|Country or territory||Ontario, Canada|
|Name of the organisation||Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC)|
|Location/address||2 Bloor Street East, Suite 1400 Toronto, ON M4W 1A8|
|Primary contact (phone and/or email)||Renee Barrette 416-326-3461 or email@example.com|
|Number of staff||125|
|Year of Establishment||1988|
|Founding Act or Law||Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act|
|Online profile (website, social media, etc.)||Website: ipc.on.ca
Facebook: facebook.com/IPCOntario LinkedIn: View profile
YouTube: View channel
|General description of enforcement actions (powers of investigation, inspection and/or sanction)||In respect of the laws that apply to the public sector, the IPC has the power to issues orders in relation to access appeals and limited order making powers in relation to privacy complaints. In most cases, we enforce compliance with public sector privacy laws by making recommendations. Under the health privacy legislation, we have the authority to issue orders in the context of an access and correction complaint.|
|Number of decisions, opinions, recommendations in previous year||2016: Public sector access appeals – 246 orders issued Public sector privacy complaint reports – 2 reports issued Health orders/decisions – 18 decisions issued|
|Significant decisions, opinions or recommendations||Order PO-3617 – IPC found that the names of the top Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) billing physicians was not considered to be personal information as defined by the legislation. The IPC also found, that even if the names were considered personal information, the public interest override would apply, and the names of the billing physicians would still be ordered for disclosure.
Order PO-3461 – In a request for records detailing when and where DNA samples were taken from victims as part of a specific investigation, the IPC ruled that the information had a compelling public interest which outweighed any privacy protections.
Order MO-3181 – In a request for records about the employment contract of two police service board employees, and the legal fees incurred when drafting their agreements, the IPC found the contents of the contracts should be disclosed, and that the information did not qualify as personal information.