CYFSA DECISION 28

Complaint FA21-00066

Children's Aid Society of Ottawa

April 29, 2025

Summary: The complainant asked the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa for all its records of a late 2021 investigation 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 agrees with the CAS that 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. However, she finds that two records contain a small amount of personal information of the complainant’s one child that can reasonably be severed from the records and released to the complainant. She orders the CAS to release that personal information 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 a CAS investigation concerning her ex-husband, the children’s father, “for allegedly putting the children at risk of emotional harm,” from September 1 to November 1, 2021. The complainant specified that the individuals involved in the investigation were herself, her ex-husband, and their two children. She also specified that her request encompasses emails, notes taken during interviews and phone calls with any involved individuals, case notes, and text message communications.

[3] In a decision letter dated December 3, 2021, the CAS granted the complainant partial access to 64 pages of records. In its decision letter, the CAS stated that it had withheld 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 the records are not dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the complainant and her children because they are records dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the whole family, including the children’s father. However, I find that two records contain a small amount of personal information of one of the complainant’s children that can reasonably be severed, and I order the CAS to release that personal information to her. I also uphold the reasonableness of the CAS’s search for records.

RECORDS:

At issue are the withheld portions of the 64 pages of child protection investigation records within the Child Protection Information Network (CPIN), including an eight-page Intake Case Information and a 37-page Investigation Case 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 child welfare investigation records at issue 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.

The complainant is entitled, under section 312(3), to access only her reasonably severable personal information and that of her children

[14] From my examination of the records, I agree with the CAS’s assessment that these records are “dedicated primarily to the provision of a service” to the whole family rather than to any individual member of the family. I find that none of the records at issue is dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the complainant only, to the children only, or to the complainant and children only. 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 the 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 the records.

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

[15] Remaining at issue is the information in the withheld portions of the records. 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.

[16] The CAS’s position is that any remaining personal information of 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 father’s and other individuals’ personal information and released to the complainant.

[17] 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.

[18] 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.

[19] 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.

[20] Having considered the parties’ representations and examined the records, I am satisfied that the CAS gave the complainant most of the reasonably severable personal information to which she is entitled in these records, with two small exceptions that I address below.

[21] I confirm that the withheld portions of the records contain the personal information of one or more individuals, other than the complainant and her children, mixed in various combinations, and personal information about the entire family. In most of these instances, the CAS appropriately concluded that the personal information of the complainant and her children could not reasonably be severed from the personal information of other individuals, which personal information the complainant is not entitled to receive under the Act.

[22] However, two records contain a small amount of personal information of one of the complainant’s children that can reasonably be severed from the withheld information at issue and released to the complainant. Unlike the remaining withheld information in the records, these two discrete pieces of personal information are not mixed with the personal information of other individuals. I will order the CAS to sever and release these two pieces of personal information, found at pages 27 and 29 of the records, to the complainant. Because I cannot specify the information to be released in this decision, I will provide the CAS with a highlighted copy of pages 27 and 29 of the records showing the reasonably severable personal information it must release to the complainant.

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

[23] 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.

[24] 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.

[25] The IPC has consistently held that to be responsive to a request, a record must be "reasonably related" to the request.[3] 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.[4] Previous IPC decisions, including CYFSA Decisions 4 and 18, have held that a requester must provide a reasonable basis for concluding that additional records exist.

[26] 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 CPIN. The affidavit is sworn by a CAS Records Clerk.

[27] In the affidavit, the Records Clerk states that he is responsible for completing searches of CAS records to respond to access to information and disclosure requests. He explains that he and his 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. He explains that the CAS’s practice is not to interpret requests as literally as the request in this complaint – timeframe of September 1, 2021 to November 1, 2021 – but to always search all historical and current records for personal information related to the request. He confirms that in this case, he conducted a search of all historical and current records for information about the complainant and her two children. He states that he conducted this search in accordance with the CAS’s established process and recorded his results in a contact log, and he provides a copy of that contact log as an exhibit to the affidavit. The Records Clerk states that through his search, he 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 and 2021. He states that he provided those records to the access to information and disclosure team for review and redaction as needed. He adds that his supervisor reviewed his 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 he used to conduct his initial search. He confirms that he is unaware of any additional searches that could have uncovered more records containing the personal information of the complainant and/or her children.

[28] In her representations, the complainant maintains that additional records exist for the period in question; specifically, notes that the CAS investigator took during a home visit. 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. The complainant submits that the CAS is not being transparent.

[29] 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 64 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. They also contain supervision notes and contact logs. The complainant does not claim that there are missing records of visits she had with a CAS worker; she argues that in addition to the records of those interactions in CPIN, the CAS should have and release the original notes taken by the CAS worker during the interactions. Based on my examination of the records and the CAS’s explanation that the notes taken by its investigator were consolidated and recorded in CPIN, I am not persuaded by the complainant’s general assertion that more records ought to exist or by her unfounded claim that the home visit notes were destroyed. Considering the CAS’s evidence, representations and comprehensive search for all historical and current records of the complainant’s and her children’s personal information, the complainant’s submissions do not provide a reasonable basis for me to conclude that more responsive records exist. I uphold the CAS’s search as reasonable.

ORDER:

1. Pursuant to section 321(1)(a) of the Act, I order the CAS to release to the complainant the personal information of one of her children that I have found to be reasonably severable under section 312(3) in pages 27 and 29 of the records. I enclose, with the CAS’s copy of this decision, a copy of pages 27 and 29 highlighting the personal information to be released. The CAS should release this 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