to the requirements of Part X of the Act. The complainant is the mother of two children, and she is their legally authorized substitute decision-maker under the Act.

[2] The complainant submitted an access request under the Act for “any and all records” relating to CAS investigations between January 1, 2013, and March 2, 2021, including emails, notes taken during interviews and phone calls with any involved individuals, case notes, and text message communications. The complainant specified that the individuals involved in the investigation were herself, her ex-husband, and their two children.

[3] In a decision letter dated March 25, 2021, the CAS granted the complainant partial access to 270 pages of records. In its decision letter, the CAS stated that it had removed from the records information about other people and/or other matters, based on its determination that the records are not dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the complainant.

[4] The complainant was dissatisfied with the CAS’s decision and complained about it to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC). The IPC attempted to mediate the complaint. During mediation, the CAS maintained its position that the complainant has no right of access to the withheld personal information of other individuals. The CAS described the files as “mixed files,” and relied on section 312(3) of the Act. [2]

[5] The complainant asserted that the CAS improperly withheld some of her personal information in the records that it should have released to her. She also asserted that the CAS should have located other records through its search, including written and/or electronic notes taken by a caseworker during meetings with her family, notes from meetings between the supervisor and the caseworker about her file, and records concerning calls and reports made by third parties to the CAS. The CAS maintained there are no other records. It explained that handwritten notes taken by a caseworker during a meeting are turned into official contact logs within 24 hours, and that contact logs reflect the content of any notes taken as well as other observations from the meeting. The complainant was not satisfied with this explanation.

[6] A mediated resolution was not achieved, and the complaint was transferred to adjudication, where an adjudicator may conduct a review under the Act. An IPC adjudicator conducted a review. She sent a Notice of Review to the parties and received representations from them. The complaint was then transferred to me. I examined the complaint file and determined that the review was complete.

[7] In this decision, I agree with the CAS that most of the records are dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the entire family, including the children’s father. However, I find that the person records for the complainant and her children are dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to them, and the complainant is entitled to access them. I order the CAS to fully release these person records to the complainant. I also uphold the reasonableness of the CAS’s search for records.

RECORDS:

At issue are the withheld portions of the 270 pages of child protection investigation records. These records include the Record of Inquiry, Referral, Caregiver or Adult Profiles, Safety and Family Risk Assessments, Case Activity, Investigation Plan, Case Notes, Supervision Case Notes, correspondence, Intake Case Investigation and Investigation Case Information. They also include “person records” for each of the complainant and her two children, at pages 132 to 166 of the records, that contain withheld information.

ISSUES:

1. What is the extent of the complainant’s right of access under section 312(1) to her personal information in the records, and, as her children’s authorized substitute decision-maker under the Act, to her children’s personal information?
2. Did the CAS conduct a reasonable search for responsive records within its custody or control?

DISCUSSION:

Issue A: What is the extent of the complainant’s right of access under section 312(1) to her personal information in the records, and, as her children’s authorized substitute decision-maker under the Act, to her children’s personal information?

[8] To begin, the parties agree that the complainant has a right of access to her personal information in the records and that, as her children’s legally authorized substitute decision-maker under the Act, she can exercise her children’s right of access under the Act to obtain her children’s personal information in the records.

[9] “Personal information” is defined in section 2 of the Act to have the same meaning as in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act  (FIPPA ). Section 2(1)  of FIPPA defines “personal information” to mean recorded information about an identifiable individual, including, among other things: information relating to the race, age, sex or marital or family status of the individual [paragraph (a) of the definition of “personal information” in section 2(1) of FIPPA]; the address or telephone number of the individual [paragraph (d)]; and the individual’s name where it appears with other personal information relating to the individual [paragraph (h)].

[10] The right of access in Part X is set out in section 312(1) of the Act, which reads, in part:

An individual has a right of access to a record of personal information about the individual that is in a service provider’s custody or control and that relates to the provision of a service to the individual[.]

[11] The extent of an individual’s right of access to a record under section 312(1) of the Act also depends on whether each record is “dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the individual requesting access” within the meaning of section 312(3), which reads:

Despite subsection (1), if a record is not a record dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the individual requesting access, the individual has a right of access only to the personal information about the individual in the record that can reasonably be severed from the record.

[12] The CAS and the complainant agree that the records at issue are records of personal information about the complainant, her children and the children’s father. This personal information includes their names, dates of birth, addresses, telephone numbers, and details of their interactions with the CAS.

[13] In its representations, the CAS submits that the records at issue – records of two child welfare investigations – are not records dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the complainant and/or her children; rather, they are records documenting a child welfare service provided to all the family members at the same time. Thus, the CAS takes the position that the records are dedicated primarily to the provision of services to the family. The complainant does not directly address this submission in her representations. However, her representations acknowledge that the records relate to the provision of a service to the family. The complainant’s access request, in which she named the family members involved in the CAS’s investigation, also acknowledged that the records reflect CAS services provided to the family. The complainant does not claim that the records at issue are dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to either her alone or to her children alone.

For most of the records at issue, the complainant has a right of access under section 312(3) only to her children’s and her personal information that can reasonably be severed from the records

[14] From my examination of the records, I agree with the CAS’s assessment for most of them – that they are “dedicated primarily to the provision of a service” to the whole family rather than to any individual member of the family. The result of this finding is that the complainant has a right of access, under section 312(3), only to her own personal information that can reasonably be severed from these records, and, as a substitute decision-maker exercising her children’s right of access on their behalf, to her children’s personal information that can reasonably be severed from these records. I address these records, that are dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the entire family, below.

The complainant has a right of access under section 312(1) to her children’s and her person records

[15] However, I disagree with the CAS’s assessment for six specific records – the person records of the complainant and her children. These person records are found at pages 132 to 166 of the records. The parties do not specifically address the person records in their representations.

[16] The person records at pages 132 to 166 contain the name, address, date of birth, ethnic origin and other information for each of the complainant and her children. As noted in CYFSA Decision 23,[3] a person record is created for each recipient of services from a service provider. Each of these person records is a “record of personal information about” the complainant and her children “that relates to the provision of a service to” them within the meaning of section 312(1) of the Act.

[17] I find that the complainant’s person records at pages 132 to 142 are dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to her, and her children’s person records at pages 143 to 166 are dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the children. As a result, I further find that the complainant has a right of access to her complete person records under section 312(1), and she is authorized to exercise her children’s right of access under section 312(1) to their complete person records. Below, I order the CAS to release these person records to the complainant.

Does the withheld information in the remaining records contain personal information about the complainant and/or her children that can reasonably be severed and released to the complainant?

[18] Remaining at issue is the withheld information in the records that I have found above are dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the entire family. I must determine whether there is any personal information about the complainant and/or her children in the withheld portions of the records “that can reasonably be severed from the record” in accordance with section 312(3) and released to her.

[19] The CAS’s position is that any remaining personal information belonging to the complainant and/or her children is mixed with the personal information of the children’s father and/or other individuals and cannot reasonably be severed from the latter.

[20] The CAS states that although the records at issue are dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the entire family, it determined that the personal information of the complainant and/or her children could reasonably be severed from the records. The CAS submits that it granted the complainant access to her children’s and her severed personal information in accordance with section 312(3) of the Act. The CAS adds that, by doing so, it confirms that it protected the personal information of the father and other individuals who were also involved in the child welfare investigation.

[21] The CAS explains that the information found in CAS investigation records is highly sensitive personal information that must be kept confidential for the safe and effective delivery of CAS services to service recipients. It contends that it is crucial that children and youth be able to interact with the CAS with an assurance of privacy; similarly, separated parents must also be able to interact with the CAS without fear that their interactions will be accessed by the other parent. It states that without the assurance of confidentiality, service recipients will hesitate to voice their concerns, the CAS will be unable to collect the required evidence and carry out its legislated mandate, and the provision of child welfare services will be hampered. The CAS asserts that it is essential that it allow all service recipients to be heard in a manner that respects their personal privacy.

[22] The complainant submits that she cannot rebut the CAS’s representations because she does not know what information is contained in the withheld portions of the records. She argues that her ex-husband’s name and the fact that he is the children’s father, are facts that she knows and, seemingly, would not necessarily qualify as “personal information” and should not be redacted from the records. She states that she is suspicious of the way the CAS “hard handedly protected pages of records.” She concludes by stating that she defers to the adjudicator’s review of the withheld information and whether any of it can be shared with her.

There remains no personal information about the complainant and/or her children that can reasonably be severed and released to the complainant

[23] Having considered the parties’ representations and examined the records remaining at issue, I am satisfied that the CAS gave the complainant all the reasonably severable personal information to which she is entitled in these records, her own and her children’s. I confirm that the withheld portions of the records contain personal information of one or more other individuals, sometimes mixed with the personal information of the complainant and/or her children. Due to the way the personal information of the family and other individuals is mixed, there are no withheld portions of the records that contain personal information of the complainant and/or her children alone that can reasonably be severed and released to the complainant without revealing personal information about other individuals. The CAS properly concluded that the personal information of the complainant and her children could not reasonably be severed from these remaining records.

Issue B: Did the CAS conduct a reasonable search for responsive records within its custody or control?

[24] The complainant believes that more records relating to her and her children exist beyond those that the CAS located through its searches, specifically:

• written and/or electronic notes taken by a caseworker during meetings
• notes from consult meetings between the supervisor and the caseworker about her file
• additional records of calls, complaints, or reports made to the CAS by third parties (like the police or the children’s psychologist) about the complainant and her family.

[25] Because the complainant claims that more records exist beyond those identified by the CAS, I must decide whether the CAS has conducted a reasonable search for records as required by sections 313 and 314 of the Act. These sections address the written request that an individual may make to a service provider to exercise a right of access to records, and the obligations on the service provider in responding to the access request.

[26] The IPC has consistently held that to be responsive to a request, a record must be "reasonably related" to the request.[4] The IPC has also consistently held that a reasonable search is one in which an experienced employee knowledgeable in the subject matter of the request expends a reasonable effort to locate records that are reasonably related to the request.[5] Previous IPC decisions, including CYFSA Decisions 4 and 18, have found that a requester must provide a reasonable basis for concluding that additional records exist.

[27] In its representations, the CAS submits that it conducted a reasonable search, as demonstrated by the affidavit it encloses with its representations. The CAS states it is confident that no additional records exist. It states that it does not destroy records, other than handwritten notes that may be consolidated into a typed contact log and uploaded to the Child Protection Information Network (CPIN). The affidavit is sworn by a CAS Records Clerk.

[28] In the affidavit, the Records Clerk states that she is responsible for completing searches of CAS records to respond to access to information and disclosure requests. She explains that she and her team members follow a standard search process: in every instance, they create a contact log outlining the steps taken during their search and the results of their search. She explains that the CAS’s practice is not to interpret requests as literally as the request in this complaint – “information pertaining to CAS investigations between January 1, 2013 – present pertaining to myself and/or my children” – but to always search all historical and current records for personal information related to the request. She confirms that, in this case, she conducted a search of all historical and current records for information about the complainant and her two children. She states she conducted this search in accordance with the CAS’s established process and recorded her results in a contact log, and she provides a copy of that contact log as an exhibit to the affidavit.

[29] The Records Clerk states that through her search, she found a legacy file related to a child welfare service in 2014, and information in CPIN about the complainant and her children relating to child welfare services in 2020. She states that she provided those records to the access to information and disclosure team for review and redaction as needed. She adds that her supervisor reviewed her contact log – due to the search concerns raised by the complainant regarding the scope of the records produced – and decided no additional searches were needed considering the process she used to conduct her initial search. The Records Clerk states she was informed that the complainant expected to find handwritten notes in the records provided, but handwritten notes are not the current practice at the CAS; if a child protection worker takes handwritten notes during a meeting, the CAS’s practice is to consolidate such notes in a typed contact log for record keeping purposes. She explains that child protection workers are required to create a typed contact log and upload it to CPIN within 24 hours of the information being collected; thus, she does not expect to find handwritten notes in current records. She confirms that she is unaware of any other searches that could have located additional records containing the personal information of the complainant and/or her children.

[30] In her representations, the complainant maintains that additional records exist and submits the CAS is not being transparent. She states that the CAS investigator took notes on his computer when he visited her home. She questions the CAS’s response that those notes can be discarded and, effectively, destroyed. She also asserts that the CAS investigator’s notes of conversations with the supervisor should exist.

[31] I accept the affidavit evidence of the CAS and find it adequate to establish that the CAS conducted a reasonable search for responsive records. The affidavit establishes that the Records Clerk, an experienced CAS employee knowledgeable in the subject matter of the request, made a reasonable effort to locate records that are reasonably related to the request. The 270 pages of responsive records the CAS located and partly released to the complainant contain pages of detailed notes taken by the investigator during a home visit with the complainant. The Records Clerk’s evidence – that handwritten notes are not standard practice and that CAS workers are required to consolidate any handwritten notes into typed CPIN entries within 24 hours – adequately addresses the complainant’s claim that handwritten notes should exist and refutes her claim that the notes were destroyed. Considering the CAS’s evidence and representations, and its comprehensive search for all historical and current records of the complainant’s and her children’s personal information, the complainant’s general assertion that more records should exist does not establish a reasonable basis for me to conclude that additional responsive records exist. I uphold the CAS’s search as reasonable.

ORDER:

1. I do not uphold the CAS’s decision to deny the complainant access to the person records. Pursuant to section 321(1)(a) of the Act, I order the CAS to release to the complainant the person records at pages 132 to 166 of the records. The CAS should release the additional information to the complainant by May 28, 2025, and copy the IPC on its correspondence to the complainant.
2. I uphold the remainder of the CAS’s access decision and its search for responsive records.

Original Signed by:		April 29, 2025
Stella Ball
Adjudicator