Search Français Dial-Up & Satellite

• About the Office

• Ombudsman Division

• Access and Privacy Division
  • FIPPA
    • FIPPA FAQ
    • Make a FIPPA complaint
    • FIPPA Practice Notes and Guidelines
    • FIPPA Audit Reports
    • FIPPA Investigation Reports
    • Longer Extensions Under FIPPA
      • Longer Extensions Form
  • PHIA
    • PHIA FAQ
    • Make a PHIA complaint
    • PHIA Investigation Reports
    • PHIA Practice Notes and Guidelines
  • Brochures, Fact Sheets and Guides
  • Privacy Impact Assessment
  • Privacy Breach Resources
  • Identity Theft
  • FIPPA and PHIA Reviews
  • Events
    • Lunch and Learn Sessions
    • Data Privacy Day
    • Right to Know Week
  • Federal, Provincial, Territorial
  • Links

FIPPA Investigation Reports

Upon completion of our investigation of an access or privacy complaint under FIPPA, we provide a report to the complainant and the public body containing our findings and any recommendations the ombudsman considers appropriate about the complaint.

In cases where we have made recommendations the act requires that we make our recommendations available to the public and we may do so by publishing them on a website. We are publishing our reports containing recommendations along with our summary of the response to the recommendations by the public body.

We are also publishing selected investigation reports issued by the ombudsman in cases where recommendations were not made. These reports contain our findings about how specific provisions of the act are applied.

Note: A web version of a report may have been edited from the original version.

Under each heading, reports appear in order of date posted (most recently posted appear first). When multiple reports are posted on the same date, the reports within that grouping are in alphabetical order.

Reports are available in alternate formats upon request.

Reports with Recommendations and Response

• Case 2021-0214 – Issued November 2024

  The complainant made an application for access to the City of Winnipeg - Winnipeg Police Service (the WPS) for records related to officer discipline. The WPS provided partial access to 59 pages of records, withholding some information on the basis that disclosure was harmful to third parties’ privacy (section 17 of FIPPA). The WPS also refused access in full to 34 pages under clause 23(1)(b) of FIPPA (advice to a public body). Our office received a complaint about the WPS’ access decision. The WPS subsequently provided the complainant with a revised decision in relation to the 34 pages withheld in full. The revised decision disclosed some information from the 34 pages and withheld most information under section 17. The Ombudsman found that some of the information in the records was the personal information of identifiable individuals and disclosure would be harmful to multiple third parties’ privacy. Therefore, this information was subject to the mandatory exception to disclosure in section 17 of FIPPA. However, the Ombudsman also determined that additional information could reasonably be severed from the records and disclosed without a reasonable expectation that individual WPS members could be identified. The Ombudsman found that the WPS did not fulfill the requirements of subsection 7(2) of FIPPA. The Ombudsman recommends that the WPS reconsider the redaction of disciplinary penalties from the records and determine what penalties can be disclosed without reasonably expecting that an individual WPS member would be identified. In addition, the Ombudsman recommends that the WPS reconsider the ‘facts in brief’ and other information in the 34 pages to determine what information can be disclosed without reasonably expecting that an individual WPS member or member of the public would be identified. The Ombudsman recommended that the WPS provide the complainant with a revised access decision disclosing additional information as outlined in this report. The WPS accepted the recommendations and agreed to issue a revised access decision.

  Case2021-0124-MO-00105.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2020-0184 – 2023-06-23

  Manitoba Conservation and Climate. Provisions under FIPPA: 2, 36(1), 36(2), 37(2), 49. Provisions under PHIA: 2, 13(1), 13(2), 28. Our office received complaints from the public about Conservation and Climate's collection of personal and/or personal health information through its online elicensing system for the sale of various wildlife, fisheries and other outdoor licences and permits. Our office notified the department that we initiated an investigation to determine if the collection of personal and/or personal health information by the elicensing system is compliant with FIPPA and PHIA. The elicensing system is structured as a two-step process: first, a person or business must set up an online “customer account.” Second, a person or business may purchase various licences and permits through their customer account. Both steps of the process require the collection of personal and/or personal health information for distinct purposes. Our investigation found that the department’s elicensing system contravenes FIPPA and PHIA in that it collects more personal and/or personal health information than is reasonably necessary in the first step of the process, the creation of a customer account. We also found that while the department initiated a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA), it was not completed prior to implementing the elicensing system and the department has not established what information is necessary to set up a customer account or what information is necessary for the distinct and separate action of purchasing different licences or permits. Therefore, our office made five recommendations to the department. In response to receiving the report and the ombudsman’s recommendations, the department accepted the recommendations.

  case-2020-0184-en-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2020-1026 – 2021-09-03

  Manitoba Finance. Provisions 9, 16(2)(b), 59(5), 60(3). A request was made under FIPPA to Manitoba Finance for access to records. We found that the department did not comply with the time limit for responding to the request and it did not uphold its duty to assist the applicant. The ombudsman supported the complaint and recommended that Manitoba Finance make an access decision by June 18, 2021. Manitoba Finance made its access decision on June 18, 2021, and provided it to the applicant and the ombudsman. In a letter dated June 25, 2021, Manitoba Finance provided its response to the ombudsman’s report with recommendations accepting the recommendations.

  case-2020-1026-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2018-0424 – 2021-05-18

  City of Winnipeg. Provisions 27(1)(a) and (b). An applicant requested records from the City of Winnipeg related to their claim for sewer back-up damage. The city refused access in part on the basis of exceptions relating to advice to a public body, unreasonable invasion of an individual’s privacy, disclosure harmful to law enforcement or legal proceedings and solicitor-client privilege. The city refused to provide records for review by our office on the basis of its claim of solicitor-client privilege. Our office considered the city’s representations and found that the city had not established that these exceptions applied. In the absence of records for review, our office was unable to conclude that the other exceptions relied on by the city applied to the withheld information. The ombudsman recommended that the city provide the complainant with a copy of the withheld information, with the exception of any information withheld under section 17 of FIPPA. As the city did not accept the recommendation, the ombudsman requested a review by the information and privacy adjudicator of the city’s decision to refuse access.

  case-2018-0424-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Cases 2020-1991, 2020-1992, 2020-1993 and 2020-1994 – 2021-05-11

  Manitoba Infrastructure. Provisions 9, 11(1), 15(1)(c). An applicant made four requests to Manitoba Infrastructure for access to records. The department extended the time limit and did not respond to the applicant by this date, which prompted the applicant to make a complaint to the ombudsman. The ombudsman found that the department did not comply with the time limit for responding to the requests and did not uphold its duty to assist the applicant. The ombudsman recommended that the department make access decisions by March 29, 2021, and provide copies to the applicant and to our office. On March 16, 2021, Manitoba Infrastructure issued its access decisions to the applicant, and on March 18, 2021, we received their formal response accepting the recommendations.

  cases-2020-1991-1992-1993-1994-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2020-0634 – 2020-12-24

  Manitoba Executive Council. Provisions 9 and 11(1). An individual made a FIPPA request to Manitoba Executive Council (MEC). Three months later, MEC issued a fee estimate, which the individual paid. After more time passed, the individual made a complaint to the ombudsman about MEC’s lack of response. Our office found that MEC did not comply with the time limit for responding to the access request and it did not uphold its duty to assist the applicant. The ombudsman recommended that MEC make an access decision by November 30, 2020, and provide a copy of that decision to the complainant and our office. MEC responded to our office on November 27, 2020, accepting the recommendations. MEC made an access decision on December 4, 2020.

  case-2020-0634-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2018-0016: – 2019-03-08

  Manitoba Intergovernmental Affairs and International Relations. Provisions considered: 21(1)(a), 25(1)(n) and 28(1)(c)(iii). A request was made to the department for access to correspondence with a third-party business and/or the federal government regarding the Port of Churchill and Hudson Bay Railway. The department refused access on the basis that disclosure of the records could harm Manitoba’s relationship with the federal government, legal proceedings or negotiations. Our office found that the cited sections of FIPPA did not apply to one of the withheld records and we recommended that the department issue a revised access decision granting access to that record. The department accepted the recommendation and complied with it.

  case-2018-0016-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2017-0458 – 2019-01-10

  City of Winnipeg – Winnipeg Police Service. Provision considered:  4(i). An individual requested access to records from the City of Winnipeg – Winnipeg Police Service (WPS) about stayed breach charges. The WPS determined that the records related to an ongoing prosecution and were therefore not subject to FIPPA. Our office found that the records were subject to the act and we recommended that the WPS issue an access decision in response to the request. The WPS accepted the recommendation and subsequently reported that it had complied with the recommendation and issued an access decision granting access in part to the records.

  case-2017-0458-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2015-0338 – 2017-06-19

  City of Winnipeg – Winnipeg Police Service; refusal of access in part to information about the location of all mobile photo radar enforcement locations on the basis that disclosure of the information would endanger the life or safety of a law enforcement officer; provisions 7(1), 25(1)(e); ombudsman found that the WPS did not establish the application of the cited exception to most of the information severed from the responsive record and recommended the release of the record remaining at issue. The WPS accepted the recommendation.

  case-2015-0338-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2014-0499 – 2015-12-10

  Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation; fee estimate for records about 46 different contracts awarded without tender under the Winter Roads Program; provisions 13(1)(b), 82(1), and 82(2) and regulation provisions 4(1), 4(2), 4(3), 7, 8(1), and 8(3); ombudsman found that the department did not appropriately provide the two free hours per request as required under FIPPA and the ombudsman recommended that the department withdraw its Estimate of Costs.

  case-2014-0499-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2014-0099 – 2015-03-11

  City of Winnipeg – Corporate Support Services; refusal of access to information about renovations to the Public Safety Building and Canada Post building (police headquarters); provisions 9, 23(1)(a), 29(b); ombudsman found that city failed in its duty to assist and that the city did not exercise its discretion in a reasonable fashion. The ombudsman recommended that the city revisit its exercise of discretion and reissue its decision about access to information. The city accepted the ombudsman's recommendation.

  case-2014-0099-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2014-0177 – 2014-12-05

  Manitoba Labour and Immigration; investigation regarding why a specific record was not provided in response to a FIPPA request; ombudsman made recommendations to the department related to searching for and processing records in response to access to information requests under FIPPA.

  case-2014-0177-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2013-0327 – 2014-03-14

  Rural Municipality of Siglunes; investigation about the public body’s non-response to a request for access under FIPPA and its failure in its duty to assist the applicant by not responding openly and without delay. The ombudsman made recommendations to the public body.

  case-2013-0327-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2013-0024 – 2014-03-04

  University of Manitoba; refusal of access to the Master Services Agreement between the university and Xerox Canada for the provision of managed print services; provisions 18(1)(b), 18(1)(c)(i)(ii)(iii), 18(3)(b), 28(1)(c)(iii); ombudsman found that portions of the agreement were subject to clause 18(1)(b) and subclauses 18(1)(c)(i)(ii)(iii) but could not conclude that the application of subclause 28(1)(c)(iii) was supported. The ombudsman also found that the university did not establish that the cited provisions applied to other information in the agreement and made a recommendation for the release of this information.

  case-2013-0024-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Cases 2008-0001 and 2008-0481 – 2012-04-26

  Manitoba Health; refusal of access to The Report of the Manitoba Chiropractic Health Care Commission; provisions 18(1)(c)(i), 23(1)(a) and (b) and 28(1)(c)(iii); ombudsman found that the exceptions did not apply to all of the information in the report.

  case2008-0001-0481-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2011-0443 – 2011-12-28

  Manitoba Water Stewardship; failure to respond to application for records related to Fairford Water Control Structure and/or the Assiniboine Diversion, and records related to Lake St. Martin flooding; provisions 9, 11(1); ombudsman found that that the public body failed to respond within the time limit under FIPPA and had failed in its duty to assist the applicant

  case2011-0443-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2010-0332 – 2011-09-26

  Manitoba Public Insurance; refusal of access to a Special Investigation Unit file about the applicant; provisions 27(1)(a)(b)(c); ombudsman found that 27(1)(a) applied to one of the records and that we could not determine whether exceptions applied to the remaining records as the records were not made available for review.

  case2010-0332-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2010-0352 – 2011-09-26

  Manitoba Family Services and Consumer Affairs; failure to respond to application for information about holiday gifts to employees; provisions 9, 11(1)(2), 15(1); ombudsman found that the public body failed to respond within the extended time limit under FIPPA and failed in its duty to assist the applicant.

  case2010-0352-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2011-0025 – 2011-09-26

  Crown Corporations Council; decision that records about the council’s investigation of the complainant’s matter were excluded from the scope of FIPPA; provision 4(b); ombudsman found that 4(b) did not apply and that the records were subject FIPPA.

  case2011-0025-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2011-0059 – 2011-09-26

  Manitoba Conservation; failure to respond to application for reports made to the Environmental Accident Reporting phone service; provisions 9, 11(1); ombudsman found that that the public body failed to respond within the time limit under FIPPA and had failed in its duty to assist the applicant.

  case2011-0059-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Cases 2011-0004 and 2011-0005 – 2011-09-26

  Manitoba Conservation; failure to reply to requests for fee waivers relating to requests for records about the applicant’s farm operation; provisions 9, 9(2) of the Access and Privacy Regulation; ombudsman found that the public body had failed in its duty to assist the applicant.

  case2011-0004-0005-en.pdf
  

  Download

Access Reports

• Case 2020-0645 – 2020-12-18

  Winnipeg Regional Health Authority. Provisions considered: 18(1)(b), 18(3) and 18(4)(a). The Winnipeg Regional Health Authority (WRHA) received a request for personal care home standards inspection reports for a five-year period. The WRHA refused access to seven reports on the basis that disclosure would harm the business interests of third parties. The ombudsman found that this FIPPA exception did not apply because the reports would not reveal commercial information supplied by a third party on a confidential basis and treated consistently as confidential by the third party. We provided our analysis and conclusion to the WRHA to review and consider. Manitoba Health, Seniors and Active Living decided to publicly post personal care home standards inspection reports online by proactive disclosure, and the WRHA revised its decision and released copies of the seven reports to the complainant on the basis that these reports will be publicly available within 90 days. As we found that the personal care home standards inspection reports were not subject to the exception cited by the WRHA, the complaint is supported. Given that the WRHA has released the remaining reports in full to the complainant as these reports will be made publicly available, no further action is required.

  case-2020-0645-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2019-0556 – 2020-08-27

  City of Winnipeg – Winnipeg Police Service. Provisions 17(1), 17(2)(b), 17(4)(e)(i), 7(2). The City of Winnipeg – Winnipeg Police Service (WPS) received a request for Professional Standards Unit records about officers accused of impaired driving from January 1, 2017, to present. The WPS refused access on the basis that the records contain personal information of third parties and release of the information would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy. The ombudsman determined that the decision to refuse access was authorized and the records could not reasonably be severed. The complaint was not supported.

  case-2019-0556-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2019-0070 – 2020-01-08

  Manitoba Justice. Provisions 27(1)(a) and (b). An individual requested access to records of payments to a law firm related to a third party’s lawsuits against the Manitoba government. The department refused access on the basis of solicitor-client privilege and that disclosure would be harmful to law enforcement or legal proceedings. Our office concluded that the records would reveal information that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, and since this provision applied, our office did not consider whether disclosure would be harmful to law enforcement or legal proceedings. The complaint was not supported.

  case-2019-0070-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2018-0112 – 2019-11-27

  Manitoba Growth, Enterprise and Trade. Provision 18(1)(b). The department refused access to part of a record on the basis that it would reveal labour relations information supplied by a third party in confidence. The ombudsman found that the provision relied on by the department did not apply to the withheld information and the complaint was supported. The department agreed to release all of the previously withheld information.

  case-2018-0112-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2019-0111 – 2019-10-08

  Manitoba Infrastructure. Provision 27(1)(a). Manitoba Infrastructure refused access to a legal opinion on the basis of solicitor-client privilege. The complainant maintained that as a summary of the opinion had been provided to him, the department had waived privilege over the information. Our office found that privilege had not been waived and Manitoba Infrastructure’s refusal of access to the opinion was authorized under FIPPA. The complaint was not supported.

  case-2019-0111-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2018-0302 – 2019-01-14

  Manitoba Hydro. Provisions considered: 9, 12(1)(c)(i), 32(1). An individual requested access to Manitoba Hydro’s mandate letters for 2017/18 and 2018/19. Manitoba Hydro identified a letter, but concluded that because it was a draft, it was not in its custody or control for the purposes of FIPPA and refused access to the letter. Our office determined that Manitoba Hydro had mistakenly identified a draft framework letter as the responsive record; however, the basis for refusal still applied as the mandate letter requested by the individual did not exist. As the initial response from Manitoba Hydro was based on a mistaken identification of the responsive record, our office partly supported the complaint.

  case-2018-0302-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2018-0118 – 2018-12-17

  Rural Municipality of La Broquerie. Provisions considered: 17(1), 17(3)(e), (f), (i). An individual requested copies of correspondence about a drainage issue and a copy of a petition presented to council of the Rural Municipality of La Broquerie. The municipality granted access to the information in part, and withheld some information on the basis that releasing it would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s privacy. The ombudsman found that the municipality’s decision to refuse access to some of the information was authorized. As a result of this investigation, our office suggested that the municipality consider developing guidance materials for residents that set out how personal information will be handled throughout the petition process.

  case-2018-0118-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2018-0279 – 2018-12-17

  Manitoba Infrastructure. Provisions considered: 19(1)(b) and (c); 23(1)(a), (b) and (f). A request was made to Manitoba Infrastructure for access to records relating to the valuation of Manitoba’s transportation and flood infrastructure investment deficit. The department provided access to some records and withheld others. Our office found that exceptions to disclosure related to cabinet confidences and advice to a public body applied to the withheld information. The complaint was not supported.

  case-2018-0279-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2017-0416 – 2018-11-13

  Winnipeg Regional Health Authority. Provisions considered: 82(5); Access and Privacy Regulation 64/98: 9(1)(c). An individual made an access request to the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, which issued a fee estimate to process the request. The individual requested a fee waiver, believing that the record related to a matter of public interest, but the WRHA decided not to waive the fee. Our office found that the WRHA reasonably concluded that the requirements for a fee waiver were not satisfied. The complaint was not supported.

  case-2017-0416-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2017-0469 – 2018-11-13

  Manitoba Justice – Consumer Protection Division. Provisions considered: 4(e), 19(1)(e), 23(1)(a), 23(1)(b), 26 and 27(1)(a). The complainant made an access request to the Consumer Protection Division (CPD) of Manitoba Justice for copies of all records regarding Bill 27, the Elections Amendment Act, from the deputy minister’s office. The CPD granted access to some records, refused access in whole or in part to others and determined that some were not subject to FIPPA. Our investigation confirmed that some records were excluded from FIPPA. We also found that some of the exceptions to access applied, while other cited exceptions did not apply. The complaint was partly supported.

  case-2017-0469-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2018-0127 – 2018-11-13

  Manitoba Agriculture. Provisions considered: 17(1), 17(2)(b), 18(1)(c)(i), 25(1)a)(c). An individual made an access request to Manitoba Agriculture for records about an investigation initiated under the Animal Care Act. The department refused access in full on the basis that disclosure would be harmful to a third party’s privacy and business interests. In the course of our investigation, the department issued a revised access decision stating that it was also refusing access on the basis that disclosure would be harmful to law enforcement or legal proceedings. Our office found that the department’s decision to refuse access was authorized under FIPPA. The complaint was not supported.

  case-2018-0127-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2018-0252 – 2018-11-13

  City of Brandon. Provisions considered: 17(1), 17(2)(c), 17(3)(d), 17(3)(e), 17(4). An individual requested access to the record of a complaint made to the City of Brandon about his property. Access was provided to the record, with some information relating to another person withheld. Our office found that the withheld information was personal information of a third party that was provided in confidence for the purposes of administering the city’s zoning by-law. We determined that the city was required to refuse access and therefore the complaint was not supported.

  case-2018-0252-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2018-0292 – 2018-11-13

  Workers Compensation Board of Manitoba. Provisions considered: 17(1), 17(2)(d), 23(1)(a). An individual requested access to his personal information from the Workers Compensation Board of Manitoba (WCB). In the WCB’s initial access decision, it refused access in part. During the course of our investigation, the WCB reconsidered its access decision on its own accord, and provided the complainant with additional information. Our office reviewed the information that continued to be withheld and determined that information in one record did not appear to fall under the provision cited by the WCB. The WCB agreed and provided the record to the complainant. Our office found that exceptions related to personal information about a third party and advice to a public body applied to the information that continued to be withheld by the WCB. The complaint was partly supported.

  case-2018-0292-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2017-0266 – 2018-11-01

  Winnipeg Regional Health Authority. Provisions considered: 17(1), 17(2)(a), 23(1)(a)(b)(f), 24(a), 27(1)(a). An individual requested that the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority provide information related to the coordination or transfer of care of individuals who request medical assistance in dying (MAID) while in a hospital that does not allow medical assistance in dying on its premises. The WRHA provided access in part, and its refusal was based on several clauses of FIPPA (disclosure deemed an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s privacy; advice to a public body; disclosure harmful to individual or public safety; solicitor-client privilege). Most of the contents of email correspondence relating to the process for the provision of MAID in objecting facilities was severed, however the dates of the correspondence were released. Our investigation found that the exceptions did not apply to all of the severed information. Also, it was our view that had the information about the process for the provision of MAID been released (which would inform the public about an issue of public interest without identifying individual patients), this would have been more consistent with the purpose of FIPPA than releasing the dates of emails and little else to the complainant. We observed that the dates of the correspondence naturally organize themselves around the dates when requests for medical assistance in dying were made. This characteristic, in conjunction with publicly available information could potentially allow the identification of individuals who availed themselves of MAID while in an objecting facility. This being the case, we were not able to ask the WRHA to release further information. The complaint was partly supported.

  case-2017-0266-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2017-0471 – 2018-06-22

  Rural municipality – unreasonable fee estimate for access to copies of agendas and minutes relating to an RM committee; provision 6(2) and the Municipal Act 263(1); the RM was of the view that the committee was ad hoc and its records were of a type that were not subject to the requirements of the Municipal Act with regard to minutes of committees. The ombudsman found that the records relating to the RM’s committee (meeting notes, etc.), while not in the prescribed form, appeared to be of the type that should be available to the public under the Municipal Act. Therefore, FIPPA would not apply to the information requested by the complainant and the Estimate of Costs issued by the RM would not be applicable. The RM decided to give the complainant access to the records without charging a fee. The complaint was resolved.

  case-2017-0471-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2018-0098 – 2018-06-05

  Manitoba Hydro; refusal of access to briefing and advisory notes about parental leave and EI benefits on the basis that all information contained in the responsive record was subject to solicitor-client privilege; provision 27(1)(a); Manitoba Hydro asserted in writing that the record in question satisfies all criteria for solicitor-client privilege described in Solosky v. R. and this, in conjunction with the descriptive metadata provided by Hydro, was sufficient for the ombudsman to conclude that the responsive record was subject to the stated exception.

  case-2018-0098-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2017-0357 – 2018-04-06

  Manitoba Executive Council – refusal of access to records of text messages from the premier’s personal cell phone regarding Manitoba government business; access was refused on the basis that records could not be located as the phone bills did not display the recipients of text messages, which would identify text messages relating to government business. Subsequent to a complaint to our office, a further search of the cell phone in question was conducted and some text messages relating to government business were able to be recovered from the device. A revised access decision was issued to the complainant giving access to the recovered information in part. The ombudsman found that the complaint about not being able to locate responsive records was supported.

  case-2017-0357-en.pdf
  

  Download
• 2017-0371 – 2018-03-08

  Prairie Mountain Health – refusal of access to the regional health authority’s fiscal sustainability report on the basis that disclosure would reveal the substance of deliberations of cabinet and advice within the public body; provisions 19(1)(b)(c) and 23(1)(a)(b)(d)(f); ombudsman found that the regional health authority was required to refuse access to this record because the report’s disclosure would reveal the substance of deliberations of cabinet and that cabinet did not consent to its release.

  case-2017-0371-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2016-0214 – 2017-12-19

  City of Winnipeg – Winnipeg Police Service (WPS); refusal of access to information about mobile photo traffic enforcement on the basis that WPS did not have custody or control of the requested records; provisions 7(1) and 25(1)(e); ombudsman found that the public body did have both custody and control of the requested information. Subsequently, WPS provided access to information that satisfied the individual’s access request.

  case-2016-0214-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2016-0250 – 2017-11-01

  City of Winnipeg – Planning, Property and Development; refusal of access to two documents – one on the basis that it was publicly available and the other on the basis that it could reveal a draft of a resolution, by-law or other legal instrument by which the local public body acts; provision 22(1)(a); the city provided the complainant with information for locating the first document online; with respect to the second document, the ombudsman found that the city had not established the application of the cited exception to the information withheld from the complainant. The city issued a revised access decision and full access to the record was provided.

  case-2016-0250-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2017-0182 – 2017-10-04

  Manitoba Finance – refusal of access to the Fiscal Performance Review undertaken by the Manitoba government on the basis that the report had been created for submission to cabinet; provisions 19(1)(b) and 19(2)(b)(i); ombudsman found that the report’s disclosure would reveal the substance of deliberations of cabinet and that cabinet did not consent to its release. The complaint was not supported.

  case-2017-0182-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2017-0181 – 2017-09-29

  Manitoba Health, Seniors and Active Living – refusal of access to the Health Sustainability and Innovation Review report on the basis that the report had been created for submission to cabinet and it contained advice, recommendations, and policy options created for the public body; provisions 19(1)(b)(c) and 23(1)(a)(d)(f); ombudsman found that the report’s disclosure would reveal the substance of deliberations of cabinet as well as advice to a public body. The complaint was not supported.

  case-2017-0181-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2017-0209 – 2017-09-29

  City of Winnipeg – refusal of access to the Portage and Main Transportation Study on the basis that the draft versions contained advice to a public body; provision 23(1)(a); ombudsman found this exception applied to the advice, opinions, analyses and recommendations that are contained in the draft versions of the report but that the exception did not apply to the entire records. The complaint was partly supported. The city confirmed that the final version of the report is scheduled to be presented to city council on October 25, 2017. With the public release of the final report, any information originating from the withheld drafts that is not subject to 23(1)(a) will be disclosed. Given the expectation of an imminent public release of the report, our office did not consider it reasonable or practical in the circumstances to make any recommendations to release portions of the draft versions.

  case-2017-0209-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2017-0081 – 2017-08-03

  Manitoba Executive Council – access to records of local, national and international phone calls and text messages from the premier’s personal cell phone regarding Manitoba government business, not provided on the basis that FIPPA did not apply to the personal records of a minister; provision 4(d); ombudsman found that the request was for records relating to Manitoba government business and not the personal records of a minister and that all records relating to government business (regardless of where or how created) come within the scope of the act. Executive Council issued a revised decision and gave access to the requested information in part.

  case-2017-0081-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2015-0233 – 2017-06-15

  City of Winnipeg – Assessment and Taxation; refusal of access to information related to determining the assessed value of a specific Winnipeg address during the period from 2013 to 2015; provisions 1(1), 2(a), 12(1)(c)(ii), 13(1)(c), 28(1)(a),(b),(c)(i),(d); ombudsman found that the city did not make a complete response as required by FIPPA and also that some of the information initially withheld was information that did not come within the definition of a record in the act.

  case-2015-0233-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2015-0200 – 2017-05-25

  Manitoba Jobs and the Economy, Employment and Income Assistance – belief that the records provided related to an individual's EIA case file did not adequately address the access request and more records should exist; provision 9; ombudsman found that although some information was severed from a small number of records, the department provided the individual with a copy of every record in his EIA file.

  case-2015-0200-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2016-0168 – 2017-05-25

  RM of De Salaberry – refusal of access in part to financial information related to Manitoba Hydro Bipole III funding, on the basis that it did not possess the records for the two most recent years requested; provision 12(1)(c)(i); ombudsman found that the RM was not in possession of these records as it had not submitted any filings to Manitoba Hydro for the two most recent years, and thus these records did not exist.

  case-2016-0168-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2016-0180 – 2017-05-25

  RM of Riding Mountain West – refusal of access in part to information about the compensation received by municipal employees and members of council; provisions 17(1), 17(2)(e)(g), 17(4)(c) and (e)(i); ombudsman found additional information that the RM was not authorized to withhold (to which the RM subsequently provided access) and that the RM was required to refuse access to the specific payment amount made to each individual.

  case-2016-0180-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2016-0316 – 2017-05-25

  City of Brandon, Brandon Police Service – refusal of access in part to copies of any disciplinary records and video surveillance related to an incident between a City of Brandon police officer and a third party; provisions 17(1), 17(2)(b)(e)(h), 17(4)(a), 17(4)(e)(i), 7(2); ombudsman found that the mandatory exceptions to disclosure applied in this case.

  case-2016-0316-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2015-0349 – 2016-12-30

  Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation; refusal of access to copies of maps associated with the lower Assiniboine River dykes on the basis that such records did not exist; provision 12(1)(c)(i); ombudsman found that the public body conducted a reasonable search for the responsive records and that it was authorized to refuse access after determining the records did not exist or could not be found.

  case-2015-0349-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2016-0050 – 2016-12-30

  City of Winnipeg – Winnipeg Police Service; dispute of fee estimate for access to all mobile photo enforcement locations/codes, along with the number of tickets issued at each location for a one year period; provisions 82(1), 82(2) and regulation provisions 4, 6 and 8(1); ombudsman found that the Estimate of Costs for computer programming and data processing by an external provider was reasonable, and that it was prepared in accordance with the Act and the regulation.

  case-2016-0050-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2016-0249 – 2016-12-30

  City of Winnipeg – Winnipeg Transit; dispute of fee estimate for records pertaining to a human rights complaint made against the City of Winnipeg regarding the absence of a discount for senior citizens using Handi-Transit; provisions 82(1)(2) and the regulation; ombudsman found that the time allowed for search and preparation of the responsive records (including severing) was reasonable and the fees as set out in the Estimate of Costs provided to the complainant were calculated correctly.

  case-2016-0249-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Cases 2016-0227 and 2016-0237 – 2016-12-30

  City of Winnipeg – Winnipeg Police Service; dispute about time extensions to fulfill access requests for records related to traffic enforcement initiatives and activities at a specific intersection; provisions 11(1), 15(1)(c), and 15(2); ombudsman found that the WPS was authorized to issue 30-day extensions for both requests in order to consult with a third party.

  cases-2016-0227-0237-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Cases 2015-0178 and 2015-0179 – 2016-09-30

  Manitoba Executive Council; refusal of access to information related to the departure of specific former employees of the public body, as well as the severance payment made to the employees; provisions 17(1)(2)(e)(g), 18(1)(c)(i)(ii)(v), 23(1)(a)(b), 27(1)(a), and 27(2); ombudsman found that the public body was required to refuse access to the specific payment amount made to these individuals, and was authorized to withhold additional records related to the former employees’ departure.

  case-2015-0178-0179-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2014-0040 – 2015-09-30

  Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation; refusal of access to construction progress reports; provisions 7(2), 17(1), 17(2)(e), 18(1)(c)(i), (ii), (iii), and 25(1)(n); the department issued a revised response enclosing the requested records with minimal information redacted and the ombudsman found that the remaining withheld information was subject to the cited exceptions. 

  case-2014-0040-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2014-0409 – 2015-09-30

  Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship; access was granted to some information (financial estimates and statements) for each provincial park district, other information was either not available in the format requested or at all; provision 9; ombudsman found that the complaint was partly supported.

  case-2014-0409-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2014-0560 – 2015-09-30

  Pembina Trails School Division; the division created a financial statement in response to an access request but the applicant believed more information should be available; provisions 8(2), 9, 10(2); the ombudsman found that the division complied with her request and provided the relevant information.

  case-2014-0560-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2015-0019 – 2015-09-30

  Manitoba Justice; refusal to confirm or deny the existence of records regarding the place of birth of a deceased individual, specifically the name of the city in which the deceased was born; provisions 12(2)(a) and 25(1)(n); ombudsman found that the department was authorized to make this decision and that it did not act unreasonably in exercising its discretion to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records.

  case-2015-0019-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2015-0041 – 2015-09-30

  Manitoba Health, Healthy Living and Seniors; refused access to a copy of an agreement including any tariff schedules between the Manitoba government and the Manitoba Chiropractors Association; provisions 18(1)(c)(i)(ii), 18(3), 18(4); the department later provided partial access to the agreement and the ombudsman found that one of the claimed exceptions did apply (after this investigation concluded, the Manitoba government amended the Chiropractic Services Insurance Regulation, making the amount of the benefit for insured chiropractic services publicly available).

  case-2015-0041-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2015-0045 – 2015-09-30

  Winnipeg School Division; partial access to information related to the establishment and adjudication of the Disability Income Plan for Officers and Employees (Other Than Teachers); provisions 3(a), 6(2), 9; ombudsman partly supported the complaint, finding that the division provided a copy of a by-law but did not initially provide other items requested or information as to how they may be obtained.

  case-2015-0045-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2013-0244 – 2015-06-22

  City of Winnipeg; provision 26. An individual requested access to the City of Winnipeg’s vacant buildings registry. The application was refused on the basis of a FIPPA exception that allows a public body to refuse access if releasing information could “reasonably be expected to harm or threaten the security of any property or system…” The ombudsman agreed that the FIPPA exception applied in this situation.

  case-2013-0244-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2013-0407 – 2015-06-22

  Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation; provision 23(1)(a). An individual requested access to records from Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation about the St. Jean Baptiste Bridge project. Access was initially granted in part. The ombudsman found that while some information in the draft document could reveal advice, opinions, analyses and recommendations to government, other parts of the document could have been released. The fact that it was in draft form did not necessarily preclude it from being disclosed. The department exercised its discretion to withhold the document.

  case-2013-0407-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2014-0037 – 2015-06-22

  Manitoba Education and Advanced Learning; provisions 21(1)(c), 23(1)(a). An applicant requested records from Manitoba Education and Advanced Learning related to expenses of Red River College’s president. The department provided access to a severed advisory note, and later disclosed additional information from the record after the ombudsman found that some of the severed information was publicly available.

  case-2014-0037-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2014-0280 – 2015-06-22

  Manitoba Housing; provision 25(1)(a). An individual requested a video from Manitoba Housing. Access was denied on the basis that the record was part of an ongoing Winnipeg Police Service investigation and that disclosure of the record could be harmful to the investigation. The ombudsman was satisfied that the exceptions to disclosure in FIPPA were reasonably applied.

  case-2014-0280-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2014-0317 – 2015-06-22

  Manitoba Labour and Immigration; provisions 17(1), 17(2)(g) and 17(4). An individual sought access to records related to her spouse’s application made under the Manitoba Provincial Nominee Program. Manitoba Labour and Immigration refused access on the basis that disclosure of the records would result in an unreasonable invasion of her spouse’s privacy. The ombudsman determined that they contained personal information that the public body was prohibited from disclosing.

  case-2014-0317-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2013-0245 – 2015-03-17

  Manitoba Justice; refused access to records related to Gladue reports or a Gladue court on the basis that work involved would be cost prohibitive, could not be performed without substantial impairment to normal operations, and if records were located, much information would be severed; provisions 9, 17(1), 17(2)(e), 23(1)(a) and (c); ombudsman found that the public body did not fulfill its duty to assist by making every reasonable effort to search for responsive records. The public body released some records with severing.

  case-2013-0245-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2013-0285 and 2013-0286 – 2015-03-17

  City of Winnipeg; refused access to a report created as a result of a review of a city land sale/swap and a land appraisal by an outside law firm on the basis that the information requested was subject to solicitor-client privilege; provision 27(1)(a); ombudsman found that the city’s decision to refuse access was in accordance with the provisions of FIPPA.

  case-2013-0285-0286-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2013-0350 – 2015-03-17

  Manitoba Public Insurance; MPI provided three pages of records in response to a request for an individual’s applications related to his driver’s licence, but refused access to additional records on the basis that additional records did not exist; provisions 9, 12(1)(c)(i); ombudsman found that MPI had undertaken all reasonable efforts to assist the complainant and to search for the requested records.

  case-2013-0350-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2014-0025 – 2015-03-17

  Unnamed public body; refused access to records related to a proposed water diversion, specifically records between the municipality and its lawyer, on the basis that the information requested was subject to solicitor-client privilege; provision 27(1)(a); ombudsman found that the city’s decision to refuse access was in accordance with the provisions of FIPPA.

  case-2014-0025-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2014-0129 – 2015-03-17

  Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Development; access was provided to a report, but access to additional information was refused on the basis that release would reveal the identity of a confidential informant; provisions 17(1), 17(2)(b) and (c); ombudsman found that the withheld information was personal information and disclosure would result in an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of a third party.

  case-2014-0129-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2014-0159 – 2015-03-17

  City of Winnipeg – Community Services Department; refused access to all email correspondence between a city official and members of the city’s legal services department on the basis that the information requested was subject to solicitor-client privilege; provision 27(1)(a); ombudsman found that the city’s decision to refuse access was in accordance with the provisions of FIPPA.

  case-2014-0159-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2014-0250 and 2014-0251 – 2015-03-17

  City of Brandon; refused access to records of calls to the city’s 911 Emergency Service on the basis that records did not exist or could not be located (explaining the recordings could not be accessed as they were made on an obsolete recording system that was no longer in use); provisions 9, 12(1)(c)(i); ombudsman found that the decision to refuse access was in compliance with FIPPA but that the city had not met its duty to assist the applicant by responding openly, accurately and completely as required by FIPPA.

  case-2014-0250-0251-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2014-0269 – 2015-03-17

  University of Winnipeg; refused access to board meeting minutes of the University of Winnipeg Community Renewal Corporation on the basis that the records were not in the custody or under the control of the university; provision 12(1)(c)(i); ombudsman found that there are sufficient divisions between the internal governance structures of the two entities and that UWCRC records cannot be said to be under the control or in the custody of the university.

  case-2014-0269-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2014-0400 – 2015-03-17

  City of Winnipeg – Winnipeg Police Service; refused access to copies of three police reports relating to police visits to a building that the individual owns on the basis that the individual was not a party to the incidents that precipitated the records; provisions 7(2), 17(1), 17(2)(b); ombudsman found that the refusal of access was authorized under FIPPA.

  case-2014-0400-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2014-0431 – 2015-03-17

  City of Brandon; refused access to maps of mosquito fogging buffer zones on the basis that such a disclosure would release personal information provided by registrants to the city in relation to the administration of the buffer zone program; provisions 10(1), 17(1), 17(2)(c), 17(3)(d)(e)(f), definition of personal information; ombudsman found that the requested maps contained personal information and that releasing the information would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy.

  case-2014-0431-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2012-0315 – 2014-04-29

  Manitoba Hydro; refusal to confirm or deny the existence of records related to the termination of an employee; provisions 12(2)(a) and (b), 25(1), 55(3)(b); ombudsman found that Manitoba Hydro was authorized under FIPPA to make this decision and did not act unreasonably in exercising its discretion to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records.

  case-2012-0315-web-version-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2013-0086 – 2014-04-29

  Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation;  refusal of access to some of the information in reports related to inspection of the St. Jean Baptiste bridge; provisions23(1)(a), 23(2)(f) and 23(2)(h); ombudsman found that MIT was authorized under The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to withhold the information and therefore the complaint is not supported.

  case-2013-0086-web-version-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2013-0228 – 2014-04-29

  Manitoba Health; refusal of access to database records under FIPPA; provisions 2, 3(a), 6(2), 7(1), 7(2), 17(1), 17(2)(a), definition of "personal health information, HIPAA Privacy Rule and "Safe Harbour" Standard, Pan-Canadian De-identification Guidelines for Personal Health Information; ombudsman found that the information was personal health information that was required to be withheld and that it could not reasonably be severed to provide access to residual fields of data for the approximately 600,000 patient-level records that were within the scope of the request.

  case-2013-0228-web-version-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2011-0538 – 2013-12-06

  City of Winnipeg (Winnipeg Police Service); refusal of access in part to records relating to a photo-radar enforcement report; provisions 6(2), 7(2), 12(1)(c)(i), 13(1)(c), 17(1), 17(2)(e), 18(1)(b), 18(1)(c)(i), 19(1)(c), 20(2)(b), 23(1)(a) and (b), 26; ombudsman found that exceptions applied to some but not all of the information withheld.

  case-2011-0538-web-version-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2012-0416 – 2013-12-06

  City of Winnipeg (Fire Paramedic Services Department); refusal of access to records about traffic effects of new fire hall at Route 90 and Portage Avenue on the basis that disclosure could be harmful to third party business interests and could reveal analyses and recommendations developed for the city; provisions 18(1)(b), 18(1)(c)(i)(ii)(iii), 23(1)(a)(b); ombudsman found that provisions of subsection 18(1) did not apply and that subsection 23(1) applied to only some of the information withheld.

  case-2012-0416-web-version-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2013-0001 – 2013-12-06

  City of Winnipeg (Corporate Support Services Department); refusal of access to invoices paid to various real estate companies on the basis that disclosure could be harmful to third party business interests and to the city’s financial interests; provisions 18(1)(a)(b)(c), 18(3)(a), 28(1)(c)(i)(ii)(iii); ombudsman found that an exception applied to only some of the withheld records.

  case-2013-0001-web-version-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2013-0022 – 2013-12-06

  City of Winnipeg (Winnipeg Police Service); concerns about the proposed approach to searching for email records mentioning the applicant or his organization; provision 9; ombudsman found that proposed search was reasonable and that the city had made every reasonable effort to assist the applicant by seeking contextual information to focus the search for records, and by attempting to engage the applicant in discussions about the scope of his request; ombudsman encouraged all public bodies and applicants to engage in open communication about requests.

  case-2013-0022-web-version-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2013-0035 – 2013-12-06

  City of Winnipeg (Golf Services SOA); refusal of access to records about finances of city golf courses; provisions 6(2), 12(1)(c)(i), 10(1), 18(1)(b), 18(1)(c)(i)(ii); ombudsman found that not all responsive information had been identified, that certain records no longer existed, and that exceptions applied as claimed to the one record that was found to exist.

  case-2013-0035-web-version-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2013-0144 – 2013-12-06

  Rural Municipality of Ritchot; refusal of access in part to records about development plans and water and wastewater treatment management; provisions 9, 18(1)(b), 23(1)(a); ombudsman found that the RM had fulfilled its duty to assist the applicant, but that exceptions applied to only some of the information in the withheld records.

  case-2013-0144-web-version-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2013-0178 – 2013-12-06

  Town of The Pas; refusal of access to water fluoridation study on the basis that disclosure would reveal deliberations of an ‘in camera’ meeting of the town council; provisions 12(1)(c), 22(1)(b); ombudsman found that the exception applied as claimed.

  case-2013-0178-web-version-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2013-0179 – 2013-12-06

  Rural Municipality of Woodlands; refusal of access to records of animal unit verification counts for a specified hog operation, on the basis that disclosure could be harmful to the third party’s business interests; provisions 18(1)(b) and 18(1)(c)(iv); ombudsman found that an exception applied to the withheld information.

  case-2013-0179-web-version-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2013-0217-0220 – 2013-12-06

  City of Winnipeg (Winnipeg Transit); various aspects of handling of four requests for information about operating expenses and advertising on buses; provisions 2, 3, 7(1), 82(1)(2) of FIPPA and 4(1)(2)(3) and 8(1)(a) of the Access and Privacy Regulation;  ombudsman commended the city for its commitment to transparency demonstrated by generating statistical information in the form requested; ombudsman also found that the fee estimate for one of the requests was reasonable and appropriate, and that the act did not apply to one request for an answer to a question.

  case-2013-0217-0220-web-version-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2013-0256 – 2013-12-06

  Rural Municipality of Rosser; adequacy of search for email and other electronic records referring to the complainant; provision 9; ombudsman found that the RM had fulfilled the duty to assist the complainant by making every reasonable effort to locate requested records and to respond openly, accurately and completely.

  case-2013-0256-web-version-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2012-0250 – 2013-06-04

  Winnipeg School Division; refusal of access to information relating to the mathematics portion of an assessment program, on the basis that such records did not exist; provision 12(1)(c)(i); ombudsman found that the public body's decision to refuse access was in compliance with FIPPA.

  case-2012-0250-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2012-0294 – 2013-06-04

  University of Manitoba; refusal to grant access to records used to tabulate examination marks, initially on the basis that disclosure would be harmful to a third party's privacy and, after subsequent clarification of the records being sought, on the basis that the records did not exist; provisions 12(1)(c)(i), 17(1), 17(2)(e); ombudsman found that the public body's decision to refuse access was in compliance with FIPPA.

  case-2012-0294-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2012-0316 – 2013-06-04

  Manitoba Hydro; refusal of access to records showing a breakdown of the reimbursement of community costs of the Cree Nation Partners, on the basis that disclosure would be harmful to a third party's business interests and that disclosure could harm relations between the public body and the council of a band as defined by the Indian Act; provisions 18(1)(b) and 21(1)(c.1); ombudsman found that the exceptions applied to the withheld information.

  case-2012-0316-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2012-0334 – 2013-06-04

  Manitoba Family Services and Labour; refusal of access to financial records relating to the transfer of aboriginal (First Nation) pension plans from the federal regulator to the province of Manitoba, on the basis that the records did not exist; provision 12(1)(c)(i); ombudsman found that the public body conducted a reasonable search for the records in question.

  case-2012-0334-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2012-0388 – 2013-06-04

  City of Winnipeg (Winnipeg Police Service); refusal of access to portions of a specific Winnipeg Police Service (WPS) incident report and related records, on the basis that disclosure would be harmful to third parties’ privacy, harmful to law enforcement, harmful to security of property, and would violate solicitor-client privilege; provisions 17(1), 17(2)(b), 25(1)(c) and (e), 26 and 27(1)(b); ombudsman found that the exceptions applied to the withheld information.

  case-2012-0388-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2012-0396 – 2013-06-04

  Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship; failure to respond to a request for access to records containing such words as Makoon, cub, bear cub, Assiniboine Park Zoo, for the period from March 15 to July 10, 2012; provisions 11(1), 15(1); ombudsman found that the public body’s response(s) exceeded the timelines as provided for under FIPPA.

  case-2012-0396-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2012-0408 – 2013-06-04

  Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation; duty to assist in providing access to regards regarding damage to and estimates to repair a family cottage; provision 9; ombudsman found that the public body had undertaken all reasonable efforts to respond completely in its duty to assist. 

  case-2012-0408-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2012-0417 – 2013-06-04

  Winnipeg Regional Health Authority; refusal of access to records on mobile health care services that were contracted by the authority over the past two years, on the basis that disclosure would be harmful to the third parties’ business interests; provision 18(1)(c)(i); ombudsman found that the exception applied to the withheld information.

  case-2012-0417-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Cases 2012-0017 and 2012-0018 – 2013-06-04

  City of Winnipeg (Public Works Department); refusal of access to privacy policies and/or procedures on the use of Global Positioning System (GPS) technology to monitor vehicles and employees, on the basis that the records did not exist; ombudsman found that the public body had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records and the decision to refuse access was in compliance with FIPPA.

  cases-2012-0017-0018-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2011-0520 – 2012-04-20

  Town of Neepawa; decision to disregard requests; provisions 13(1)(a) and (b); ombudsman found that the decision to disregard the requests was authorized under clause 13(1)(b) of FIPPA.

  case2011-0520-en.pdf
  

  Download

Privacy Reports

• Case 2021-0347 – 2021-07-07

  Manitoba Finance. Provisions 36(1)(c), 42(2), 44(1)(a). Our office was contacted by an individual who had submitted information to the Manitoba COVID Tip Line, and believed that there had been an unauthorized disclosure of their personal information from the tip line to the City of Winnipeg.  Although the individual did not wish to make a formal complaint at that time, our office reviewed the COVID Tip Line Report Form and identified concerns about what individuals were told would happen with the information they provided through the form. These concerns were shared with Manitoba Finance, the public body responsible for the tip line. Subsequently, in February 2021, the individual submitted a complaint to our office under FIPPA about their concern of unauthorized disclosure of their personal information. Our investigation determined that the disclosure of the complainant’s personal information by Manitoba Finance to the City of Winnipeg was authorized under FIPPA and the complaint was not supported. We also addressed our concerns relating to the wording of the notice on the COVID Tip Line Report Form, and the need to ensure citizens are informed that their personal information may be disclosed to law enforcement agencies tasked with enforcing public health orders. The focus was to provide greater clarity and transparency on how citizens’ personal information would be used and disclosed when they submit a tip using the form. During our investigation, Manitoba Finance expanded the wording of the notice on the COVID Tip Line Report Form, which substantively addressed our concerns.

  case-2021-0347-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2019-0561 – 2021-04-07

  Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries. Privacy impact assessment. In November 2019 Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries (MBLL) implemented its Controlled Entrance Initiative with the aim of improving the safety and security of Liquor Mart stores. The ombudsman initiated a review to assess and comment on the privacy implications of the initiative and whether the collection, use, disclosure and security of personal information of customers by MBLL complied with FIPPA.

  MBLL advised our office in the fall of 2021 that it was considering extending its 24-hour retention period to 30 days. After receiving feedback from our office, MBLL decided to use a 21-day retention period, and this came into effect on February 16, 2022.

  case-2019-0561-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2019-0345 – 2020-06-15

  Educational body. Provisions: 42(1), 42(3). The complainant made similar requests for access to information under FIPPA to a number of different educational bodies. A request to one educational body was later withdrawn. Subsequently, the complainant was contacted by a different educational body about the withdrawal, leading the complainant to believe that the public body had made an unauthorized disclosure of the complainant’s personal information. Our investigation concluded that the public body had inadvertently disclosed personal information about the complainant; therefore, the complaint was supported.

  case-2019-0345-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2018-0077 – 2018-06-22

  Manitoba Finance, Insurance Council of Manitoba (ICM) – complaint that the online posting of disciplinary decisions by the ICM was not authorized under FIPPA; provisions 42(1), 42(2); during the investigation, the ICM proposed changes to its policies and procedures, which would allow it to comply with FIPPA while fulfilling its mandates to enforce standards for the profession and to initiate programs for consumer protection. The ombudsman considered the suggested revisions to ICM’s policies and processes to be a reasonable balance between the requirements of FIPPA and the mandate and responsibilities of the ICM, as well as a reasonable exercise of the ICM’s discretion relating to publication of its disciplinary decisions under the Insurance Council Regulation. The complaint was resolved.

  case-2018-0077-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2017-0280 – 2017-10-16

  Manitoba Public Insurance - unauthorized disclosure of the complainant’s personal information by MPI; provisions 44(1)(d)(e) and 42(2); ombudsman found that the disclosure was not limited to the minimum amount of information necessary and the complaint was supported. MPI took reasonable and appropriate steps to address the unauthorized disclosure and prevent a reoccurrence.

  case-2017-0280-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Cases 2016-0067 and 2016-0068 – 2016-12-30

  Manitoba Tourism, Culture, Heritage, Sport and Consumer Protection – Archives of Manitoba; collection and use (retention) of personal information during the registration process at the archives; provisions 36(1)(a)(b)(c), 37(2), 42(2); ombudsman found that the collection of personal information by the archives was authorized and limited to that which was reasonably necessary, that the archives’ collection notice was compliant with FIPPA after changes were made to it, and that the use (retention) of personal information is now limited to the minimum amount necessary to accomplish the purpose for which it is used.

  cases-2016-0067-0068-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2013-0314 – 2015-03-17

  Unnamed public body; disclosure of personal information related to a by-law enforcement matter; provisions 42, 43, 44(1); ombudsman found that the public disclosure of the complainants’ personal information was not authorized under FIPPA.

  case-2013-0314-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2014-0029 – 2015-03-17

  City of Winnipeg – Water and Waste Department; disclosure of personal information to a third party on the basis that it had been done to help the individual get answers to her questions; ombudsman found disclosure of the individual's personal information was not compliant with FIPPA, but was satisfied with steps taken to improve procedures to prevent similar unauthorized disclosures from taking place in the future.

  case-2014-0029-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2014-0407 – 2015-03-17

  University of Manitoba; disclosure of personal information to a third-party without consent by providing information to a U.S. service provider that handles the university’s library management system; provisions 36, 42, 43, 44, 44.1, 45; ombudsman found that the disclosure of the complainant’s personal information was authorized under FIPPA.

  case-2014-0407-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2013-0309 – 2014-09-29

  Unnamed public body; collection and disclosure of personal information in personal emails sent by an employee using the public body’s email service; provision 4; ombudsman found that, while the public body had possession of the emails by virtue of their presence on its email servers, these records were not in the custody or control of the public body.

  case-2013-0309-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Case 2012-0392 – 2014-04-29

  Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation (MPI);  use and disclosure of personal information during the course of investigations conducted by MPI and the Canadian Border Services Agency; provisions 36(1)(a)(b), 43(a), 44(1)(d)(e)(r); ombudsman found that the complaint was not supported.

  case-2012-0392-web-version-en.pdf
  

  Download
• Cases 2012-0387 and 2012-0412 – 2013-07-12

  City of Winnipeg (Winnipeg Parking Authority); collection of driver’s license numbers for the issuance of parking permits; ombudsman found that the Winnipeg Parking Authority was authorized under clause 36(1)(b) to collect the information but did not provide proper notification as required by clause 37(2).

  cases-2012-0387-0412-en.pdf
  

  Download