426 result(s)
-
76.
PHIPA DECISION 141 - 2021-02-17
Health Information and Privacy - Decision - PHIPA[6] Which appears to address items 12, 22, 44 and 65 identified in the chart of records remaining at issue in the mediator’s Report. [...] [7] Which appears to address items 28, 95, and 97 identified in the chart of records remaining at issue in the mediator’s Report. [...] [8] Which appears to address items 1, 22, 26, 59, 66 and 79 identified in the chart of records remaining at issue in the mediator’s Report.
-
77.
PHIPA DECISION 138 - 2021-01-26
Health Information and Privacy - Decision - PHIPA[13] I considered the circumstances surrounding this complainant, the information provided during mediation, as well as the information set out in the Mediator’s Report that was issued at the close of the mediation stage.
-
78.
PO-4106 - 2021-01-26
Access to Information Orders - OrderThe Mediator’s Report neither indicates that it was raised at mediation, nor lists it as an unresolved issue for adjudication. [...] [31] The appellant had an opportunity to raise any errors or omissions in the Mediator’s Report with the mediator before the appeal was transferred to adjudication, and there is no indication on file that he did this. [...] [4] The Mediator’s Report indicates that the appellant was not appealing the university’s decision to withhold information in accordance with sections 21 and 49 (c.1)(ii), or information withheld as non-responsive.
-
79.
PO-4088 - 2020-11-23
Access to Information Orders - OrderThe issue that moved forward to adjudication was set out in the mediator’s report as follows:
-
80.
PO-4082 - 2020-11-06
Access to Information Orders - Order[5] The mediator’s report did not identify a claim that the discretionary exemptions under sections 18(1)(c),(e) and (g) apply to record 9, but the hospital took this position in its representations.
-
81.
MO-3964 - 2020-10-22
Access to Information Orders - OrderThese issues were not identified in the mediator’s report or previously raised in this appeal.
-
82.
MO-3960 - 2020-10-02
Access to Information Orders - Order[19] On September 30, 2014, I issued Final Order MO-3107-F. In that Order, I addressed the issue of access to an email that the police sought to withhold under section 38 (a), in conjunction with section 9(1)(d) as well as 38(b), and the offence issue that the appellant raised as set out in the Revised Mediator’s report
-
83.
MO-3949-F - 2020-08-28
Access to Information Orders - OrderThe Mediator’s Report in Appeal File MA13-136 (which involved the same parties and resulted in Order MO-3065) confirms that, with the consent of the commission, the appellant received a copy of the original letter, without the attachments, in the course of mediation.
-
84.
MO-3951 - 2020-08-28
Access to Information Orders - Order[32] The appellant submits that the Mediator’s Report accurately reflects the information being sought, and does not refer to a request made by the municipality for clarification of the access request. [...] I have reviewed the Mediator’s Report, which does not make reference to any discussions regarding the appellant obtaining the records on a USB key.
-
85.
MO-3941 - 2020-08-07
Access to Information Orders - OrderI also note that, in the Mediator’s Report, the mediator states that the only issue going to adjudication is fee waiver. [...] Neither the city nor the appellant wrote to the mediator to correct the Mediator’s Report.
-
86.
MO-3932 - 2020-06-29
Access to Information Orders - Order[1] The mediator’s report identified the remaining law enforcement exemption as section 8(1)(a), which the police did not challenge upon receipt of the report, but the record itself is marked as being withheld under section 38 (a), in conjunction with section 8(2) (a).
-
87.
MO-3928 - 2020-06-12
Access to Information Orders - OrderBased on my review of the Mediator’s Report prepared at the conclusion of mediation, it appears that the appellant believed that the city should have located his Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) records as well, including forms and electronic file notes relating to him.
-
88.
PO-4044-R - 2020-05-20
Access to Information Orders - Reconsideration Order• The IESO’s letter of February 2, 2018 to the IPC mediator in response to the draft Mediator’s Report of January 23, 2018; [...] • The Revised Mediator’s Report of February 5, 2018; and, • The Notice of Inquiry (the NOI) sent to the IESO, dated March 2, 2018, which was based on the Revised Mediator’s Report.
-
89.
PO-4037 - 2020-03-09
Access to Information Orders - OrderFollowing the completion of mediation and subsequent to the issuing of the mediator’s report, the ministry issued an additional decision in which it applied the personal privacy exemptions in sections 21(1) and 49(b) to information it was already withholding under the discretionary exemption in section 14(1) on pages 799,
-
90.
PO-4028 - 2020-02-13
Access to Information Orders - Order[2] Although the mediator’s report and notices of inquiry sent to the parties identified 14 pages of records as being at issue, there is one more page from which the affected party’s name has been severed by the archives, thereby bringing the total number of pages at issue to 15.
-
91.
PHIPA DECISION 104 - 2019-12-05
Health Information and Privacy - Decision - PHIPAThe mediator also confirmed with the complainant that, as of the date of the mediator’s report, she had not made access requests to CAMH or St. Michael’s Hospital for her records.
-
92.
PO-4009 - 2019-11-25
Access to Information Orders - OrderAccording to the Mediator’s Report, only the three redacted paragraphs on page 2 of the record are at issue.
-
93.
PO-4007 - 2019-11-20
Access to Information Orders - Order[5] This breakdown was also contained in the Mediator’s Report, which was provided to the university and the appellant.
-
94.
MO-3857 - 2019-11-01
Access to Information Orders - Order[1] Therefore, records not identified as being at issue in the Mediator’s Report, and the issue of reasonable search, will not be discussed.
-
95.
PO-4004 - 2019-10-31
Access to Information Orders - OrderIn particular, the IPC’s Mediator’s Report did not identify it as an issue in this appeal to be adjudicated upon by me. [...] [27] The mediator’s report did not include the issue of custody or control of the records. [...] The cover letter to the mediator’s report invited the hospital to advise the mediator of any errors in her report.
-
96.
PO-4000 - 2019-10-28
Access to Information Orders - Order[10] Subsequent to receiving the Mediator’s Report, the requester advised the mediator that she wishes to add the late filing of the appeal by appellants C and D as an issue in these appeals.
-
97.
MO-3849 - 2019-10-21
Access to Information Orders - Order[16] The city submits that it raised the additional discretionary exemption after the 35-day deadline, but before the deadline for advising the mediator of any revisions to the mediator’s report. [...] The city further submits that the appellant has not been prejudiced, as the late raising has not delayed the appeals process other than the few days required for the mediator to issue a revised mediator’s report.
-
98.
MO-3848 - 2019-10-18
Access to Information Orders - OrderThe appellant did not pursue part 4 of her request further, despite having an opportunity to respond to the Mediator’s Report and to file representations in response to the Notice of Inquiry. [...] The appellant did not take issue with the scope of the inquiry either upon review of the Mediator’s Report or the Notice of Inquiry.
-
99.
PHIPA DECISION 97 - 2019-08-29
Health Information and Privacy - Decision - PHIPA[24] After receiving the mediator’s report, which included that description and explanation of the notation, the complainant sent an email to this office on April 26, 2019, stating, in part:
-
100.
MO-3816-I - 2019-08-08
Access to Information Orders - Order - InterimThe mediator’s report indicates that the appellant confirmed that he would make a new request for records relating to his attendance to the region’s office. [...] [17] Though the Mediator’s Report indicates that the appellant advised he would file a new request, the appellant provided submissions during the inquiry in support of his position that the video footage of his attendance at the region’s office should fall within the scope of this appeal. [...] Though the mediator’s report indicates that the scope issue was settled at mediation, I find that, notwithstanding that the scope of the original request should not include the additional records, the region should have responded to the appellant’s subsequent verbal requests, once the region was aware of them.