[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-281969-105":53,"doc-detail-281969-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":120,"head_meta":122,"extra_data":124,"updated_unix":126},105,"en","order-po-3568-freedom-of-information-appeal-summary","ORDER PO-3568 - Freedom of Information Appeal Summary","","Order PO-3568 summarizes an appeal arising from a Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) request made to Hydro One for records about a named wind project for a defined period. Hydro One partially disclosed responsive information while withholding portions of one page under the mandatory third party information exemption in section 17(1). The adjudicator partially upheld Hydro One’s non-responsiveness determination and ordered disclosure of responsive information not exempt under section 17(1).",{"@graph":63,"@context":119},[64,80,102],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/order-po-3568-freedom-of-information-appeal-summary/281969/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/order-po-3568-freedom-of-information-appeal-summary/281969.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Cipher","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-18","2026-09-16",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":101},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",8,{"@type":103,"mainEntity":104},"FAQPage",[105,111,115],{"name":106,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":108},"What was the subject of the Freedom of Information request to Hydro One?","Question",{"text":109,"@type":110},"The request sought access to information related to a named wind project for the period from June 23, 2014 to the date of the request.","Answer",{"name":112,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":113},"Why did Hydro One withhold certain information?",{"text":114,"@type":110},"Hydro One withheld a portion of one page under the mandatory third party information exemption in section 17(1) of FIPPA and also denied some information as non-responsive or under other exemptions.",{"name":116,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":117},"What did the adjudicator decide in this order?",{"text":118,"@type":110},"The adjudicator partially upheld Hydro One’s decision on responsiveness and found that the responsive information was not exempt under section 17(1), ordering it disclosed.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":121,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":123,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":125,"site_id":56},281969,1789569316,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":128},{"doc_id":125,"user_id":129,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":101,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":8,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":126,"read_time":79},687208528416,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","ORDER PO-3568  \nAppeals PA15-278 and PA15-304  \nHydro One  \nJanuary 18, 2016  \nSummary: Hydro One Inc. (Hydro One) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for access to information relating to a named wind project. Hydro One deemed certain information in the records non-responsive to the request. It also decided to disclose most of the responsive information in the records, withholding a portion of one page under the mandatory third party information exemption in section 17(1) of FIPPA. The requester appealed Hydro One’s decision to withhold information. As well, the third party appealed Hydro One’s decision to disclose certain information, claiming that section 17(1) applied.  \nIn this order, the adjudicator partially upholds Hydro One’s decision concerning the responsiveness of the information it deemed non-responsive. The adjudicator also finds that the responsive information in the records is not exempt under section 17(1) and orders it disclosed.  \nStatutes Considered: Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31, as amended, sections 17(1) and 24.  \nOVERVIEW:  \n[1] Hydro One Inc. (Hydro One) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA or the Act) for access to information relating to a named wind project for the time period of June 23, 2014 to the date of the request.  \n[2] Hydro One wrote to the requester and advised him that since the time period of June 23, 2014 to November 13, 2014 had been dealt with in two other requests, it would only search for responsive records for the time frame of November 14, 2014 to March 2, 2015.  \n[3] Hydro One located records responsive to the request and wrote to a third party to seek its position on the disclosure of the records. The third party then submitted representations to Hydro One, providing consent to the disclosure of the records, in part.  \n[4] Hydro One issued a decision to the requester advising that partial access was being granted to the records. Some information in the records was being denied pursuant to the mandatory exemptions in section 17(1) (third party information) and 21 (personal privacy) of the Act, or because the information was not responsive to the request.  \n[5] The requester filed an appeal of Hydro One’s decision and appeal PA15-304 was opened. The third party also filed an appeal of Hydro One’s decision and the third party appeal PA15-278 was opened.1  \n[6] In appeal PA15-304, the requester advised the mediator that he was not pursuing access to the information withheld pursuant to section 21(1) of the Act. As such, the information denied pursuant to section 21(1) is not at issue in this appeal.  \n[7] However, the requester advised that he wished to pursue access to the information denied pursuant to 17(1) of the Act, specifically, the information located on page 20. The requester also advised that he wished to pursue access to the information severed as not responsive to the request at pages 5, 7, 30, 31 and 32 of the records.  \n[8] In appeal PA15-278, the third party advised the mediator that it had reconsidered its position and now consented to the disclosure of additional pages, specifically pages 22 to 29. However, the third party continued to object to Hydro One’s decision to disclose to the requester pages 20, 21, and 30 to 32 as it believes these pages should be denied in full pursuant to section 17(1) of the Act.  \n[9] The mediator forwarded the third party’s consent for disclosure of pages 22 to 29 to Hydro One and these pages were disclosed to the requester.  \n[10] The requester advised the mediator that he continued to pursue access to the pages that the third party objected to the disclosure, namely, pages 20, 21, and 30 to 32 of the records.  \n1 As I am dealing with both appeals in this order, I will refer to the appellants as the requester and the third party.  \n[11] As mediation did not resolve these appeals, the f","cbCaivo7KmgvaZpF","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaivo7KmgvaZpF","pdf",210210,"English","# OVERVIEW\n## Request for access and search scope\n## Disclosure decision and appeals\n## Mediation and transfer to adjudication\n# ISSUES\n## Responsiveness of pages 5, 7, and 30 to 32\n## Application of section 17(1)\n# DISCUSSION\n## Obligations under section 24\n## Next steps in analysis","[{\"question\":\"What was the subject of the Freedom of Information request to Hydro One?\",\"answer\":\"The request sought access to information related to a named wind project for the period from June 23, 2014 to the date of the request.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did Hydro One withhold certain information?\",\"answer\":\"Hydro One withheld a portion of one page under the mandatory third party information exemption in section 17(1) of FIPPA and also denied some information as non-responsive or under other exemptions.\"},{\"question\":\"What did the adjudicator decide in this order?\",\"answer\":\"The adjudicator partially upheld Hydro One’s decision on responsiveness and found that the responsive information was not exempt under section 17(1), ordering it disclosed.\"}]","ORDER PO-3568 - Freedom of Information Appeal Summary | PDF"]