Orders

The Complainant was an elected member of the Council of University of Alberta Student’s Union (the Organization) in 2004. In November of 2020, the Complainant learned that documents containing his personal information about an incident in 2004 relating to his role as an elected member were publicly accessible on the Organization’s website. The Complainant contacted the Organization in November of 2020 and requested that the information be removed from the website. The Organization did not respond to his request. The Complainant submitted a complaint to the Commissioner on November 16, 2020 that the Complainant’s personal information was being disclosed contrary to the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). In the course of the inquiry, the Organization removed the information that was the subject of the complaint from its website. The Organization then argued that the issues for inquiry were moot. The Adjudicator determined that the inquiry was not moot. The Adjudicator determined that the Organization had met its duty under PIPA by removing the information that was the subject of the complaint from its website. The Adjudicator directed the Organization to comply with PIPA in its treatment of the Complainant’s personal information in the future.

The Complainant filed two complaints regarding a transfer of his information from Dr. Derick Rautenbach (the Custodian) to Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (the Organization). The transfer was made in the context of the Complainant’s disability claim with the Organization. The complaint against the Custodian was made under the Health Information Act (the HIA) regarding disclosure of his health information, while the complaint against the Organization was made under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) regarding collection and use of his personal information. The common circumstance between both complaints was whether the terms of an Authorization signed by the Complainant as part of the Organization’s claim process constituted proper consent to disclosure of health information under the HIA and collection of personal information under PIPA. The Adjudicator found that the Authorization did not satisfy the requirements of consent to disclose health information under section 34(2) of the HIA and that the HIA did not permit disclosure without consent under the circumstances of the case. The Adjudicator found that disclosure was not permitted under the HIA. The Adjudicator found that the information collected fell outside of the scope of consent to collect personal information agreed to by the Complainant in the Authorization; as such the Organization did not have consent to collect it under section 8 of PIPA. The Adjudicator also found that the Organization collected information beyond a reasonable extent contrary to section 11(2) of PIPA. The Adjudicator found that the Organization’s method of collecting information, by obtaining a wide swath of the Complainant’s medical records in order to see if any pertinent information was contained in them, was unreasonable. It was unreasonable to seek full copies of the records, spanning a period of months, when the issues for which information was needed were specific, and related to a brief period of time. It was also unreasonable to collect full copies of records without some rationale to explain why collecting the full records was reasonable in light of the specific issue for which information was needed. The Adjudicaton also noted that it was unclear how, if at all, unmet disclosure requirements under the HIA would impact the reasonableness of collection under PIPA. The Adjudicator ordered the Custodian to cease disclosing the Complainant’s health information contrary to the HIA. The Adjudicator ordered the Organization to cease collecting the Complainant’s personal information contrary to PIPA, and to destroy all information that it collected from the Custodian.  

An individual made a complaint under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) alleging that the Veterans Villa Housing Project (the Organization) collects, uses and discloses personal information of its tenants, beyond what is necessary for providing its service, in contravention of the Act. The complaint related to the Organization’s use of video surveillance and the requirement of tenants to inform the Organization of any overnight guests. The Adjudicator found that the Organization is authorized to collect, use and disclose personal information via video surveillance for the purpose of ensuring the security of its premises. However, the Organization’s practice of disclosing personal information by making video surveillance footage accessible to all tenants is not authorized under the Act and the Adjudicator ordered the Organization to cease this practice. The Adjudicator also found that the Organization’s practice of collecting information about all overnight guests is not authorized under the Act. The Adjudicator ordered the Organization to cease this practice.

A tenant at a condominium complex (the Complainant), made a complaint that the policies and practices of Endeavor Parking Corp. (the Organization), which was the Organization contracted by the condominium corporation to manage the parking lot at the condominium complex, did not comply with the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA).  In particular, the Complainant advised that he requested but did not receive a copy of the Organization’s privacy policy.  He further expressed concern that the Organization kept licence plate tracking data beyond what it reasonably required for legal and business purposes.  Additionally, he asserted that it was not clear what information the Organization shared or disclosed to third parties, and when it shared or disclosed this information. The Adjudicator found that the Organization had not complied with sections 5, 6, 13, or 35 of PIPA. The Adjudicator ordered the Organization to designate one or more individuals to be responsible for ensuring the Organization complies with PIPA as required by section 5(3) of PIPA. The Adjudicator ordered the Organization to develop and follow policies and practices that are reasonable for the Organization to meet all of its obligations under PIPA as required by section 6(1) of PIPA, and to provide written information about its policies and practices to the Complainant as required by section 6(3) of PIPA. The Adjudicator ordered the Organization to comply with the requirements of section 13 of PIPA. Finally, the Adjudicator ordered the Organization to review its retention practices and determine the purposes for which it retains personal information and the length of time it reasonably requires to keep the personal information it is collecting, for legal or business purposes, and to either destroy or render non-identifying, any personal information it no longer reasonably requires for legal or business purposes as required by section 35 of PIPA.

The Complainant is a PC Optimum loyalty program member.  On June 1, 2020, he received an email from Shoppers Drug Mart, a division of Loblaw Companies Limited (the Organization), informing him that a team member had recently tested positive on a presumptive test for COVID-19 at a particular Shoppers Drug Mart location in Edmonton, and stating that out of an abundance of caution, it was notifying customers who recently transacted at this store (the COVID-19 Notification Email).  The Complainant complained that the Organization used his email address without his consent in contravention of the Personal Information and Protection of Privacy Act (PIPA). The Adjudicator found that section 17(i) of PIPA permitted the Organization to use the Complainant’s email address without his consent to send him the COVID-19 Notification Email.

The Complainant made a complaint under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) alleging the United Nurses of Alberta (the Organization) contravened the Act. The Complainant alleges the Organization disclosed her personal information without authority under the Act. Specifically, the Complainant alleges that the Organization disclosed personal information to the Alberta Labour Relations Board (ALRB) that was not relevant to the matter before the ALRB. The Adjudicator found that the Organization had authority to disclose the Complainant’s personal information to the ALRB.

An individual (the Applicant) made a request to the United Nurses of Alberta (the Organization) for the notes taken by three employees of the Organization during an arbitration involving the Applicant. The Organization refused to provide the Applicant with her personal information contained in the notes under section 24(2)(c) of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), on the basis that the information was collected for the purpose of a legal proceeding. The Applicant requested a review of the Organization’s decision to withhold the notes. The Adjudicator confirmed the decision of the Organization to refuse the Applicant access to the Applicant’s personal information in the employees’ notes under section 24(2)(c) of PIPA.

The Complainant complained that Frohlich Rollins Schwab, Barristers and Solicitors (the Organization) collected and used his personal information in contravention of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). The Organization collected one page of a psychiatrist’s letter (the Letter) containing personal information about the Complainant’s health from its client, the Complainant’s estranged wife, whom it was representing in divorce proceedings against the Complainant. The Complainant alleged that the Letter was stolen. The Adjudicator considered what the relevant circumstances were for the purposes of assessing “reasonableness” as defined in section 2 of PIPA. The Adjudicator found that the relevant circumstances were those at the time it collected and used the letter, prior to the Letter being placed in a court file at which point PIPA ceased to apply to it. These circumstances included the Organization’s duty to its client as her legal representative. The Adjudicator found that the Organization complied with sections 14(d) and 17(d) of PIPA, collection for the purposes of a legal proceeding. The Adjudicator found that purpose was a reasonable purpose for collection and use under sections 11(1) and 16(1). The Adjudicator considered the Complainant’s claim that the Letter was stolen, and found that the Letter was his and that he did not intend to share it with his estranged wife or the Organization. These circumstances factored into consideration of whether the Organization complied with sections 11(2) and 16(2), collection and use to a reasonable extent. The Adjudicator considered whether the Organization could have reasonably known that it was handling the Letter contrary to the Complainant’s property rights to it when it collected and used the information. Under the circumstances of the case, the Adjudicator found that the Organization complied with sections 11(2) and 16(2). The Adjudicator found that the Organization complied with PIPA.

Pursuant to the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA or the Act), an individual (the Applicant) requested a copy of his entire file from the Association of Academic Staff of the University of Alberta (the Organization). The Organization responded to the Applicant’s request and provided him with some responsive records and withheld other information on the basis that one or more of sections 24(2)(a), 24(2)(c), 24(2)(d), 24(3)(b), and 24(3)(c) applied, or that the information was non-responsive as it was not his personal information. The Applicant requested a review and subsequently an inquiry into the Organization’s response, as well as whether the Organization had responded within the time limit set out in section 28(1) of the Act, and whether its response met the requirements set out in section 29(1) of the Act. During the course of the inquiry, the Organization modified the privileges on which it had withheld some of the information under section 24(2)(a), applied section 4(3)(k) to some of the information it had withheld under section 24(2)(a), and determined that information in one record which it had initially withheld with reference to litigation privilege under section 24(2)(a), was actually non-responsive as it did not contain the Applicant’s personal information. The Adjudicator found that with the exception of the Applicant’s name, the information in the one record the Organization initially withheld under litigation privilege and subsequently determined was non-responsive, was non-responsive.  The Adjudicator determined it would not be reasonable to require the Organization to redact the non-responsive information solely to provide the Applicant with his name where it appeared in the record. The Adjudicator found that the Organization had properly applied section 4(3)(k) to the four records previously withheld under litigation privilege. The Adjudicator found that the Organization had established on a balance of probabilities that solicitor-client privilege applied to the Applicant’s personal information in the records it withheld on this basis under section 24(2)(a) of the Act. The Adjudicator found that the Organization had established on a balance of probabilities that litigation privilege applied to some but not all of the records over which it had asserted litigation privilege pursuant to section 24(2)(a) of the Act.  The Adjudicator found that section 24(2)(c) of the Act applied and permitted the Organization to withhold those records for which its assertion of litigation privilege failed. The Adjudicator found that the Organization had established on a balance of probabilities that settlement privilege applied to the Applicant’s personal information in the records it withheld on this basis under section 24(2)(a) of the Act. The Adjudicator found that the Organization had properly applied section 24(2)(c) to withhold the Applicant’s personal information in the records in the First Group of Records provided to the Adjudicator for review, and that section 24(3)(c) applied to permit the Organization to withhold the Applicant’s personal information in the records in the Second Group of Records provided to the Adjudicator for review. The Adjudicator found that the Organization had not complied with the time deadline for providing a response to the Applicant under section 28 of the Act, and had not included all of the information required under section 29(1) of the Act in its response; however, as the Organization had already responded, there was nothing further for the Adjudicator to order.

An Applicant made an access request under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) to West Fraser Mills Ltd. (the Organization) for information regarding disciplinary actions taken against him, medical documentation, first aid records, and incident reports. The Organization responded to the Applicant, stating that he had been given access to review his personnel file and that the Organization had nothing more to provide to the Applicant. The Applicant requested a review of the Organization’s response. In his request for review, the Applicant specified that he was seeking the results of a particular investigation report. The Adjudicator found that the Organization conducted an adequate search for the investigation report. The Adjudicator found that the Organization failed to respond to the Applicant in accordance with section 29(1) of the Act.

The Complainant alleged that Money Mentors (the Organization) collected her personal information contrary to the Personal Information and Protection Act (PIPA). The Complainant alleged that the Organization obtained information about a past bankruptcy from someone other than herself. The Adjudicator concluded that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act), rather than PIPA, applied to the personal information in this case. The Organization is the delegate of the Debtors’ Assistance Board (the Board), a public body; the Organization’s powers were delegated to it pursuant to the Debtors’ Assistance Act. As a public body, the Board’s authority to collect information is subject to the limitations on information collection imposed by the FOIP Act. Delegating those powers to the Organization does not remove the limitations on collection of personal information put in place by the FOIP Act. The Adjudicator considered whether the Board or Service Alberta and Red Tape Reduction (SARTR) may be responsible for the Organization’s compliance with the FOIP Act. In the event that either of them were, they should be added as a respondent to the complaint, and have the opportunity to comment on the issues raised in the complaint. The Adjudicator found that the Board was responsible for the Organization’s compliance. The Board could not slip the bonds of the FOIP Act by delegating its powers. The Adjudicator found that SARTR was not responsible for the Organization’s compliance with the FOIP Act. The Adjudicator added the Board as a respondent to the complaint.

The Applicant made an access request under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) to Lindt & Sprungli (Canada) Ltd. (the Organization) for a copy of a particular performance evaluation completed by her former Manager. The Organization responded to the Applicant’s request for access; two performance evaluations were provided to the Applicant, but the specific evaluation identified in the Applicant’s request was not provided. The Applicant requested a review of the Organization’s response. The Commissioner authorized a Senior Information and Privacy Manager to attempt to settle the matter. Following this review, the Applicant requested an inquiry. The Adjudicator found that the Organization conducted an adequate search for responsive records.

An individual made a complaint alleging that TD Insurance Meloche Monnex (TD Insurance) required insurance claimants to consent to the collection, use and/or disclosure of personal information beyond what was necessary to process the claim, in contravention of section 7(2) of PIPA. The Adjudicator found that, for the most part, TD Insurance was in compliance with the Act. However, the Adjudicator was unable to determine whether some of the collections, uses and/or disclosures were necessary within the terms of section 7(2) of the Act, and ordered TD Insurance to review its consent practices in view of the guidance and discussion set out in the order.

An individual (the Applicant) made an access request to the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) under PIPA for records of an individual's (individual A) conversation with the ATA about individual A’s meeting with the applicant on a specified date, and all information pertaining to the applicant’s allegations of individual A’s unprofessional conduct against the applicant. The applicant also sought the name of the ATA member that individual A spoke to at the ATA on or near the same date  The Applicant also asked ATA for access to individual A’s personal information and argued that section 20(m) permitted ATA to disclose individual A’s personal information to her without individual A’s consent. The Adjudicator made a number of determinations in this order.

An individual made a complaint alleging that Advanced Upstream Ltd. disclosed his personal information in contravention of PIPA when, through external legal counsel, it sent a complete copy of his employment contract to a competitor corporation. The Adjudicator found that under section 5(2) of PIPA, Advanced Upstream Ltd. was responsible for disclosure by its external legal counsel. The Adjudicator found that the complainant consented to disclosure of personal information under section 8(1) of PIPA. The Adjudicator found that it was reasonable for Advanced Upstream Ltd. to disclose some personal information in the contract, but that disclosure of other personal information was unreasonable under section 19(2) of PIPA. The Adjudicator ordered Advanced Upstream Ltd. to cease disclosing the complainant’s personal information insofar as doing so was contrary to PIPA. Since Advanced Upstream Ltd. had already confirmed that the competitor corporation had destroyed the information, no further order was made.

An individual made a complaint that Direct Energy Regulated Services (Direct Energy) collected, retained and used his personal information in contravention of PIPA. Part 1 of this inquiry addressed the issues of collection and use which were considered in Order P2021-10. In Part 2 of the inquiry, the Adjudicator found that Direct Energy’s retention of the complainant’s business contact information (which was also personal information) was exempt under section 4(3)(d) up to the point at which individual no longer had any business responsibilities vis-à-vis Direct Energy. The Adjudicator found that Direct Energy had destroyed individual’s information once the exemption no longer applied, and therefore had complied with section 35.

The applicant made a request to the Acuren Group Inc. for access to his own personal information. Acuren Group withheld some of the applicant’s personal information under sections 24(3)(b) and (c) of PIPA and on the basis of litigation and solicitor-client privilege under section 24(2)(a) of PIPA. The Adjudicator also considered “work-product privilege” for some records identified as a solicitor’s work product. The Adjudicator found that the Acuren Group properly withheld information under section 24(3)(b) and (c). However, the Adjudicator ordered Acuren Group to disclose any of the applicant’s personal information found in records that the Adjudicator had determined not to be protected by litigation, solicitor-client or work-product privilege.

The applicant made an access request to the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) requesting all records and communications within APEGA departments, or between APEGA and third parties, related to or referring to the applicant. APEGA provided some records to the applicant but withheld the majority under PIPA. The Adjudicator found that section 24(2)(c) (information collected for an investigation or legal proceeding) applied to the applicant’s personal information in the records.

The applicant made an access request to Shell Canada Ltd. requesting information related to employment and termination of employment. Shell Canada located records, and withheld some information under sections 24(2)(a), (b) and (c), and section 24(3)(b) of PIPA. The Adjudicator found that Shell Canada conducted an adequate search for responsive records. The Adjudicator found that Shell Canada properly claimed solicitor-client privilege under section 24(2)(a) over one record, and litigation privilege under section 24(2)(a) over one record. The Adjudicator did not accept Shell Canada’s claim of litigation privilege over two records. However, the Adjudicator found that the remaining records, including the two records for which the claim of litigation privilege was not accepted, were collected for an investigation and therefore properly withheld under section 24(2)(c).

The applicant made an access to information request to Canem Systems Ltd. The applicant sought review of Canem Systems' response to his access request, including whether it met the duty to assist under section 27, timelines prescribed under section 28, and provided the proper contents in its response as required under section 29 of PIPA. The Adjudicator found that Canem Systems failed to meet the timelines in section 28, failed to meet the duty to assist under section 27, and failed to provide the required contents of a response under section 29. The Adjudicator ordered Canem Systems to conduct a further search for records, and to provide to the applicant the information required under section 29.

The applicant emailed an access request to Inner Solutions requesting on behalf of herself and her former spouse all records pertaining to services rendered including her child’s individual records and sessions notes, her own records, and records regarding group sessions with her, her spouse, and her child. At the time of the access request the applicant’s child was over the age of 18. Inner Solutions informed the applicant that her file was not located and may have been destroyed following its procedure for record destruction. Inner Solutions also informed the applicant that the information in her child’s file cannot be provided to the applicant as it constitutes the child’s personal information. The Adjudicator found that much of the information in the records at issue was not the applicant’s personal information. The Adjudicator also found that Inner Solutions' response to the applicant did not fulfill its duty to assist under section 27(1).

An individual made a complaint alleging that Little A Accounting disclosed her personal information in contravention of PIPA when an email originating from Little A Accounting's email account was sent to the complainant’s employer, a school board. The Adjudicator found that Little A Accounting had disclosed the complainant’s personal information without consent when the owner/operator emailed the complainant’s employer. A correction was issued to this order on November 25, 2022.

The applicant made an access to information request to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA). The applicant alleged that CPSA deliberately withheld records in response to the access request and otherwise failed to meet its duty to assist under section 27(1)(a) of PIPA. The Adjudicator found that CPSA failed to meet the duty to assist under section 27(1)(a). The Adjudicator found that CPSA did not deliberately withhold information without authorization under PIPA. The Adjudicator ordered CPSA to ask its legal counsel if it had any responsive records.

An individual made a complaint that the Grosvenor House Condominium Plan 772-2911 (organization) contravened PIPA when it posted a notice on a bulletin board inside the entrance of the condo complex where the complainant lived, that said he was in condo fee arrears. The organization posted the notice on a bulletin board in the entry way of the condo complex as the complainant had not paid his condo fees for several months. The Adjudicator determined that the organization did not have authority to disclose the complainant’s personal information without consent.

An individual made a complaint alleging the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA) collected, used and disclosed his personal information in contravention of PIPA. He also alleged that CPSA collected patient information without authority. The Adjudicator found it was unclear that the billing codes used by the complainant to bill for services constitute his personal information; however, if it is, the collection and use of that information was authorized. The Adjudicator made the same finding regarding a consultation letter authored by the complainant. The Adjudicator found that information about complaints made about the complainant to CPSA constitute the complainant’s personal information. However, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that CPSA disclosed this information. The Adjudicator found that CPSA was authorized to collect medical information of the complainant’s patients, for the purpose of conducting an investigation.

Clearview AI, Inc. was ordered to comply with PIPA after it refused to implement recommendations in Investigation Report P2021-IR-01. Clearview AI was ordered to cease offering all of the facial recognition services that have been the subject of this investigation to clients in Alberta; cease the collection, use and disclosure of images and biometric facial arrays collected from individuals in Alberta; and delete images and biometric facial arrays that have been collected from individuals in Alberta and that are in its possession.

An individual made a complaint that her insurance broker, Rogers Insurance Ltd., improperly collected her personal information. The complainant's insurance company informed Rogers Insurance Ltd. about the settlement of the complainant's insurance claim, including the amount of the settlement. The Adjudicator found that the complainant had consented to Rogers Insurance Ltd. collecting her personal information from her insurance company and that the collection of her personal information complied with PIPA.

A personal complainant and corporate complainant alleged that Direct Energy Regulated Services (Direct Energy) contravened PIPA when it used their information to contact them in relation to a property, 16 years after they ceased being involved with the property. The Adjudicator found that a corporation is not an individual and therefore could not make a complaint under PIPA. The Adjudicator found that Direct Energy collected and used the business contact information for the purposes of contacting the personal complainant in relation to his business responsibilities; as such, collection and use were exempt from PIPA under section 4(3)(d). The Adjudicator retained jurisdiction to consider the further issue of whether Direct Energy contravened section 35 of PIPA when it retained the personal complainant’s personal information for so long after the personal complainant was no longer involved with the property in question.

Two individuals complained that Luminos Consulting & Production Inc. (Luminos) had posted personal information about them online without authority under PIPA. The Adjudicator determined that the collection, use and disclosure of one of the complainant's personal information in a video that was posted online was for journalistic purposes within the terms of section 4(3)(c), and the Adjudicator did not have jurisdiction to review that collection, use or disclosure. The Adjudicator determined that Luminos did not have authority to collect, use or disclose either complainant's personal information in the image of a text message or the accompanying comment of Luminos that it posted online.

The applicant requested access to his personnel file and other records related to him from Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL). CNRL provided some responsive records but withheld others under sections 24(2)(a) (legal privilege) and 24(2)(c) (information collected for an investigation or legal proceeding). The Adjudicator concluded that much of the information in the records was not the applicant’s personal information, or contained only small snippets of personal information such that it was not reasonable to require CNRL to provide that information to the applicant. With respect to the applicant's personal information, the Adjudicator found that CNRL properly claimed solicitor-client privilege (section 24(2)(a), and determined other personal information if disclosed would reveal the identity of an individual who provided the information in confidence (section 24(3)(c)).

An individual made a complaint that Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. (Industrial Alliance) collected or disclosed his personal information in contravention of PIPA, and alleged that its email practices failed to meet the standard of appropriate security arrangements required under section 34. The Adjudicator found that Industrial Alliance collected and disclosed the complainant's personal information in order to assess his disability claim, and did not collect or disclose more information than was reasonable to meet that purpose. The Adjudicator concluded that the amount of information included in an email subject line did not meet the requirements to make reasonable security arrangements to protect personal information. However, the Adjudicator found that Industrial Alliance’s amended practices are sufficient to meet the standard in section 34.

An individual made a complaint about ATB Financial's collection, use and disclosure of his personal information in a loan application process. The Adjudicator found that ATB Financial collected and used the complainant’s personal family and medical information in contravention of PIPA. The Adjudicator found that ATB Financial properly collected and used the complainant’s personal financial information. There was no evidence that the complainant's personal information was disclosed. ATB Financial was ordered to collect only personal information that is reasonably necessary to the loan application process.

In Decision P2020-D-01, the Adjudicator determined that an agreement between a complainant and Weinrich Contracting Ltd., for which the complainant was a sole director and equal shareholder with his brother, did not preclude the Commissioner from conducting an inquiry into the issues raised by the complainant in a request for inquiry that the complainant had submitted. In this part of the inquiry, the Adjudicator considered whether the Weinrich Contracting Ltd. collected, used or disclosed the complainant’s personal information in contravention of PIPA. The Adjudicator determined that the brother collected the complainant’s emails on his own behalf, acting in an individual capacity. Therefore, PIPA does not apply to that collection, or subsequent use or disclosure.

An individual made a complaint that ABC Benefits Corporation, operating as Alberta Blue Cross (ABC), disclosed her personal information to the biological father of her two children, and his girlfriend, in contravention of PIPA. She also complained that ABC disclosed the personal information of her two children to their biological father in contravention of PIPA. The Adjudicator made several findings in relation to the complaint, including that ABC had complied with PIPA when it disclosed personal information related to benefit claims and statements.

An individual complained that the General Teamsters, Local Union No. 362 had collected her social insurance number contrary to PIPA. The Adjudicator found that the social insurance was collected in accordance with the collective agreement between the union and the individual's employer. The Adjudicator found that the union was acting as a certified bargaining agent for a bargaining unit in the federal sector when it collected the information and found that it was not an organization to which PIPA applied, for that reason.

An individual complained that The Anglican Diocese of Calgary sent copies of a letter regarding him to clergy, retired clergy and Diocesan members. The Adjudicator determined that The Anglican Diocese of Calgary did not have authority to use or disclose the complainant's personal information.

PriceWaterhouseCoopersLLP (PWC) required an employee to fill out a form for independence testing, which asked for detailed information about the employee and his wife. The employee questioned whether his employer was entitled to his personal information and whether reasonable security arrangements were in place to protect the information it collected. The Adjudicator ordered PWC to undertake a review of its collection practices with respect to a few items of information collected for independence testing. The Adjudicator found PWC had reasonable security arrangements in place.

An individual made a complaint that his former employer Hi Line Farm Equipment Ltd. had collected, used and disclosed his personal information in contravention of PIPA when it accessed texts and emails he had made on his work-issued iPhone and produced them in litigation between the complainant and Hi Line Farm Equipment. Hi Line Farm Equipment had provided the iPhone to the complainant for work purposes. The complainant did not return the iPhone when his employment ended, but continued to use the iPhone after changing the SIM card and obtaining a new telephone number for the iPhone. The Apple ID for the iPhone remained Hi Line Farm Equipment's, as did the iCloud account. During the inquiry, there was no evidence to establish that Hi Line Farm Equipment Ltd. had done anything other than to access its iCloud account in order to prepare for litigation, which is authorized by PIPA.

An individual made a complaint that TWR C Motors GP Inc. (TWR C Motors) collected and used her personal information to perform a credit check, without her consent and without authorization. The Adjudicator determined that TWR C Motors collected and used the complainant’s personal information without authority. The Adjudicator ordered TWR C Motors to train its employees about its obligations with respect to the collection, use and disclosure of personal information.

In the course of divorce proceedings, the complainant underwent paternity testing to determine if he was the father of his daughter. Divergent Health Care Limited performed the test. The complainant’s (now) former wife was his daughter’s legal guardian at the time of the test. Since his daughter was a minor, his former wife provided consent for his daughter to participate in the test. The lawyer representing the complainant’s former wife arranged the test with the organization. Per its standard practice, Divergent Health Care Limited released the results of the test to the complainant and his former wife, and further disclosed the results directly to the lawyer. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order, including finding that genetic information was improperly disclosed and that the disclosure of genetic information in the circumstances was not reasonable.

Two applicants made access requests to a law firm for their personal information contained in a client file that had been created by the law firm in the course of representing a client was opposed in interest to the applicants during legal proceedings. The Adjudicator held that some of the information was excluded from PIPA by reference to information in court files (section 4(3)(k)) and some of it was subject to solicitor-client privilege (section 24(2)(a)).

An individual made a complaint that Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, during the course of ongoing litigation, obtained his credit report from Equifax, and filed the credit report in court as evidence in support of an application for security for future costs. The primary issue before the Adjudicator was whether the collection, use and disclosure of the credit report in the absence of the complainant’s consent was permitted by sections 14(d), 17(d), and 20(m) of PIPA (collection, use and disclosure that is reasonable for the purposes of an investigation or legal proceeding). The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

An individual made a complaint that the Standard Life Assurance Company (now Manulife) had collected and disclosed her personal information without her consent under PIPA. The Adjudicator found that Manulife was authorized to collect information about a workplace conflict in which the individual was involved as Manulife considered this information relevant to the decision it had to make regarding the individual’s entitlement to benefits. The Adjudicator found that Manulife was not authorized under PIPA to disclose the individual’s personal information to her employer’s agent without her consent.

An individual made a complaint that her employer, Primco Dene, had disclosed details of a work place conflict to Standard Life, an insurer to which she had submitted a disability claim. The individual also complained that an agent of Primco Dene had emailed Standard Life to ask what information would be required for the individual's disability claim to be accepted and that by doing so, Primco Dene had disclosed her personal information without her consent. The Adjudicator found that the individual had consented to the disclosure of information regarding the workplace conflict to Standard Life when she completed the application form for disability benefits. The Adjudicator determined that in the circumstances of Primco Dene's agent's disclosure of personal information in the emailed statement without consent, section 20(a) of PIPA authorized Primco Dene’s disclosure without consent.

An individual made a complaint that The Co-operators Group Limited (Co-operators Group) had required him to provide a power of attorney when he attempted to cancel a motor vehicle insurance policy belonging to an ill family member. Co-operators Group rejected a power of attorney letter from the family member's doctor submitted by the complainant. The Adjudicator determined that Co-operators Group had required the power of attorney to satisfy itself that the complainant had standing to alter terms of a contract of insurance between Co-operators Group and an insured. It was determined that the organization had not collected more information than was necessary. The Adjudicator also determined that Co-operators Group did not need to obtain consent, as it was clearly in the best interests of the insured that Co-operators Group be satisfied that the complainant had the legal authority to make changes to the contract on behalf of the insured.

The applicant made an access request to Worley Parsons Canada for his personal file, in addition to other records regarding his insurance claim, and information documenting a litigation hold. Worley Parsons Canada provided the applicant with his personal file and other information about his insurance claims. However, it refused to provide references contained in his personal file, draft calculations and information regarding documenting a litigation hold, on the basis that such information was outside the scope of PIPA. After the applicant provided submissions for the inquiry, the Adjudicator determined that the applicant had no interest in the subject matter of the inquiry and confirmed that Worley Parsons Canada had responded appropriately to the applicant under PIPA.

The applicant made an access request to the YWCA of Calgary for his and his children's personal information. The Adjudicator found that the YWCA of Calgary conducted an adequate search for responsive records. The applicant’s submissions indicated that he may have expected to receive information he is not entitled to under PIPA. The YWCA of Calgary also confirmed that there were no backups of emails from the timeframe of the applicant’s request.

Individuals made complaints that NAL Resources Management Ltd. (NAL Resources) contravened PIPA when it instituted a policy that required contractors, such as the complainants, to have a GPS tracking device installed on their vehicles. The Adjudicator found that the information collected by the GPS tracking device was personal employee information within the terms of PIPA, as NAL Resources collected and used it for the purpose of managing the employment relationship. The Adjudicator confirmed that NAL Resources was not in contravention of PIPA.

An individual made a complaint that Servus Credit Union Ltd. disclosed her personal information, contained in a form entitled personal financial statement, to her common law partner's ex-wife, without the complainant's consent. The Adjudicator found that there was insufficient evidence to find that the information was disclosed by Servus Credit Union Ltd.

An individual made a complaint that Servus Credit Union Ltd. disclosed his personal information, which was contained in a form entitled personal financial statement, to his ex-wife, without the complainant's consent. The Adjudicator found that there was insufficient evidence to find that the information was disclosed by the Servus Credit Union Ltd.

An individual made a complaint that De Beers Canada Inc. (De Beers) had collected his passport information in contravention of PIPA. The Adjudicator determined that the exchange of information that was the subject of the complaint had taken place in Ontario, between an organization based in Kingston, Ontario, that had contracted with the complainant, and De Beers' Ontario office. The Adjudicator determined that the exchange of information could not be said to have taken place within Alberta. As a result, PIPA did not apply to the complaint and the Adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to address it.

An individual made a complaint that Maxim Research and Consulting Corporation Ltd. (Maxim) had collected, used and disclosed information about her employment history, as well as her motor vehicle registration and credit report information without her consent and in contravention of PIPA. She also complained that Maxim had provided this information to a law firm, which then collected and used the information in order to include it in an affidavit sworn by her spouse's former wife and filed in legal proceedings by the law firm. The Adjudicator found the collection, use and/or disclosure of the individual's personal information by Maxim and the law firm were reasonable for purposes of legal proceedings. The Adjudicator also determined that section 4 of PIPA applied to the law firm's act of submitting the personal information into court, which meant that PIPA did not apply to that extent.

The applicant requested surveillance tapes of an incident involving him and another individual from 7-Eleven Canada, Inc. The applicant specified that he was seeking the unaltered video, in order to pursue the other individual in the video. The Adjudicator determined that the video contained personal information of third parties, which must be withheld. The Adjudicator agreed with 7-Eleven that it was not reasonable to require the organization to sever the third party information from the video and provide the applicant with access to the remainder.

An individual made a complaint that the president of the Canadian Energy Workers' Association (CEWA) disclosed his personal information at a meeting of the organization's members. The Adjudicator found that the provision of the individual’s personal information to CEWA’s members was a use of the information, rather than a disclosure. The Adjudicator found that PIPA (section 17(d)), which enables an organization to use personal information for the purposes of legal proceedings without consent, authorized this use.

An individual complained that the Ideal Housing Cooperative (Ideal Housing) used and disclosed her personal information in an investigation report and provided information in that report to members of the organization in contravention of PIPA. She also complained that Ideal Housing disclosed her personal information in contravention of PIPA when it included information from its investigation in a reference to a housing federation for which the complainant was seeking to be a director and provided the opinion that the complainant was an unsuitable candidate for the reasons referred to in the investigation. The Adjudicator found that Ideal Housing properly used and disclosed personal information without consent under PIPA.

The applicant made an access request to Syncrude Canada Ltd. (Syncrude) for specific records he believed to be part of his employee file. In Order P2015-06, the Adjudicator ordered Syncrude to conduct a new search for drug testing records; however, the order did not require the organization to conduct a further search for other records. In this order, the Adjudicator determined that some of the information the applicant had requested was not his personal information. The Adjudicator found that Syncrude’s search for records on the applicant’s employee file had already been addressed in Order P2015-06 and that the Adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to make a decision regarding records the applicant believed should have been part of his file that were not produced.

The applicant requested access from Primaris Management Inc. to surveillance video. The Adjudicator determined that the video cannot be withheld under the exception that the information was collected for an investigation or legal proceeding (section 24(2)(c) of PIPA). While the organization used the video in the course of an investigation, the video was not collected for the purpose of that investigation. The Adjudicator determined that the video contains personal information of third parties, which must be withheld. The Adjudicator accepted the organization's arguments that in this case it was not reasonable to require the organization to sever third party information from the video and provide the applicant with access to the remainder.

An individual made a complaint about the collection and use of their personal information via video surveillance by Primaris Management Inc. The Adjudicator determined that the collection and use of the complainant's personal information via video surveillance were done with his deemed consent, as the complainant had knowledge of the video surveillance and the video was collected for obvious purposes. The Adjudicator found that the disclosure of the statement and video to the complainant's employer by Primaris Management Inc. was reasonable for an investigation or legal proceeding (section 20(m) of PIPA).

An individual complained that a safety consultant disclosed her personal information to a trucking company in contravention of PIPA. The complainant was employed by a gravel trucking company when she sustained a back injury. The safety consultant was working as an independent contractor for the gravel trucking organization and also for another trucking company. The complainant alleged the safety consultant disclosed information about her back injury and a Workers' Compensation Board claim to the other trucking company. The Adjudicator found that the safety consultant did not disclose the complainant's personal information in contravention of PIPA.

The applicant made an access request to Kroll Associates for records related to an investigation the organization conducted on behalf of the University of Calgary. The Commissioner identified a jurisdictional issue regarding whether FOIP or PIPA applied to the records requested by the applicant. The Adjudicator determined that any responsive records would be under the control of the University of Calgary by virtue of a contract between it and Kroll Associates. As the applicant had previously made an access request to the University of Calgary for records related to the investigation (Order F2003-005), the Adjudicator surmised that another access request would be unlikely to yield the records sought by the applicant. The Adjudicator noted that the applicant had come to a similar conclusion.

The applicant made three access requests to CO-OP Taxi. CO-OP Taxi did not respond within the time limits set out in PIPA. However, CO-OP Taxi responded during the inquiry.

An individual made a complaint that Bishop & McKenzie LLP collected, used and/or disclosed his personal information in contravention of PIPA when it received a copy of his worker's compensation file from a client and it was subsequently used in an affidavit filed in a civil claim. The Adjudicator found that Bishop & McKenzie LLP had the authority to collect, use and/or disclose the information in the file pursuant to sections related to collection, use and disclosure without consent, and limitations on disclosure.

A former employee of Jester's Gaming Lounge (operated by the Castledowns Bingo Association) made a complaint alleging that Jester's Gaming Lounge disclosed her personal information without authority under PIPA. The complainant also alleged that Jester's Gaming Lounge failed to secure her personal information. The Adjudicator determined that the organization is a non-profit organization as defined in PIPA, but that operating the lounge is a commercial activity. The Adjudicator also determined that employees hired to perform functions necessary to carry out the commercial activity are hired “in connection with” that commercial activity. In this case, the complainant was hired as a bartender in the lounge, and her personal employee information was collected, used and/or disclosed in connection with a commercial activity.

An individual made a complaint that her personal information was disclosed to tenants, social services, the Canada Revenue Agency and Alberta Health Services by employees of her landlord, Ascot Garden, in contravention of PIPA. The Adjudicator found that the organization’s employees acting in their employment capacity disclosed the complainant’s personal information to other tenants and the police. Further, the Adjudicator found that the organization provided no justification for doing so. As a result, the Adjudicator could find no authority under PIPA to disclose the complainant’s personal information.

An individual made a complaint that Harcourt Personnel Inc. collected, used and/or disclosed his personal information in contravention of PIPA when it received a copy of his Worker's Compensation Board (WCB) file and provided it to its lawyer and was subsequently used in an affidavit filed in a civil claim. The Adjudicator found that Harcourt Personnel Inc. had the authority to collect, use and/or disclose the information in the complainant's WCB file pursuant to various sections of PIPA.

An individual made a complaint that his former employer, VitalAire Canada Inc., disclosed his personal information to the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) without authority. The Adjudicator determined that the personal information disclosed by VitalAire Canada Inc. to WCB related to, and affected, the individual’s benefits from WCB, and that this disclosure of information was required under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The Adjudicator found that the disclosure was permitted under PIPA.

An individual made a complaint after a laptop was stolen from an employee of Acosta Canada Corporation (Acosta). The personal information of the complainant and other individuals was stored in the laptop. The Adjudicator found that at the time of the theft, Acosta had not been in compliance with provisions on the protection of information and retention and destruction of information under PIPA. Acosta revised its policies regarding security measures to prevent risk of loss of personal information and retention of personal information. The Adjudicator found these revised policies were in compliance with PIPA. Acosta was ordered to destroy the complainant's personal information.

The applicant made an access request to CLFN Sawmill & Training Centre Ltd. (CLFN) for a copy of his personnel record. The Adjudicator found that CLFN conducted an adequate search for responsive records under PIPA but did not meet its requirements to provide its reasons for refusing access to all or parts of the records. However, the Adjudicator determined that CLFN properly withheld information protected by any legal privilege and information collected for an investigation or legal proceeding.

An individual made a complaint fellow employees of Accessible Accessories Ltd. sent an email and texts containing her personal information to her parents. The complainant also asserted that a coworker disclosed personal information about her to her employer. The Adjudicator determined that the email and most of the text messages were sent by the complainant's coworkers in a personal capacity, as friends, and that those disclosures were not subject to PIPA. However, the Adjudicator determined that the information provided to the employer by one of the coworkers was personal employee information about the complainant, which was not authorized under PIPA.

An individual complained that the Alberta Assessors' Association disclosed her personal information by using a data matching database called "Turnitin" to analyze a demonstration report she had submitted to the University of British Columbia. ("Turnitin" is software that assists in the identification of plagiarism.) The Alberta Assessors' Association took disciplinary measures against the complainant on the basis of the analysis of the demonstration report. The Adjudicator determined that the Alberta Assessors' Association was a non-profit organization and found that PIPA did not apply in this situation.

An individual complained that REDI Enterprises Society did not have authority to collect information about her criminal conviction. The Adjudicator found that REDI Enterprises Society is complying with PIPA when it collects a written account of its employees' criminal activity.

An individual complained that McLeod Law through its process server disclosed her information in contravention of PIPA when it posted, face out, a written notice on the door of the condominium unit in which she was residing. Since McLeod Law had already accepted the recommendation at mediation of folding any notices in half prior to posting them, the Adjudicator declined to order McLeod Law to do anything further.

The applicant made an access request for his personnel file and other information concerning him from his former employer, G4S Secure Solutions Canada Ltd. (G4S). The Adjudicator determined that personal information about other individuals was properly withheld under PIPA by G4S in its response to the applicant.

The applicant requested his personal information from Lundgren & Young Insurance Ltd. The Adjudicator found that Lundgren & Young Insurance Ltd. did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in PIPA. The Adjudicator ordered Lundgren & Young Insurance Ltd. to respond to the applicant.

The applicant made a request for his entire personnel file held by the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE). AUPE withheld meeting notes under PIPA. The Adjudicator ordered AUPE to re-exercise its discretion in withholding the applicant's personal information as AUPE's explanation for withholding the information related to information other than the applicant's personal information.

An individual made a complaint that Grandin Manor Ltd.'s surveillance system was not in compliance with PIPA. Grandin Manor Ltd. was found to have given sufficient notice of the use of surveillance cameras and that an increase in the number of cameras was authorized by a resolution passed by the owners. However, the Adjudicator determined that a review of surveillance footage was done for a purpose for which the condominium corporation required consent and needed to provide notice prior to collection for the purpose of deterring the complainant from scribbling comments on notices in the future.

Gibbs Gage Architects provided the applicant with his personnel file and tax, benefits and compensation files. The applicant requested a review of the decision arguing that the organization failed to produce emails, correspondence, investigation reports and meeting minutes containing references to him and the decision to terminate his employment. For a variety of reasons, the Adjudicator determined that Gibbs Gage Architects had met its duty to assist the applicant under PIPA.

The applicant requested from the Health Sciences Association of Alberta (HSAA) information relating to an investigation into a complaint the applicant made against another member of HSAA. HSAA denied access to the information relating to the former request, citing section 24(2)(c) of PIPA (information collected for an investigation or legal proceeding). The Adjudicator determined that information was properly withheld by the HSAA. However, HSAA was ordered to exercise its discretion to withhold an investigation report.

An individual made a complaint that two individuals from the law firm Roulston Chow collected his address and that of his girlfriend without authorization and used this personal information to serve him with a statement of claim in contravention of PIPA. The Adjudicator found that there was no evidence that Roulston Chow had collected or used the complainant’s personal information.

The applicant requested records from Watch Me Grow Agency containing his personal information and that of his child. Watch Me Grow Agency initially ignored the applicant’s request, believing it did not have to respond, but did eventually provide the applicant with copies of the responsive records it located. The applicant stated that Watch Me Grow Agency did not perform an adequate search for responsive records. The Adjudicator found that Watch Me Grow Agency performed an adequate search, but it failed to meet its time limit when responding to the applicant’s access request.

An individual made a complaint that the St. Paul Grazing Reserve Association disclosed his personal information without authority to do so under PIPA. The Adjudicator determined that the information was about the complainant’s business and was not his personal information as defined in PIPA.

The applicant requested from Syncrude Canada Ltd. (Syncrude) a copy of his full and complete personnel file. Syncrude responded but the applicant believed that the response was not complete. In addition, the applicant made another request for records relating to a “truck incident” as well as information disclosed to a potential employer. Syncrude could not locate records responsive to this request. The Adjudicator found that Syncrude made all reasonable efforts to locate records responsive to the applicant’s requests with one exception.

The applicant made three access requests to his former employer, Fairmont Hotels and Resorts Inc. (Fairmont) for information in his personnel file. Fairmont responded to his first request, providing some of the responsive records it was able to locate, but withholding some of them on the basis of section 24(2)(a) (legal privilege) and section 24(2)(b) (confidential commercial information) of PIPA. Fairmont responded to his second request by providing additional records, but withholding some records pursuant to sections 24(2)(a), 24(2)(b), 24(2)(c) (investigation or legal proceeding), 24(2)(d) (information may no longer be provided), and 24(3)(c) (confidential opinions) of PIPA. Fairmont did not respond to the applicant’s third access request for many months, and when it did, it said it was unable to find responsive records. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

An individual made a complaint that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 424 (IBEW) had used or disclosed his personal information without his consent when it submitted medical reporting he had provided to IBEW to a medical consultant. The Adjudicator found that PIPA did not require IBEW to obtain the complainant’s consent prior to providing the information to a medical consultant because it had given the information to the medical consultant as part of an investigation or to prepare for a legal proceeding.

The applicant made an access request to Primerica Financial Services Ltd. (Primerica) for personal information. The applicant took issue with the reasons given by Primerica for withholding records and questioned Primerica’s claim that it no longer had documents in its possession. The Adjudicator found that Primerica had properly withheld most documents and that it had complied with its obligations to assist the applicant under PIPA.

The applicant made a request to personally examine a signed copy of a decision letter made by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA) respecting a complaint he had submitted to it. The applicant was not satisfied with the document provided for his review, nor with a subsequent document that was supplied to him. The Adjudicator concluded that CPSA had not failed to meet any of its duties under PIPA.

The applicant made an access request to the College & Association of Registered Nurses of Alberta (CARNA) for “a copy of the letter sent [by the organization] to the complainant pursuant to section 55(1) of the Health Professions Act.” CARNA denied access to the requested letter on the basis that most of it was not personal information of the applicant. CARNA also withheld the portion of the letter that was personal information under section 24(2)(c) of PIPA (information collected for an investigation or legal proceeding). The Adjudicator agreed that most of the letter was not personal information of the applicant. The Adjudicator also found that section 24(2)(c) applies to the personal information in the letter. However, as CARNA did not explain how it exercised its discretion to withhold the personal information, the Adjudicator ordered CARNA to reconsider its decision, taking into account the appropriate factors.

The applicant requested his personal information from CDN Power Pac, including a video. CDN Power Pac did not respond to the Applicant’s access within 45 days or extend the time limit for responding. CDN Power Pac subsequently provided two paper records, and stated that the video had been destroyed. The Adjudicator found that CDN Power Pac had met its duty to assist the applicant. The evidence established that the video requested by the applicant had been destroyed prior to CDN Power Pac’s receipt of his access request.

An individual made a complaint stating that he did not sign the forms as alleged by Crawford & Company (Canada) Ltd. (Crawford & Company), and complained that Crawford & Company therefore did not have his consent to collect and use this information. He also complained that Crawford & Company collected more information than was reasonable to settle a claim. The Adjudicator accepted Crawford & Company’s assertion that the complainant had signed the consent forms. However, the Adjudicator found that some of the information collected by Crawford & Company was not related to the claim and therefore Crawford & Company collected more information than was reasonable for its purpose of settling the claim.

The applicant requested his employee file from the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires (Commissionaires). Commissionaires identified itself as a non-profit organization and argued that PIPA did not apply to the information requested by the applicant for that reason. The Adjudicator determined that the Organization is a non-profit organization registered under Part 9 of the Companies Act. The Adjudicator determined that collecting, using, and disclosing personal information to manage employees is not a transaction or course of conduct that is of a commercial character within the terms of section 56(1) of PIPA, and that PIPA did not apply to the request for personal information.

The applicant asked for copies of audio recordings of two conversations between TD Insurance’s representatives and his ex-wife, who had purported to be the holder of the insurance policy even though she was not. Section 24(1)(a) of PIPA permits an applicant to request access to his or her own personal information only. The Adjudicator confirmed the decision of TD Insurance to refuse the applicant access to the audio recordings of the telephone conversations between his ex-wife and TD Insurance’s representatives.  

After receiving a marketing email from StoryBook Theatre Society (StoryBook), an individual made a complaint that Morpheus Theatre Society (Morpheus) disclosed his personal information without consent to StoryBook in contravention of PIPA. The Adjudicator determined that StoryBook did not collect the complainant’s personal information from Morpheus, but rather had collected it from the complainant at some prior time. The Adjudicator determined that the use of the complainant’s personal information was in connection with a commercial activity such that PIPA applies to StoryBook’s use of the complainant’s personal information. The Adjudicator found that StoryBook did not have authority to use the complainant’s information, and ordered StoryBook to delete the complainant’s personal information if it has not already done so.

An individual made a complaint regarding the disclosure of his personal information by the Consumer Choice Awards to a named company. The Adjudicator determined that the Consumer Choice Awards did not have authority to disclose the complainant’s personal information to the company.

The applicant made an access request to ATCO Electric Ltd. and Canadian Utilities Ltd. for his personnel file, including all performance data, performance meetings, salary and bonus discussions, and performance and promotion or change in assignment discussions, even if he were not present at the discussion. He asked the ATCO and Canadian Utilities to include succession planning meeting minutes, performance reviews and correspondence that contains personal information relating to him. He also requested all payroll, pension, supplementary pension and benefits files and all vacation records. When ATCO and Canadian Utilities were unable to provide performance evaluations for certain years, the applicant requested a review of their response. The Adjudicator found that ATCO and Canadian Utilities conducted an adequate search for responsive records and had met their duty to assist the applicant.

The applicant asked The Legal Aid Society of Alberta (Legal Aid) for information about its use and disclosure of his personal information, as contemplated by section 24(1)(b) of PIPA. He also asked for certain records containing his personal information, as contemplated by section 24(1)(a). The applicant alleged that the Legal Aid Society had failed to seek clarification as to what he was requesting, had failed to provide the requested information about the use and disclosure of his personal information, and had failed to provide some of the records requested by him. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order, and upheld the decisions made by the Legal Aid Society.

An individual made a complaint that her personal information had been improperly collected, used and disclosed by Sobeys Group Inc. (Sobeys). The Adjudicator found that the complainant’s personal information might have been “personal employee information” but that Sobeys did not meet the requirements for collecting personal employee information. The Adjudicator also found that the use and disclosure of the information was not authorized by PIPA's provisions for using and disclosing personal employee information.

An individual complained that Moore’s Industrial Service Ltd. (MIS) gained access to his personal email account and collected, used and/or disclosed emails located in that account in contravention of PIPA. MIS acknowledged that it accessed the complainant’s email account, but stated that the complainant had returned a work laptop that still contained his personal email account information. It argued that the complainant had therefore implicitly consented to MIS' access to his personal email account. The Adjudicator determined that the complainant did not provide consent to MIS to access his personal email account.

The applicant requested from Suncor Energy Inc. (Suncor) his personnel records and all documentation relating to an incident that led to his employment termination. Suncor withheld some of the information under section 24 of PIPA, and the Adjudicator upheld Suncor's decisions to withhold information.

The applicant requested from Contour Earthmoving Ltd. her employment file and information about a complaint made about her. Contour Earthmoving Ltd. withheld some log and inspection reports, the applicant's time sheets and the name and phone number of the individual who complained about her. In addition, the applicant complained that the information Contour Earthmoving Ltd. had collected about her was not accurate. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

An individual complained that TD Insurance contravened PIPA when it conveyed information about him and his insurance policy to his ex-wife over the telephone and by fax. TD Insurance explained that it was the victim of fraud on the part of the ex-wife, and did not argue that it had any authority or consent to disclose the complainant’s personal information.

An individual alleged that Project Porchlight contravened PIPA by tracing personal telephone calls that he had made using a device provided to him by the Project Porchlight, and by failing to secure his personal information contained in his employment offer letter and tax forms. The Adjudicator found that Project Porchlight had collected and used without authorization under PIPA the complainant’s personal information when it traced his personal calls, as the tracing revealed the recipients and the nature of the calls. The Adjudicator found Project Porchlight did not have an "acceptable use" policy that restricted the ability of the complainant to make personal calls using the device.

An individual made an access request to Sangha Operating Group Inc. (SOG) for access to his employment file in its entirety. The Adjudicator determined that SOG had failed to meet the timelines set out in PIPA. The Adjudicator accepted that SOG had provided all of the applicant’s personal information to him and it had not breached its obligations under PIPA regarding the retention of personal information.

The applicant requested her personal information from the Professional Drivers Bureau of Canada Inc. (PDBC). The applicant also made a privacy complaint about PDBC's collection, use and disclosure of her personal information. The Adjudicator determined that the evidence did not establish that PDBC had completed a reasonable search for responsive records. The Adjudicator also found that PDBC had collected, used, and disclosed the personal information of the applicant in contravention of PIPA, as it had not obtained her consent in circumstances where it was necessary that it do so and had not provided notice of its collection.

The applicant requested his personnel file from Canadian Linen and Uniform Service Co. The inquiry's issues included the timeliness and content of Canadian Linen's response. The Adjudicator found that Canadian Linen's response to the applicant’s counsel (representing the applicant in the litigation) that the requested information would be produced in the course of the litigation process did not meet Canadian Linen's obligations under PIPA.

The applicant requested his personal information from Stolo's Pizza & Sports Bar. The applicant said pay stubs had not been provided. Stolo's did not respond during the inquiry. The Adjudicator determined Stolo's failed to fulfill any aspect of its duty to assist the applicant.

An individual made a complaint after Fast Life International sent her email address to an individual she met but who she did not indicate was a "match" at a speed dating event. The Adjudicator found that Fast Life International disclosed the complainant's personal information in contravention of PIPA, and that it needed to ensure that its employees were aware of their obligations under PIPA.

An individual complained that her personal information was collected, used and disclosed by her landlord, G.M.A. Properties Inc./Alliance Realty Inc. (GMA/Alliance), in contravention of PIPA. The Adjudicator found that GMA/Alliance collected the complainant's social insurance number contrary to PIPA, disclosed the complainant's personal information without consent and did not have proper notice for security cameras.

Three individuals made complaints that Budget Rent-a-Car of Calgary Ltd. (Budget) was photocopying and retaining driver's licences in contravention of PIPA. The Adjudicator found that Budget had failed to establish that the photocopying of the licences met the requirement that the practice was necessary for the company to provide the service of renting vehicles, within the terms of section 7(2) of PIPA. The Adjudicator also found that Budget's extent of the collection was not reasonable for the purpose, it failed to provide proper notice of the purpose for collection and it failed to establish that it had proper security arrangements.

The applicant requested a review of fees charged and severing decisions made by Pro-Western Plastics Ltd. The Adjudicator found that many of the records provided to the applicant did not contain the applicant’s personal information and those records were not subject to fees. The Adjudicator also found that Pro-Western Plastics improperly applied the exception to access for personal information of third parties in many of the records.

The director of a corporation made a complaint that the Alberta New Home Warranty Association collected and used her personal information in contravention of PIPA when it contacted references in the course of evaluating an application by her company for membership in its warranty program. The Adjudicator found the individual was acting in a commercial capacity, within the terms of section 1(1)(i) of PIPA, and her personal information was not at issue.

The applicant requested a review of Lifemark Health Management Inc.'s (now owned by Centric Health Corporation) response to her requested for personal information. The Adjudicator determined that Lifemark had fulfilled its duty to assist the applicant by conducting an adequate search for the requested information.

An individual complained that the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 30 (CUPE) contravened PIPA by failing to notify him that his email correspondence would be reviewed, and by reading and referring to certain emails at an annual general meeting. The Adjudicator concluded that CUPE had used and/or disclosed the complainant’s personal information in contravention of PIPA. CUPE was ordered to give proper prior notice, when required, before using and/or disclosing personal information or personal employee information.

Two individuals made complaints that Peter Choate and Associates Ltd. (PCA) had improperly collected, used and disclosed their personal information under PIPA. The Adjudicator determined that the Family Law Act authorized the disclosure of some, but not all, of the first complainant’s personal information in a report, but did not authorize the disclosure of the second complainant's personal information. The Adjudicator determined that PCA did not have authority under PIPA to use and disclose of some of the first complainant's personal information and all of the second complainant's personal information at issue.

The applicant requested access to his own personal information from Talisman Energy Inc.  The Adjudicator found that Talisman Energy properly applied the exception to access for personal information about another individual, and agreed with Talisman Energy that the personal information of the third party could not reasonably be severed from the Applicant’s own personal information. The Adjudicator accepted Talisman Energy’s reasons for not conducting a search for deleted electronic records, as such a search would go beyond what an organization is required to do under section 27(1)(a) of PIPA.

An individual made a complaint that Eagles Nest Ranch Association (ENRA) contravened PIPA when it required her to provide her son's Alberta Health Care number in order to register him for summer camp, among other issues raised. The Adjudicator found that ENRA required the complainant to consent to the collection of personal information beyond what was necessary, contrary to section 7(2) of PIPA.

An individual made a complaint alleging that the Alberta Teachers' Association did not make reasonable security arrangements in contravention of PIPA after it had mistakenly sent personal information to the wrong address. The Adjudicator found that the misdirection of the mail was attributable to excusable human error, rather than any deficiency in security arrangements.

The owner of a photography business complained that Yellow Pages Group Co. (Yellow Pages) had contravened PIPA when it published an address in association with the name of her business. The business address was also her home address. The Adjudicator held that it was business, not personal, information at issue.

The applicant made a request to Borden Ladner Gervais LLP (BLG) for his personal information in a client file. The file had been created by the law firm in the course of representing a client opposed in interest to the applicant in a legal dispute. The law firm withheld most of the documents that it had located that it considered to be responsive to the applicant’s request on the basis that they were subject to solicitor-client privilege. The Commissioner accepted the law firm’s document-by-document affidavit attesting that all the documents that it had located and for which it was claiming privilege were subject to solicitor-client privilege. For some remaining emails, the Commissioner found that the law firm’s search had been adequate even if the email had not been located.

An individual made a complaint that his personal information had been improperly collected, used and disclosed by Canavista Enterprises Ltd. on two occasions. The Adjudicator found that the complainant’s allegations were substantiated, and that neither of the dealings with the complainant’s personal information was authorized under PIPA. The Adjudicator ordered Canavista Enterprises Ltd. to stop collecting, using and disclosing the complainant’s personal information in contravention of PIPA.

An individual made a complaint that the Real Estate Council of Alberta (RECA) requires applicants for licenses to submit to criminal record checks that require the applicant to submit fingerprints to RCMP. The Adjudicator determined that RECA’s practice of requiring and collecting criminal record checks complied with the requirements of PIPA.

An individual complained that the Real Estate Council of Alberta (RECA) contravened PIPA by failing to inform her that a telephone conversation with her was being recorded and the purpose for the recording. The Adjudicator found that RECA had the authority to collect the voice recording, without the complainant’s consent, as the collection was pursuant to a statute under section 14(b) of PIPA, and was also reasonable for the purposes of an investigation under section 14(d). The Adjudicator found that RECA did not fulfill its duty under section 13(1) of FOIP, as it did not initially notify the complainant as to the purposes for which the voice recording was being collected, and did not provide the complainant with the name of a person who was able to answer her questions about the collection.

Two individuals made complaints alleging that Double L Towing told them that they would have an opportunity to view a promotional video before it was disclosed, and to decide at that time whether to consent to its disclosure. The Adjudicator determined that the images of the complainants in the promotional video constituted work product information, and not the complainants’ personal information under PIPA.

The applicant requested information relating to himself from his former employer, Albian Sands Energy Inc. He requested a review of the employer’s response to his request, on the basis of his belief that records existed at the time of his request, in the form of emails, that the employer had not provided to him. The Adjudicator held that the arguments and materials provided by the applicant did not establish that his former employer had failed to provide email records in its possession, or had failed to conduct an adequate search.

An individual complained that the Great-West Life Assurance Company (GWL) collected and used her personal information that had been disclosed to GWL by her employer contrary to PIPA. The Adjudicator found that the complainant did consent to GWL’s collection and use of some of her personal information but this consent did not apply to her medical information, which was collected and used without consent and contrary to PIPA.

An individual complained that Fairways Villas South Homeowners' Association (organization) contravened PIPA by using and/or disclosing her personal information, without her consent, when it sent certain emails. The organization either conceded that PIPA did not permit it to use and/or disclose the complainant’s personal information in the e-mails, or the Adjudicator found that the organization did not establish that the Act permitted it to do so.

An individual made a complaint alleging that the Real Estate Council of Alberta (RECA) posted a disciplinary decision on its website in contravention of PIPA. The Adjudicator found that RECA had the authority to disclose the complainant’s personal information pursuant to section 20(b) of PIPA. The Adjudicator also found that RECA’s disclosure was for reasonable purposes under section 19(1) and, pursuant to section 19(2), the extent of the disclosure was reasonable for meeting those purposes.

An individual made a complaint alleging that ExxonMobil Canada Ltd. contravened PIPA by collecting, using and disclosing a document containing his personal information. The Adjudicator made several findings and determinations in this order.

The applicant requested all records containing his personal information from The Churchill Corporation, the parent company of his former employer. The Churchill Corporation responded to the applicant’s request and provided him with his personal information, but withheld records to which it claimed legal privilege applied. The Adjudicator found that the information withheld had been properly withheld pursuant to solicitor-client privilege (section 24(2)(a) of PIPA).

The applicant requested information from The Churchill Corporation, but the organization did not respond for several months. The Adjudicator found that the access request was for personal information and that The Churchill Corporation failed to meet timelines for responding under PIPA.

The applicant requested all records containing his personal information from his former employer, Stuart Olson Constructors Inc. (organization). The organization responded to the applicant’s request and provided him with his personal information but withheld records which it believed related to an investigation or to which legal privilege applied. The Adjudicator found that most of the information in the records withheld by the organization was not the applicant’s personal information and did not need to be disclosed by the organization

An individual complained that information collected by his employer, Imperial Oil Limited (Imperial Oil), contained in a disciplinary letter was not accurate and that Imperial Oil failed to take reasonable efforts to ensure that it was accurate and complete, contrary to section 33 of PIPA. The Adjudicator found that the limited information that was collected by Imperial Oil and contained in the disciplinary letter was accurate and complete.

A former employee of the Calgary Co-operative Association Limited (Calgary Co-op) requested access to records containing his personal information. Calgary Co-op responded, by providing records to the applicant that were responsive to his request. The applicant felt that he had not been provided with all of the responsive records The Adjudicator found that Calgary Co-op had responded fully and accurately to the applicant’s request, but said that Calgary Co-op ought to have stated that the applicant was being given access to all responsive records.

An individual made a complaint that Desjardins Financial Security (Desjardins) had required her to complete the same form as her husband when she applied for insurance coverage as a dependant under her spouse’s company plan. She took the position that Desjardins was in contravention of section 7(2) of PIPA. She argued that Desjardins should be required to provide plan members and dependants separate application forms when a dependant seeks to obtain coverage on a plan member’s insurance plan. The Adjudicator determined that section 567 of the Insurance Act required plan members and dependants to complete the same application, which necessitates a dependant disclosing personal information regarding insurability to the plan member.

An individual made a complaint alleging that his former employer, Clean Harbors Lodging Services (organization), contravened PIPA by telling other employees that he was terminated from the organization, and telling the complainant’s potential employer that he had requested his personnel file from the organization. Because the organization failed to demonstrate why the complainant’s potential employer needed to know that the complainant had requested his personnel file from the organization, the Adjudicator found that the collection and disclosure of that information was not reasonable for the purpose of recruiting the complainant.

The applicant made an access request to Anthony Clark International Insurance Brokers Ltd. (organization) to all information related to him. The organization responded to these requests by providing the applicant with copies of some information responsive to his request. The Adjudicator found that the organization did not, in its response to the access request, conduct an adequate search for the information under section 27(1)(a) of PIPA.

The applicant asked Odyssey Health Services to correct various errors that he believed to exist in his personal information. Odyssey Health Services refused, but indicated that it had annotated the personal information with the requested corrections. The Adjudicator found that Odyssey Health Services properly refused to make the requested corrections.

An individual complained that the hard drive containing her family’s personal information had gone missing from her family’s laptop computer when she had given it to Staples Canada Inc. (Staples) to repair. The Adjudicator found that it was more probable than not that the complainant’s hard drive, and the personal information it contained, had been removed and destroyed while it was in the custody of Staples. The Adjudicator also found that Staples had not made reasonable security measures to protect the personal information contained in the hard drive from unauthorized loss or destruction, as required by section 34 of PIPA.

The applicant requested from the Great-West Life Assurance Company (GWL) all correspondence to and from the Alberta Solicitor General, physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, and other parties. The applicant also requested tests, evaluations, investigations and referrals carried out by or, at the request of, GWL. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

An individual made three access requests to Alberta Distillers Inc. The Adjudicator found that Alberta Distillers did not, in its initial response to the access requests, conduct an adequate search for the information under section 27(1)(a) of PIPA. The Adjudicator held that Alberta Distillers did not make a reasonable effort to search for the records nor did Alberta Distillers inform the applicant in a timely way about what was done to search for the records. The Adjudicator also found that Alberta Distillers did not fulfill its duty under section 29(c) of PIPA to provide an adequate response to the access requests.

An individual complained that her personal information was disclosed by the condominium's board to another resident of the condominium and another individual contrary to PIPA. The Adjudicator found that the board member was acting in her official capacity as a board member when she disclosed the complainant’s personal information to two individuals. Further, the Adjudicator found that condominium corporation disclosed the complainant’s personal information without her consent and in contravention of section 19 of PIPA.

An individual complained that his former employer, Calgary Co-operative Association Limited, disclosed his personal information contrary to PIPA and did not make a reasonable effort to ensure that the information disclosed was accurate. The Adjudicator found that the disclosure was authorized pursuant to the Employment Insurance Act and permitted pursuant to sections 19 and 20(b) of PIPA, and that the personal information that was disclosed was accurate.

An individual complained that Synergen Housing Co-op Ltd. (Synergen), a housing cooperative of which he is a member, contravened PIPA when it gave a copy of a complaint letter that he had written about another member to that other member without his consent. The Adjudicator found that Synergen disclosed the complainant’s personal information by giving the complaint letter to the third party, and that it did not establish that it had the authority to do so. Synergen also did not establish that it properly disclosed the complainant's personal information without consent.

An individual alleged that Lafarge Canada Inc. (Lafarge) used and/or disclosed his personal information in contravention of PIPA when it told its employees and other individuals that he was dismissed for failing a drug and alcohol test. The Adjudicator held that Lafarge did not obtain the complainant’s consent in accordance with section 8 of PIPA before using and/or disclosing the information and did not have authority to use and/or disclose the information without consent under sections 17 and 20. In addition, the Adjudicator held that Lafarge did not have the authority to use and/or disclose the information without consent under sections 18 and 21. The Adjudicator held that Lafarge had not provided the complainant with reasonable notification of the use and/or disclosures as required by sections 18 and 21.

An individual made a complaint that Avonlea Photography Studio Inc. had left a cheque for her with her home address on it with a co-worker. She also requested a review of the issue of whether Avonlea Photography Studio had a privacy policy, as required by section 6(a) of PIPA. Avonlea Photography Studio took the position that an organization with two employees is not required to develop policies and practices under section 6(a) of PIPA. The Adjudicator determined that the obligations set out in section 6(a) of PIPA applied to Avonlea Photography Studio and that it was required to develop reasonable policies and practices. However, the Adjudicator found that, despite its arguments, Avonlea Photography Studio had complied with this provision, as its policy and practice regarding its treatment of personal information in relation to making cheques available to employees was reasonable for meeting its obligations under PIPA.

An individual complained that Murphy Industrial Oilfield Inc. and Brooklyn Oilfield Services Inc. (organizations) posted posters of him around town, in contravention of PIPA. The posters consisted of an enlargement of the complainant’s driver’s licence photograph and a caption suggesting that he was a danger to children. RCMP concluded that the posters were a hoax and that the complainant posed no danger to children. The complainant obviously did not consent to that use and disclosure of his driver's licence under section 7 or 8; the information could obviously not be posted without the complainant’s consent under section 8, 17, 18, 20 or 21; and the use and disclosure of the driver’s licence photograph on the posters was obviously not for a reasonable purpose under sections 16 and 19. Finally, by disclosing the inaccurate statement about the Complainant being a danger to children, the organizations contravened section 33 of PIPA.

An individual complained that her personal information was used or disclosed in contravention of PIPA when Insight Psychological Inc. sent a memo containing information about her to all of its staff and contract psychologists. The Adjudicator found that the information regarding the complainant no longer being employed by Insight Psychological Inc. was properly disclosed as it was for the purpose of managing and terminating an employment relationship. However, the Adjudicator found that the disclosure of the information in the second paragraph of the memo, and the fact that the complainant gained employment elsewhere, was not reasonable and had been disclosed in contravention of PIPA.

An individual made a complaint that Cardinal Coach Lines Ltd. disclosed his personal information in contravention of PIPA when it disclosed to its employees that the complainant was under suspension and the reason for the suspension. The Adjudicator found that Cardinal did not disclose the specific reason for the complainant’s suspension to its employees, as the complainant had alleged. The Adjudicator found that Cardinal had disclosed to the complainant’s other employer only that the complainant was employed at Cardinal Coach Lines Ltd. but was under suspension for “not meeting company policy and requirements”. The Adjudicator found that Cardinal did not comply with PIPA when it disclosed the complainant’s personal employee information to the complainant’s other employer. As well, Cardinal Coach Lines Ltd. had not given the complainant notice prior to the disclosure as required by section 21(2)(c) of the Act.

The applicant made an access request to Calian Ltd. for all personal information about him in the possession of Calian Ltd. Calian Ltd. responded to the request by providing the applicant with a copy of the records, severing some information as either not responsive or pursuant to sections 24(2)(b) (reveals confidential information of a commercial nature) and 24(3)(b) (reveals personal information about another individual) of PIPA. The Adjudicator confirmed the decision of Calian Ltd. to withhold the severed information within the records. The Adjudicator also found that Calian Ltd. had conducted an adequate search under section 27(1)(a) of PIPA.

An individual requested her personal information from her psychologist. The psychologist had earlier provided the applicant’s treatment file, but refused to provide peer consultation notes, as well as the psychologist’s response to the College of Alberta Psychologists to a complaint the applicant had made about the psychologist. The Adjudicator held that it was proper for the psychologist to withhold all the requested records which contained the applicant’s personal information. The Adjudicator also found that the psychologist had met her duty to assist the applicant in accordance with the terms of section 27(1)(a).  

An individual made a request to the College of Alberta Psychologists for the response a psychologist had provided to the college to a complaint the individual had made to the college about the psychologist. The Adjudicator found that the College of Alberta Psychologists properly withheld the information under both section 24(2)(c) (information collected for an investigation or legal proceeding) and 24(3)(b) (information that would reveal personal information about another individual) of PIPA.

An individual made a complaint that Servus Credit Union (Servus) had disclosed his personal information to a realtor from Realty Executives Synergy (Synergy) without his consent. The Adjudicator found that Servus had disclosed the complainant’s personal information to Synergy without his consent, contrary to section 7(1)(d) of PIPA. In addition, Synergy had collected the complainant’s personal information without his consent, and from someone other than the complainant, contrary to sections 7(1)(a) and (d) of PIPA.

The applicant believed that Odyssey Health Services did not provide him with all information that he had requested from it under PIPA. The Adjudicator found that Odyssey Health Services did not conduct an adequate search for handwritten notes of one of its representatives, but found that it conducted an adequate search for other responsive records. As Odyssey Health Services subsequently gave the applicant the missing handwritten notes, the Adjudicator confirmed that it had now made every reasonable effort to assist the applicant and to respond to him as accurately and completely as reasonably possible under section 27(1)(a).

An individual made a complaint that the Real Estate Council of Alberta (RECA) was collecting personal information about pardoned convictions through its brokerage licence application forms. RECA argued that it did not use information about pardoned convictions in making decisions about issuing brokerage licenses and also took the position that there was no evidence that it had collected this kind of information. The Adjudicator determined that it was likely that RECA had collected personal information about pardoned convictions, given the wording of its forms. The Adjudicator found that RECA had a reasonable purpose for collecting this personal information under section 11(1) of PIPA, given its statutory duties. However, the Adjudicator found that RECA was collecting more information than was necessary for meeting the purposes for which it collected the information.

An individual made a complaint that Longley Condominium Services Ltd. and Condominium Corporation No. 7910117 (organizations) had disclosed her personal information in the minutes of an annual general meeting of the condominium corporation. The Adjudicator found that the minutes did not contain the personal information of the complainant. In addition, she found that as the condominium corporation and the unit owners are the same legal entity under the Condominium Property Act, there was no disclosure when the minutes were provided to the unit owners.

Individuals made complaints alleging that a Beattie Homes' employee or employees phoned the former spouse of one of the complainants and disclosed information about the home they were building for her. The Adjudicator found that the evidence did not establish that Beattie Homes had disclosed the complainants’ personal information.

The applicant requested his bankruptcy file from Myers Norris Penny (MNP). The applicant was invited to attend MNP's Edmonton office to review the file, and to determine which records should be copied. MNP noted that there would be a charge of $.50 per page and that the documents would be mailed within five working days. The applicant said that MNP had not met its duty to assist him under PIPA. The Adjudicator determined that the applicant had not made a request for access to his personal information under PIPA. Rather, the applicant had made a request for records under section 26 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) and MNP had responded to the request under BIA. Consequently, PIPA did not apply to the access request or MNP’s response to it.

An unnamed police officer brought a complaint under PIPA that the Engel Brubaker (organization) had created a database which it was using to collect and disseminate information of Edmonton Police Service (EPS) members who had engaged in misconduct. The Adjudicator confirmed the decision of the organization to collect, use and disclose, and to enter and retain in its database, any personal information of police officers that is publicly available. The Adjudicator also confirmed the decision of the organization to collect, use and disclose, and to enter and retain in its database, any personal information of police officers that is reasonable for the purposes of an investigation or legal proceeding.

A chiropractor who had withdrawn from practice complained under PIPA that the Alberta College and Association of Chiropractors had disclosed his home telephone number and address to persons who had requested his contact information in order to obtain patient files. The Adjudicator found that this had happened on two occasions, contrary to the college’s own policies.

A number of persons complained that their personal information had been collected, used and/or disclosed, contrary to PIPA, by members of a union who were engaged in picketing the premises of the employer pursuant to a strike. The union members had video recorded and taken still photos of the complainants and others in the area of a picketing site, in some cases when they were crossing the picket line to enter or exit the employer’s premises. Signs placed by the union in the area of the picketing suggested that the images of persons crossing the picket line would be placed on the www.CasinoScabs.ca website. The union had also used and disclosed some of the personal information by placing it in posters and newsletters visible or available to other Union members and to the public. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order, including ordering the union to cease collecting, using and disclosing such personal information for any purpose other than that for which PIPA provided authorization, and to destroy any information still in its possession that it had collected in contravention of the Act.

A teacher and a secretary with whom she worked were involved in a dispute. The secretary gave a sealed envelope to her union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3550 (organization). Believing the envelope to hold a letter containing her personal information, the teacher complained that the organization collected and used her personal information in contravention of PIPA. She also asked the organization for access to the letter. The organization refused to open the sealed envelope, effectively denying the access request. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

The applicant made a request for his personal information from the Alberta School Employee Benefit Plan (organization). The organization provided the personal information, but withheld a neuropsychological report and a follow up letter, as well as notes of telephone conversations and voicemail messages, citing sections 24(2)(d) and 24(3)(a) of PIPA. The Adjudicator found that sections 24(2)(d) and 24(3)(a) did not apply to the information in the records. The Adjudicator ordered the organization to disclose the neuropsychological report and the follow up letter, but confirmed the decision to withhold the notes under section 24(3)(b).

The College of Alberta Psychologists raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the Adjudicator on the basis of its allegation that the timelines set out in section 50(5) of PIPA had not been met. The Adjudicator found that the timelines had been met in this case.

An individual made a complaint that Leon's Furniture Ltd. (organization) required her to supply her driver’s license number and license plate number before being allowed to pick up merchandise ordered by her daughter on an earlier date. The Adjudicator found that the organization’s purpose for collecting personal information, the prevention of fraud, was reasonable but that the recording of drivers’ license numbers and license plate numbers was not reasonably connected to the purpose as required by section 11(2) of PIPA. The Adjudicator also found that the organization contravened section 7(2) of PIPA by requiring the complainant to provide personal information that was not necessary to the transaction or a related purpose. Finally, the Adjudicator found that the organization did not meet its burden of proof regarding giving adequate notice under section 13 of PIPA.

A registered psychologist provided the applicant with an estimate for fees for compiling and copying the portions of her files relating to a custody assessment that she would be required to disclose pursuant to Order P2007- 002. The Adjudicator found that the fee was reasonable in terms of the cost of the work to be done, and there was insufficient evidence that the applicant was unable to pay the amount of the estimated fee.

An individual complained that the Real Estate Council of Alberta required her to provide a copy of her birth certificate as a condition of renewing her realtor’s license, and retained the copy for its records. The Adjudicator found that while it was reasonable to confirm identity with birth certificates, drivers’ licenses and passports in order to prevent fraud, it was unreasonable to collect copies of these documents and to keep them once identity had been confirmed.

The applicant made a request to Daltec Occupational Health Services Inc. (organization) for his personal information under PIPA. The organization provided records containing the applicant’s personal information approximately six months after his request. The applicant believed that the organization did not provide all of the personal information about him that it had. The Adjudicator concluded that the organization made every reasonable effort to assist the applicant and to respond to him as accurately and completely as reasonably possible, as required by section 27 of PIPA. The Adjudicator found that the organization had not responded to the applicant within the 45-day time limit set out in section 28(1) of the Act.

An individual complained that the Drugstore Pharmacy at Real Canadian Superstore (Loblaw Companies Limited) collected health information in the form of the photo ID in contravention of PIPA. The Adjudicator found that section 4(3)(f) of PIPA applies, which means that the information in the photo ID is excluded from the application of PIPA, because the information falls under HIA. The inquiry was held concurrent with the inquiry that resulted in Order H2007-02.

Individuals made a complaint that the Alberta Teachers' Association (ATA) contravened PIPA when it published their names and places of work in the ATA News in conjunction with a statement that the complainants were no longer required to adhere to the ATA’s Code of Professional Conduct. The Adjudicator found that the information in the ATA News article was the complainants’ personal information and was not exempt from PIPA. The Adjudicator found that ATA had disclosed the complainants’ personal information contrary to sections 7 and 19 of PIPA.

An individual made a complaint that the Canadian Skin Cancer Foundation contravened PIPA by collecting, using and disclosing her personal information for purposes of soliciting for fundraising. The Adjudicator found that the Canadian Skin Cancer Foundation falls under section 56(2) of PIPA, and is thereby excluded from the application of PIPA as a non-profit organization that did not collect, use or disclose the complainant’s personal information in connection with any commercial activity. As a result, there was no jurisdiction to decide the issues.

An individual made a complaint that the Barry Lycka Professional Corporation contravened PIPA by collecting, using and disclosing her personal information for purposes of soliciting for fundraising. The issue of personal information that was collected for purposes of soliciting for fundraising before PIPA came into force, under the grandfathering provision in section 4(4), was considered. The Adjudicator found that the Barry Lycka Professional Corporation collected, used and disclosed the complainant’s personal information in accordance with PIPA, pursuant to the grandfathering provision in section 4(4) of PIPA.

The United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401 questioned whether the Adjudicator lost jurisdiction on the basis of the alleged non-compliance with section 50(5) of PIPA. The Adjudicator found that the timelines had been met in this case, and held that even had they not been, in the circumstances of the present case, the legislature would not have intended that a loss of jurisdiction should result.

An individual made a complaint that the Canadian Skin Cancer Foundation contravened PIPA by collecting, using and disclosing her personal information for purposes of soliciting for fundraising. The Adjudicator found that the Canadian Skin Cancer Foundation falls under section 56(2) of PIPA, and is thereby excluded from the application of PIPA as a non-profit organization that did not collect, use or disclose the Complainant’s personal information in connection with a commercial activity, and, as a result, there was no jurisdiction to decide the issues.

An individual made a complaint about a letter soliciting for fundraising from Dr. Barry Lycka, through the Dr. Barry Lycka Professional Corporation, on behalf of the Canadian Skin Cancer Foundation (the organization, in this case). The Adjudicator found that the complaint is excluded from the application of PIPA, as the complaint does not pertain to the collection, use or disclosure of the complainant’s personal information under PIPA; the Canadian Skin Cancer Foundation is excluded from the application of PIPA pursuant to section 56(2) of PIPA, because it is a non-profit organization that did not collect, use or disclose the personal information in connection with a commercial activity in this case; and, as a result, there was no jurisdiction to decide the issues.

An individual complained that the Canadian Skin Cancer Foundation contravened PIPA by collecting, using and disclosing her personal information for purposes of marketing and soliciting for fundraising. The Adjudicator determined that the Canadian Skin Cancer Foundation is excluded from the application of PIPA pursuant to section 56(2) of PIPA, because the Foundation is a non-profit organization that did not collect, use or disclose the personal information in connection with a commercial activity. As a result, the Adjudicator did not have jurisdiction to decide the issues.

An individual made a complaint after receiving “solicitations” from the Barry Lycka Professional Corporation, the Canadian Skin Cancer Foundation and the Corona Rejuvenation Centre & Spa. Corona is the trade name for the Endermologie Centre Corporation (Endermologie). The complainant alleged that Endermologie contravened PIPA by collecting and using her personal information for purposes of marketing. The Adjudicator found Endermologie did not collect and use personal information in accordance with sections 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17 of PIPA.

An individual complained that Point Centric Inc. had disclosed his personal information contrary to PIPA when an employee of Point Centric Inc. emailed a copy of his termination letter to a prospective employee. Point Centric Inc. conceded that it had contravened section 7 of PIPA by disclosing the complainant’s personal information without his consent. The Commissioner found Point Centric Inc. contravened section 19 of PIPA, as it did not establish that it had a reasonable purpose for disclosing the complainant’s personal information. The Commissioner also found that Point Centric Inc. had contravened section 7 of PIPA.

The applicants made a request to Douglas Homes Ltd. for access to the reports of trade contractors that did repair work on the applicant’s home under the New Home Warranty Program. Douglas Homes Ltd. refused access on the basis that the reports were not “personal information” and therefore not subject to an access request under PIPA. The Adjudicator found that Douglas Homes Ltd. was not required to provide most of the information in the reports, as most of it is not “personal information” as that term is defined in PIPA.

Two individuals brought complaints respect to the collection, use and disclosure of their personal information by International Stereo Ltd. (now operating as Urban Audio Video Inc.). The information had been collected by the International Stereo Ltd. and then conveyed to another organization to conduct credit checks. Although the Complainants signed applications containing clauses consenting to use of personal information for credit checks, they said they had been assured their personal information would not be used in this way. The Adjudicator found that the International Stereo Ltd. collected, used and disclosed the complainants’ personal information in violation of section 7 of PIPA (collection, use and disclosure without consent), that it failed to provide adequate notification of the purpose for collection in contravention of section 13, and that it failed to cease collecting, using or disclosing the personal information after consent had been withdrawn, in violation of section 9(4).

An applicant made a request to a psychologist for a copy of the all the psychologist’s files relating to a custody assessment the psychologist had conducted relative to the applicant, his former wife, and their two children. The psychologist refused to provide the parts of the files consisting of information about the former spouse, the children, and another individual, but was willing to provide most of the information about the applicant that he had provided to her himself. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

The applicant made a request to Petra Corp. for information in its files about him as well as for letters written by him, or to him, by a particular individual, regarding particular matters. Petra Corp. responded to the applicant that it did not have the information he requested. The Adjudicator found that the applicant had provided a sufficient factual foundation for his idea that Petra Corp. is or may be in possession of records containing information about him that it failed to locate, or failed to provide. The burden therefore fell on Petra Corp. to show that it had conducted an adequate search for the records as required by section 27(1)(a) of PIPA, and that it had provided an adequate response, as required by section 29. Petra Corp. did not provide a submission in the inquiry, and was ordered to take steps to fulfill its duties under PIPA or to demonstrate that it had already done so.

An individual made a complaint that an employee of Penny Lane Entertainment Group had scanned his driver’s licence information into a database without his consent when he entered Tantra Nightclub. The Commissioner found that Penny Lane Entertainment Group did not have a reasonable purpose when it collected the complainant’s driver’s licence information. In addition, the Commissioner found that Penny Lane Entertainment Group did not have a reasonable purpose for retaining the driver’s licence information of patrons. The Commissioner found that the collection of the complainant’s personal information, and that of other patrons, was in violation of sections 7, 8, 13, and 14 of PIPA. The Commissioner found that Penny Lane Entertainment Group had not taken reasonable steps to secure the complainant’s personal information under section 34, and had contravened section 35 when it retained the complainant’s driver’s license information.

An individual complained that Bistro Enterprises Ltd. and the administrator of the estate of the deceased shareholder of Bistro (administrator) disclosed the complainant’s personal information without his consent, contrary to PIPA. The Commissioner found that the administrator was not acting as an “employee” of Bistro at the time of the alleged disclosure, the alleged disclosure was not a disclosure by Bistro, and therefore PIPA did not apply to Bistro in these circumstances. The Commissioner also found that the administrator was not an “organization” as defined by the Act, because the administrator was not acting in a “commercial capacity” at the time of the alleged disclosure.

The applicant made an access request for her personal information, in particular, personal information relating to the termination of her employment, to her former employer, Iron Mountain Canada Corporation (Iron Mountain). Iron Mountain decided to withhold some records on the basis of section 24 of PIPA and provided some records in French. The Commissioner considered it appropriate to comment on whether PIPA requires organizations to translate records. The Commissioner ordered Iron Mountain to provide the applicant with records it had withheld, except in situations where the personal information of third parties could not be reasonably severed from the records.

A complaint was made against the the Talisman Centre for Sport and Wellness (organization) for placing overt security cameras in the men’s locker rooms. The organization stated that the security cameras were installed in 1997 in response to over 900 incidents of theft and property damage during the years 1994 to 1997. The Commissioner found that due to the history of theft, the attempt to use other measures prior to using security cameras as a last resort, and the fact that the images recorded were only accessed in the event of a criminal incident, that the organization’s collection of personal information was for purposes that were reasonable, as required by section 11(1) of PIPA. However, the organization’s notice for collection was not in compliance with section 13(1) of PIPA. The Commissioner ordered the organization to change the signage.

An individual complained that a former employer had disclosed her personal information to a prospective employer in contravention of PIPA during a reference check and that the prospective employer had collected this information in contravention of PIPA. She also complained that the former employer had not responded to her request for her personal information. The Commissioner found that the definition of “personal employee information” in PIPA applies not only to the personal employee information of individuals who are employees or potential employees of an organization, but former employees of an organization as well. The Commissioner found that the former employer and the prospective employer had complied with PIPA in relation to information disclosed during the reference check. The Commissioner found that the former employer had not met its duties under PIPA with respect to the access request.

The applicant requested records relating to her work performance and termination from ATB Financial. The applicant requested review by the Commissioner of whether ATB Financial had responded to her request within the time limits of PIPA. In addition, she requested review of ATB Financial’s decision to deny her request to correct her personal information. The Commissioner determined that ATB Financial had responded to the applicant’s access request within the timeframe set out in the Act. The Commissioner confirmed the ATB Financial’s decision not to correct the applicant’s personal information.

The applicant made a number of requests to the Law Society of Alberta for access to information. The applicant also made a number of complaints, including that the Law Society of Alberta had improperly used and disclosed his personal information in contravention of PIPA, and that it had failed to develop and follow information and privacy policies and practices as required by the Act. The Commissioner found that the applicant’s requests for information pertaining to the complaints and appeals had not been requests for his personal information, and that PIPA did not govern the question of what information the Law Society of Alberta was required to provide to the applicant pursuant to a request for information under its own processes pursuant to the Legal Profession Act. The Commissioner also dismissed the applicant’s various privacy complaints.

The applicant requested copies of the documents that Shell Canada Limited had in its possession regarding an investigation, pursuant to section 24(1) of PIPA. Shell Canada Limited provided some of the records but withheld others, citing the application of sections 24(2)(a) (legal privilege), 24(2)(c)(investigation or legal proceedings), 24(2)(d) (information no longer being provided to an organization), 24(3)(b)(information revealing personal information about another individual) and 24(3)(c)(information revealing the identity of an individual who provided a confidential opinion). The Commissioner found that Shell Canada Limited had properly applied section 24(2)(a) and 24(2)(c) of PIPA, and the Commissioner did not find it necessary to decide the applicability of the remaining exceptions to disclosure claimed by Shell Canada Limited.

The applicant, an employee of the Alberta Association of Registered Occupational Therapists (organization”) at the time of the complaint/application, complained that the organization refused to provide her, in accordance with PIPA, with information related to her application for employment with the organization. The applicant also complained that the organization did not have the authority to collect or use her personal information without notification or consent. The information at issue consisted of two unsolicited letters and a telephone synopsis referencing and assessing the employment performance of the applicant. The Commissioner found that section 24(3)(c) (information revealing the identity of person who provided confidential opinion) of PIPA applied to the records/information. The Commissioner also found that the organization had the authority to collect and use the applicant’s personal information without consent or notification, as provided by section 15 and section 18 of PIPA, respectively.

An individual made a complaint that Canada Safeway Limited (organization) disclosed her personal information to her employer in contravention of PIPA. The Commissioner found that section 7(1)(d) of PIPA did not contravene section 2(b) of the Charter, sections 20(b) and 20(m) of PIPA did not authorize the organization to disclose the complainant’s personal information without consent, and the organization disclosed the complainant’s personal information contrary to section 7(1)(d) of PIPA.

The applicant requested from the Owners: Condominium Plan No. 7710418 (organization) for a copy of a complaint letter. The organization refused to disclose the letter or portion thereof under section 24(2)(d) (disclosure resulting in information no longer being provided to the organization) of PIPA and under section 24(3)(c) (information revealing the identity of individual who provided confidential opinion) of the Act. The Commissioner found that section 24(3)(c) of PIPA required the organization to refuse to disclose the complaint letter to the applicant. The Commissioner did not have to consider section 24(2)(d).

An individual made a complaint that the Calgary Herald Group Inc. (Calgary Herald) had disclosed the complainant’s personal information when it published a newspaper article. The organization argued that the disclosure of personal information in the form of a newspaper article was for journalistic purposes only as provided for by section 4(3)(c) of PIPA. The Commissioner decided the personal information disclosed were materials written for publication in the media and therefore collected and disclosed for journalistic purposes only in accordance with section 4(3)(c).

An individual, a tenant in a building owned by Henry Rempel and Mary Anne Rempel (organization), alleged that after he shared personal information concerning his medical condition with the organization, the information was disclosed to emergency response personnel contrary to section 7 of PIPA (consent for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information). The Commissioner found that the organization disclosed the personal information of the complainant in the interests of the complainant under section 20(a) of the Act and that the complainant would not reasonably have been expected to withhold his consent in these circumstances. The Commissioner also found that the disclosure was necessary to respond to an apparent emergency that threatened the life or health of the complainant under section 20(g) of the Act.

The Commissioner found that Doctor Dave Computer Remedies Incorporated used and disclosed the complainant’s personal information contrary to PIPA. The order considered the application of numerous provisions of the Act, such as sections 1(a) and 4(3) (business contact information), sections 1(j), 15, 18 and 21 (personal employee information), sections 14, 17 and 20 (personal information), sections 7, 8 and 9 (consent), and sections 11, 16 and 19 (limitations on collection, use and disclosure).

The Commissioner found that Doctor Dave Computer Remedies Incorporated (organization) used and disclosed the complainants’ personal information contrary to PIPA. The order considered the application of numerous provisions of the Act, such as sections 1(a) and 4(3) (business contact information), sections 1(j), 18 and 21 (personal employee information), sections 17 and 20 (personal information), sections 7, 8 and 9 (consent), and sections 16 and 19 (limitations on use and disclosure).

The applicant applied under AMVIR for personal driving and motor vehicle information from the Registrar of Motor Vehicle Services. The issue before the Adjudicator was whether the Registrar of Motor Vehicle Services properly applied sections 2(1)(a) and 2(1)(m) to the applicant’s request and whether the applicant was entitled to access personal driving and motor vehicle information pursuant to section 5(1)(c). The Adjudicator held that the Registrar of Motor Vehicle Services erred in its interpretation of sections 2(1)(a) and 2(1)(m) and improperly exercised its discretion under those two sections. The Adjudicator ordered the Registrar of Motor Vehicle Services to reconsider its decision regarding these two sections. In addition, the Adjudicator held that the Registrar of Motor Vehicle Services erred in its interpretation of section 5(1)(c). However, there was insufficient evidence that the applicant fulfilled the requirements of this section.

The applicant applied under AMVIR for personal driving and motor vehicle information from the Registrar of Motor Vehicle Services. The issue before the Adjudicator was whether the Registrar of Motor Vehicle Services properly applied sections 2(1)(a) and 2(1)(m) to the applicant’s request and whether the applicant was entitled to access personal driving and motor vehicle information pursuant to section 5(1)(c). The Adjudicator held that the Registrar of Motor Vehicle Services erred in its interpretation of sections 2(1)(a) and 2(1)(m) and improperly exercised its discretion under those two sections. The Adjudicator ordered the Registrar of Motor Vehicle Services to reconsider its decision regarding these two sections. In addition, the Adjudicator held that the Registrar of Motor Vehicle Services erred in its interpretation of section 5(1)(c). However, there was insufficient evidence that the applicant fulfilled the requirements of this section.

Two applicants sought access to motor vehicle information pursuant to AMVIR. The Registrar’s letters to the applicants did not specify the grounds on which access under the requested sections of AMVIR was denied. The Registrar raised a preliminary argument that the Adjudicator was unable to review its decisions as they pertain to individual applicants and could only review the categories as set out in Notification 01/2004. The Adjudicator found that the Commissioner was capable of reviewing the Registrar’s discretion as it relates to individual applicants. The Adjudicator sent all other matters back to the Registrar for reconsideration.

The applicant applied under AMVIR for personal driving and motor vehicle information from the Registrar of Motor Vehicle Services. The Registrar denied the applicant’s request. The issues before the Adjudicator were whether the applicant’s request for review was received within the time period set out in section 74.3(2) of FOIP and, if not, whether the Adjudicator nevertheless had the jurisdiction to review the Registrar’s decision. The Adjudicator found that the request for review was submitted outside time limits and held that there was no jurisdiction to review the decision of the Registrar.

An individual made a complaint to this office under the Health Information Act (HIA) that an employee of Canada Diagnostic Centres (CDC) accessed the electronic health information of the Complainant, specifically diagnostic imaging, in the Alberta Electronic Health Record (EHR, or Netcare). The Complainant states that she did not receive any health services at the CDC at or around the time the access was made and therefore, the access was not authorized by the HIA. The CDC is not a custodian under the HIA; nor is the employee identified in the Complainant’s complaint. Dr. Robert Davies confirmed that as the Managing Director of the CDC, he is the Custodian responsible for the employee’s (affiliate’s) compliance with the HIA. The Adjudicator found that the Custodian (and his affiliate) lacked authority to access the Complainant’s diagnostic imaging under the HIA. The Adjudicator also found that the Custodian did not meet his obligations under section 60 of the Act.

An Applicant made an access request under the Health Information Act (HIA) to Covenant Health (the Custodian) for all records relating to her admission to the Misericordia Community Hospital, including the ambulance transfer. The Custodian provided responsive records to the Applicant. The Applicant requested a review of the Custodian’s search for responsive records, noting that nursing notes for January 19 and 20, 2021 were missing. The Applicant subsequently requested an inquiry. The Adjudicator found that the Custodian conducted an adequate search for responsive records.

Under the Health Information Act (the HIA), the Applicant made an access request for his own health information to Dr. Oyeniran (the Custodian). The Applicant alleged that the Custodian failed to provide all responsive records. The Adjudicator considered whether the Custodian properly responded to the access request. The Adjudicator found that the Custodian failed to establish that he conducted a proper search for records as required by section 10(a) of the HIA. The Adjudicator also found that the Custodian failed to comply with sections 12(1), 12(2)(a), and 12(2)(c)(i). However, since the requested records had been provided to the Applicant, there was no need to make an order in respect of those failures. The Adjudicator also considered whether the Custodian had custody or control over Netcare records from a time prior to when he took over the Applicant’s care and/or records based on referrals that were not from, or addressed to, the Custodian. The Adjudicator found that the HIA conferred the requisite control for the purposes of responding to the access request. The Adjudicator ordered the Custodian to conduct a new search for records, and to provide the Applicant with any responsive records not already provided to him.  

An individual (the Complainant) made a complaint to this Office under the Health Information Act (HIA) that his Electronic Health Record (Netcare) had been accessed by Dr. R. Kumar (the Custodian) without authority under the HIA. With his complaint, the Complainant included a copy of a Netcare Disclosure Log provided to him by Alberta Health; this Log shows that the Custodian accessed the Complainant’s health information on July 1, 2014 and November 27, 2015. The Adjudicator found that the Custodian did not have authority to access the Complainant’s health information.

An individual (the Complainant) made a complaint to this Office under the Health Information Act (HIA) that her Electronic Health Record (Netcare) had been accessed by Dr. R. Kumar (the Custodian) without authority under the HIA. With her complaint, the Complainant included a copy of a Netcare Disclosure Log provided to her by Alberta Health; this Log shows that the Custodian accessed the Complainant’s health information on October 5, 2012. The Adjudicator found that the Custodian did not have authority to access the Complainant’s health information.

An Applicant made an access request under the Health Information Act (HIA) for access to health information related to health care services provided to the Applicant at two facilities operated by the Central Alberta Medical Imaging Services (CAMIS), in Stettler and Red Deer. Specifically, the Applicant requested five reports related to imaging conducted in 2016 and 2017. The custodians responsible for responding to the Applicant’s request are the radiologists who created the reports. Three radiologists from CAMIS were involved in the reports identified by the Applicant. This inquiry relates to records created by Dr. Mamo (the Custodian). The Custodian provided records to the Applicant in response to the request. The Applicant requested a review of the Custodian’s search for records. Subsequent to the review, the Applicant requested an inquiry. The Adjudicator found that the Custodian conducted an adequate search for records.

An Applicant made an access request under the Health Information Act (HIA) for access to health information related to health care services provided to the Applicant at two facilities operated by the Central Alberta Medical Imaging Services (CAMIS), in Stettler and Red Deer. Specifically, the Applicant requested five reports related to imaging conducted in 2016 and 2017. The custodians responsible for responding to the Applicant’s request are the radiologists who created the reports. Three radiologists from CAMIS were involved in the reports identified by the Applicant. This inquiry relates to records created by Dr. Bateman (the Custodian). The Custodian provided records to the Applicant in response to the request. The Applicant requested a review of the Custodian’s search for records. Subsequent to the review, the Applicant requested an inquiry. The Adjudicator found that the Custodian conducted an adequate search for records.

An Applicant made an access request under the Health Information Act (HIA) for access to health information related to health care services provided to the Applicant at two facilities operated by the Central Alberta Medical Imaging Services (CAMIS), in Stettler and Red Deer. Specifically, the Applicant requested five reports related to imaging conducted in 2016 and 2017. The custodians responsible for responding to the Applicant’s request are the radiologists who created the reports. Three radiologists from CAMIS were involved in the reports identified by the Applicant. This inquiry relates to records created by Dr. Isaac (the Custodian). The Custodian provided records to the Applicant in response to the request. The Applicant requested a review of the Custodian’s search for records. Subsequent to the review, the Applicant requested an inquiry. The Adjudicator found that the Custodian conducted an adequate search for records.

The Applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (the Custodian) under the Health Information Act (HIA) for records relating to a call made to a mental health help line on a specified date. The Custodian located three pages of responsive records. The Custodian provided the responsive records to the Applicant, with information on two of the three pages withheld under sections 11(1)(b) and 11(2)(a). The Applicant requested an inquiry into the Custodian’s response. The Adjudicator found that the Custodian properly applied sections 11(1)(b) and 11(2)(a) to information in the records.

An individual complained that an affiliate of Dr. Mahmoud Ismael (custodian) accessed her health information through Netcare in contravention of HIA. The complainant alleged that the affiliate accessed her Netcare file and obtained sensitive health information about her which she disclosed to the complainant’s family after the friendship between the complainant and the affiliate had ended. The Adjudicator found that it was appropriate, in this case, to find that the custodian contravened HIA in respect of access to Netcare by the affiliate.

The applicant made an access request under HIA to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for her health information related to health care services provided to the applicant on two specified days. The request was for records of the applicant’s admission and treatment, as well as surgical reports. AHS provided records to the applicant in response to the request. The applicant requested a review of AHS' search for records. The Adjudicator found that AHS initially failed to meet its duty to assist the applicant but that this initial failure was rectified by AHS as a result of the review that preceded the inquiry.

An individual made a complaint alleging that two employees (affiliates) of Dr. Ateer (the custodian) accessed and/or disclosed her health information in contravention of HIA. The Adjudicator found that Dr. Ateer was not responsible for one employee’s access to the individual's health information via Netcare since the employee was not employed by him at the time of access. The Adjudicator found that the complainant’s speculation that the other employee might have accessed Netcare improperly did not warrant further inquiry.

The applicant requested Dr. Elizabeth Kelly to correct his health information under HIA. Dr. Kelly refused to correct the information. Dr. Kelly argued that the information that was the subject of the access request was not health information within the terms of HIA. The Adjudicator agreed that the information was not health information and found that the HIA did not apply to it. The Adjudicator recommended that Dr. Kelly consider, in consultation with the clinic, whether the information at issue is the personal information of the applicant or employees within the terms of PIPA, and to determine whether it is necessary to mitigate the risk of inadvertent use or disclosure of the information under that Act, possibly by removing the information from the applicant’s health record.

The applicant made two requests to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for his own health information. The applicant alleged that AHS failed to provide a fee estimate in advance of responding to the access requests, and improperly charged him fees, contrary to section 67 of HIA. AHS' position was that it handled the access requests pursuant to its own “informal request” process rather than the process under HIA and that, therefore, HIA does not apply. AHS argued that its practice of implementing its “informal request” process is permitted under section 17 of HIA. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

An individual made a complaint that her health information and that of her two minor children in Netcare and other electronic medical record systems had been accessed numerous times without authority by a number of employees of Alberta Health Services (AHS). The complaints about the accesses to one of the children’s health information and the individual's own health information were addressed in separate inquiries. The Adjudicator determined that three accesses made by one AHS employee to the child’s health information were in contravention of Part 4 of HIA.

An individual made a complaint that her health information and that of her two minor children in Netcare and other electronic medical record systems had been accessed numerous times without authority by a number of employees of Alberta Health Services (AHS). The complaints about the accesses to one of the children’s health information and the individual's own health information were addressed in separate inquiries. The Adjudicator determined that one access made by one AHS employee to the child’s health information in an electronic medical system and three accesses made by another AHS employee to the child’s health information in Netcare were in contravention of Part 4 of HIA.

An individual made a complaint that her health information and that of her two minor children in Netcare and other electronic medical record systems had been accessed numerous times without authority by a number of employees of Alberta Health Services (AHS). The complaints about the accesses to the children’s health information were addressed in separate inquiries. The Adjudicator determined that four accesses made by one AHS employee to the complainant’s health information were in contravention of Part 4 of HIA.

An individual made a correction request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) under HIA. AHS refused to correct the information as requested. The Adjudicator determined that AHS is not required to make the corrections as requested by the applicant.

An individual complained that Alberta Health Services (AHS) used her health information in contravention of HIA when its affiliate accessed her Netcare file. The complainant also said AHS failed to protect her health information under section 60 of HIA. The Adjudicator found that the affiliate accessed the complainant’s Netcare account in accordance with his duties to AHS as required by section 28 of the HIA. The Adjudicator also found that AHS had implemented administrative safeguards against unauthorized access to the complainant’s Netcare file, sufficient to meet its responsibilities under section 60 of HIA.

The applicant made a request to Insight Medical Imaging (Insight) for his own health information under HIA. The Adjudicator determined Dr. Colin Lywood was the appropriate custodian to name as respondent in this case. The applicant received five x-rays in response to his access request. The applicant believes that there are two or three more. The Adjudicator confirmed that Dr. Colin Lywood met the duty to properly respond to the access request (section 10(a) of HIA).

The applicant made an access request under HIA to Dr. Charles B. Metcalfe for his complete file. The applicant specified that he was seeking records relating to his attendances at the Rockyview General Hospital Emergency Room, subsequent admissions to the hospital, and urological surgeries. Dr. Metcalfe provided the applicant with copies of two procedure reports and one diagnostic imaging report relating to procedures. The applicant believed further records should have been provided to him. The Adjudicator found that Dr. Metcalfe failed to fulfill his duty to assist the applicant by not informing him that most of the records sought by the applicant are in the custody and control of Alberta Health Services. Dr. Metcalfe also failed to conduct an adequate search for records.

The applicant made an access request to Covenant Health for her complete file containing health information. The applicant requested a review of Covenant Health's response as she believed further records should have been provided. The applicant also made a complaint that several Covenant Health employees had accessed her health information from Netcare in contravention of HIA. The Adjudicator found Covenant Health and its affiliates had authority to access the applicant’s health information. The Adjudicator also found that Covenant Health conducted an adequate search for records.

The applicant believed additional records should have been provided to him in response to a request for specific medical records from Dr. Ryan Yau, a custodian under HIA. The Adjudicator found that Dr. Yau conducted an adequate search for records.

An individual made a complaint that Alberta Health Services (AHS) disclosed her health information to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) in contravention of HIA. AHS acknowledged that it disclosed physician's notes in error. However, the Adjudicator found that disclosure of the admission certificate was permitted under section 35(1)(m)(ii) of HIA. AHS had reasonable grounds to believe that disclosing the full admission certificate to EPS would avert or minimize danger to the health or safety of any person.

An individual complained about 19 accesses to her health information by 18 affiliates (employees) of Alberta Health Services. The Adjudicator found that all accesses, except one, were authorized by HIA under sections 27(1)(a) or (g).

The applicant made an access request to Dr. John Dushinski. Dr. Dushinski did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in HIA. However, Dr. Dushinski responded during the inquiry.

The applicant requested a copy of a letter from Alberta Health Services (AHS) that the applicant believed had been written by a doctor. AHS was unable to locate a copy of the letter. The Adjudicator determined that AHS had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records.

An individual made a health information correction request to Dr. Aws Alherbish (custodian). The Adjudicator found that the custodian properly refused to correct health information that consisted of professional opinions and observations under section 13(6)(a) of HIA. The Adjudicator also found that, with regard to one requested correction, the applicant failed to establish that there was an error or omission in her health information under section 13(1) of HIA.

An individual made a complaint that Alberta Health Services (AHS) was not authorized to disclose her health information to her son's healthcare providers and to a NICU social worker. The individual also alleged that AHS failed to ensure the security of her and her son's health health information. The Adjudicator determined that the social workers employed by AHS had authority to use the complainant’s information, and to disclose it to Child and Family Services. The Adjudicator found that AHS had taken reasonable steps to protect the complainant's and her son's health information and took reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of the information (sections 60 and 61).

An individual made a complaint under HIA that their health information had been accessed by their estranged spouse, an Alberta Health Services (AHS) employee, without authority. The Adjudicator determined that AHS provided insufficient evidence or explanation to find that the access by the employee (as affiliate) was authorized. However, the Adjudicator was satisfied that AHS met its duty to protect health information (section 60(1) HIA).

An individual made a request to Alberta Health Services to delete statements made on his patient chart. Two physicians made chart notes that the individual was "supposedly hit by a vehicle (whilst point a gun @ them)". The individual said that AHS had not collected the information that was the source of the statement directly, as required by HIA, and that it had not used his health information in accordance with the Act. The Adjudicator found that AHS' collection and use of the individual's information was in compliance with HIA, given the emergency department setting in which the information was collected and used. However, the Adjudicator noted that if it were the case that the information could be used or disclosed in the future, and AHS was unable to establish the truth of the statements, AHS should take steps to ensure that they are not accessible, or amend them to warn future users that the information may not be sufficiently reliable for use or disclosure unless reasonable steps are first taken to ensure their accuracy.

An individual made a complaint that his electronic health record (EHR) may have been accessed by Alberta Health Services (AHS) without authority. The Adjudicator applied the principles set out by the Alberta Court of Appeal in JK v. Gowrishankar to section 27(1)(a) in HIA (use of health information for providing health services). The Adjudicator determined that using health information to provide a health service includes using that information to defend the provision of the health service in a subsequent proceeding (see paras. 16-53 for the rationale, application, and limits of this interpretation). The Adjudicator also determined that each affiliate of AHS complained about had authority to access the complainant’s health information in EHR.

An individual made a complaint that her former psychiatrist, Dr. Gendemann, accessed her health information on Netcare after he had ceased being her doctor. The Adjudicator applied the principles set out in a certain Alberta Court of Appeal decision to the use of health information for providing health services (section 27(1)(a)). The Adjudicator determined that using health information to provide a health service includes using that information to defend the provision of the health service in a subsequent proceeding. The Adjudicator determined that Dr. Gendemann had authority to access the complainant’s health information in Netcare under section 27(1)(a).

An individual made a complaint that Somayeh Pharmacy Ltd. did not comply with its duty to protect health information as required by HIA. In Order H2020-01, the Adjudicator found that the access to the complainant's health information by a Somayeh Pharmacy Ltd. employee had been done without authority. However, the Adjudicator found that at the time the information was accessed, Somayeh Pharmacy Ltd. was in compliance with its duty to protect health information as required by section 60(1) of HIA, as well as with its duty to establish policies and procedures to facilitate the implementation of the HIA as required by section 63(1).

An individual made a complaint that Saeed Sattari accessed health information in contravention of HIA. The Adjudicator found on a balance of probabilities that Mr. Sattari had accessed the health information without authority.

The applicant requested access to his deceased mother's health information from Alberta Health Services (AHS) in his capacity as the executor of her estate. In Order H2018-01, the Adjudicator determined that the applicant had standing under HIA to make the access request and directed AHS to conduct a new search for records responsive to certain points of the access request. AHS conducted a new search and provided additional records. The applicant requested a review of AHS' new search for responsive records. The Adjudicator ordered AHS to conduct a search for records responsive to certain points of the applicant’s access request that did not form part of the applicant’s mother’s chart or electronic health record. If AHS is unable to locate responsive records, or it has already conducted this type of search, the Adjudicator noted that it must document the search it conducted by addressing the points set out in Order F2007-029.

The applicant made three access requests to Covenant Health for her health records, as well as other records related to the standardized designated living option assessment process. The Adjudicator determined Covenant Health conducted an adequate search for records, and had no duty to create records the applicant felt Covenant Health ought to have or ought to create. The Adjudicator found that Covenant Health did not obtain agreement with the applicant to amalgamate the three requests. As a result, Covenant Health did not meet timelines in responding to the first request. Given that Covenant Health had provided all responsive records, there was nothing further to order.

The applicant requested access to his deceased mother's health information from Alberta Health Services (AHS) in his capacity as the executor of her estate. With regard to some records, AHS indicated that it considered the applicant did not have authority to request his mother's records and, even if he did, that the records were unnecessary for administering his mother's estate. The Adjudicator determined that the applicant, as the executor of his mother's will, was authorized to make an access request for the purpose of administering his mother's estate. The Adjudicator found that the access request, which had been made for the purpose of determining whether to bring legal action, had been made for the purpose of administering his mother's estate.

The applicant made a correction request to Alberta Health Services (AHS). He requested chart notes from a particular unit be deleted, replaced or his statements of disagreement be appended in their totality. AHS refused the applicant's correction request because it believed the notes constituted a professional opinion or observation made by a health care provider. The Adjudicator found that AHS properly exercised its discretion not to make the applicant's correction request. Further, because the applicant requested a review by the OIPC, AHS was not obligated to append the applicant's statements of disagreement to the records.

An individual made a complaint that two physicians gained access to her health information from Netcare in contravention of HIA. The incidents occurred at facilities managed by Alberta Health Services (AHS); therefore, AHS was found to have been the custodian while the two physicians were deemed affiliates in this case. While the Adjudicator found that the two physicians had led AHS to contravene HIA, it appeared that the physicians had not contravened AHS policies. The Adjudicator ordered AHS to cease using and disclosing the complainant's health information in contravention of HIA. The Adjudicator suggested that compliance could be achieved by revising the policies and procedures for affiliates. The Adjudicator also suggested that AHS review its policies to ensure that it creates enforceable obligations for affiliates to collect, use or disclose health information should an affiliate use or disclose health information in a way that contravenes HIA.

The applicant requested that Alberta Health Services (AHS) delete letters of complaint from his files that had been taken by a named AHS employee. AHS refused to do so and indicated that the letters were not retained on the applicant's medical file. The Adjudicator found that the letters were collected by the named employee while she was acting in her personal capacity, not her employment capacity. Therefore, the letters were not collected by AHS, so neither HIA nor FOIP applied to the collection.

Dr. Adeleye Adebayo did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in HIA. The Adjudicator ordered Dr. Adebayo to respond to the applicant.

An individual made a correction request under HIA to Covenant Health. Covenant Health made one change regarding a scheduled hospital visit that had not taken place, but refused to make any other changes. The Adjudicator found that much of the information to which the applicant requested a correction was factual information. The applicant did not meet her burden of showing that any of this information contained an error to be corrected.

An individual made a complaint that Alberta Health Services (AHS) used the complainant's personal information without authorization under HIA. AHS conceded that the complainant's health information had been used without authorization. The Adjudicator ordered AHS to put in place safeguards that protected the complainant's health information from a specific identifiable risk.

The Adjudicator confirmed Covenant Health's decision to refuse to make changes to health information as requested by an applicant. However, the Adjudicator ordered Covenant Health to provide a new response that sets out full reasons for refusing to correct the records.

An individual made a correction request to her doctor. The applicant had made a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, which resulted in an investigation. In the course of that investigation, the applicant discovered that a CT scan report in her medical records had another person's name on it at one time. The applicant wrote the the doctor with a list of specific requests for changes to her medical records. The Adjudicator determined that the doctor was not required to correct the records.

An individual made a correction request to her doctor. The applicant did not meet her burden of showing that the information was erroneous.

The applicant requested from Alberta Health Services (AHS) video surveillance footage taken the year before in an emergency waiting area of a hospital. The applicant was advised that the footage had been destroyed in accordance with AHS' retention policy. The applicant complained that the information was destroyed in contravention of FOIP and HIA. The Adjudicator determined that AHS met its obligations under sections 35 and 38 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that HIA did not apply to the information.

The applicant had requested health records from Alberta Health Services (AHS) regarding her attendance in a mental health program. AHS responded and severed two records under section 11(1)(b) (confidential information) and 11(2)(a) (health information about another individual) of HIA. The Adjudicator ordered AHS to disclose the information it had withheld from the applicant.

The applicant requested his entire medical file from a doctor. The Adjudicator found that the doctor conducted an adequate search for records.

An individual made a complaint that a program coordinator employed by Alberta Health Services (AHS) had called up and read his health information from Netcare on 17 occasions, alleging this was contrary to section 25 of HIA. AHS argued that the program coordinator had used the Complainant’s health information in compliance with sections 27(1)(a) (use for the purpose of providing a health service) and (b) (use for the purpose of determining eligibility for a health service) of HIA. The Adjudicator determined that AHS' use of the complainant’s health information could not be said to be for the purpose of providing a health service or determining eligibility for one. In the alternative, the Adjudicator found that there was no evidence that the program coordinator had restricted her use of the complainant’s health information to only that health information essential for carrying out her purpose, as required by section 58 of HIA.

The applicant requested Dr. Nagy Youssef to correct health information in a consultation report. The doctor responded that he would correct two factual errors, but no other changes would be made as the report was a reflection of a professional opinion. The Adjudicator determined that only a small portion of the applicant’s letter to the doctor constituted a request for correction or amendment under HIA, and that the doctor properly refused to correct or amend the information.

The applicant requested under HIA from Dr. Mohamed Abdel-Keriem her original patient chart, after the doctor had provided a print out from his tablet computer. The Adjudicator found that the applicant’s original chart no longer existed because the doctor had disposed of a computer after he transcribed the applicant’s chart notes from the computer onto his tablet computer. The Adjudicator also found that the doctor had met his obligations to protect against the applicant’s health information being lost and to ensure its accuracy and completeness.

An individual made a complaint Alberta Health Services (AHS) disclosed her health information without her consent, in contravention of her request and of Part 5 of HIA. The Adjudicator determined that AHS had authority to disclose the complainant’s health information to a hospital, and properly considered the complainant’s request for non-disclosure of her health information in determining how much health information to disclose.

An individual made a complaint regarding his employer's, Alberta Health Services (AHS), collection, use, and disclosure of his health information related to addiction counseling. The Adjudicator determined that AHS had collected the complainant’s health information from his treating physician for a purpose not authorized by HIA. The Adjudicator also found that AHS had contravened section 22 of HIA (direct collection) when it obtained the complainant’s health information from the treating physician. The Adjudicator also found that the addictions counselor had collected the complainant’s health information, in part, for the purpose a human resources investigation, and that this collection contravened both sections 20 and 22 of the HIA. Subsequent uses and disclosure by AHS of the complainant's health information also contravened HIA.

The applicant made a request for his health information to Alberta Health Services (AHS). AHS withheld the names of some of the applicant’s health services providers from the records, and some treatment notes on the basis that disclosing this information could reasonably be expected to threaten the mental or physical health or safety of individuals. The Adjudicator determined that AHS had not established that disclosing the health information it had withheld could reasonably be expected to threaten the mental or physical health or safety of individuals.

An individual asked Dr. Finola Fogarty to correct or amend her health information under section 13(1) of HIA. The doctor did not respond, but said during the inquiry that she was refusing the applicant's correction or amendment requests. The Adjudicator accordingly confirmed the decision of the doctor not to correct or amend the applicant’s health information in these respects. However, the Adjudicator found that the applicant established an error or omission in her health information in one records.

An individual made a complaint that his health information was disclosed by a doctor to RCMP and his father in contravention of HIA. The Adjudicator found no contraventions of HIA.

The applicant requested his health records from a health region that has since been subsumed by Alberta Health Services (AHS). In responding to the access request under HIA, AHS applied section 11(1)(a)(ii) of the Act to deny the applicant access to some information on 174 pages out of 192 pages of responsive records. The Commissioner confirmed the decision to sever all of the redacted information under section 11(1)(a)(ii) of HIA.

The applicant made a request under section 13 of HIA to Capital Health, which is now part of Alberta Health Services (AHS), asking it to correct or amend his health information contained in a discharge summary. AHS refused to make some of the corrections and amendments, and the applicant elected to submit a statement of disagreement under section 14 of HIA. AHS rejected the statement of disagreement. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.  

The applicant made a request to Capital Health to correct or amend his health information contained in a discharge summary. Capital Health refused to make some of the corrections and amendments, and the applicant elected to submit a statement of disagreement under section 14. Capital Health rejected the statement of disagreement. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

The applicant made an access request to Capital Health for a copy of a quality review that was completed by the Sturgeon Community Hospital. Capital Health decided to withhold the record pursuant to section 9 of the Alberta Evidence Act and HIA. The Commissioner requested a copy of the record at issue. Capital Health challenged the Commissioner’s authority to compel production of the record at issue. The Commissioner held that there was no authority, pursuant to section 88 of HIA, to compel the record at issue. As such, the Commissioner did not address whether section 9 of the Alberta Evidence Act is paramount to section 88 of the HIA.

The applicant requested that the Calgary Health Region (CHR) correct or amend her health information regarding the general utility of a psychological test, and its administration in her particular case. CHR refused, and the applicant requested a review of that decision. The Adjudicator confirmed CHR's decision not to amend the health information. However, the Adjudicator found that the applicant had shown an omission in her health information regarding the way in which the psychological test was administered in her particular case. Specifically, she presented evidence that there had been some degree of procedural irregularity. As CHR did not show that it had properly refused to make an amendment in this respect under section 13(2) of HIA, the Adjudicator ordered it to do so.

The applicant made a request to the Calgary Health Region (CHR) for two specific records, and for any information relating to three hospitalizations that had not been released to her following access requests in 2003 and 2005. The applicant asked for a review of the fee estimate charged under section 67(3) of HIA and CHR's duty to assist under section 10(a). The Adjudicator ordered CHR to conduct an adequate search and to communicate to the applicant the steps taken in doing so. The Adjudicator ordered the custodian to conduct an adequate search and to communicate to the applicant the steps taken in doing so.

The applicant alleges that information about herself in her daughter’s hospital record at Alberta Children's Hospital is her own health information and that Calgary Health Region improperly refused to correct or amend health information in contravention of section 13 of HIA. The Adjudicator found that the information in the records was about a “health service” provided to the applicant’s daughter under section 1(1)(m)(i) and was the applicant’s daughter’s “diagnostic, treatment and care information” under sections 1(1)(i)(i) and 1(1)(i)(ii) of HIA. Therefore, the information in the records was the applicant’s daughter’s “health information” under section 1(1)(k)(i) of HIA. The Adjudicator found that the applicant had no “health information” in the records, so there was no information to correct or amend under section 13 of HIA. This inquiry was concurrent with the inquiry that resulted in Order F2007-27.

An individual complained that Nor-Don Collection Network (Nor-Don) had disclosed his health information to his spouse contrary to HIA during a telephone call. In the alternative, he complained that Nor-Don had disclosed his personal information to his spouse contrary to PIPA. He also complained that Health and Wellness disclosed his health information to Nor-Don and that Nor-Don had used this information in contravention of HIA. The Adjudicator found that Health and Wellness had disclosed the complainant’s health information to Nor-Don in compliance with HIA, and that Nor-Don had used the information as permitted by HIA. The Adjudicator determined that the evidence did not establish that the complainant’s health information or personal information had been disclosed by Nor-Don.

An individual made a complaint about Dr. Barry Lycka after receiving four pieces of correspondence pertaining to soliciting for fundraising from Dr. Lycka, through the Dr. Barry Lycka Professional Corporation, on behalf of the Canadian Skin Cancer Foundation. The Adjudicator found that there is no authority under HIA for a custodian to use an individual’s health information for the purpose of soliciting for fundraising; there is no provision under HIA for an individual to consent to a custodian’s using the individual’s health information for the purpose of soliciting for fundraising; and there is authority under HIA for a custodian to disclose an individual’s health information for the purpose of soliciting for fundraising, but only if the custodian has the individual’s consent.

An individual made a complaint about a letter sent from Dr. Barry Lycka. The Adjudicator found that the complaint made by the complainant was excluded from the application of HIA as the complaint does not pertain to the collection, use or disclosure of the complainant’s health information under HIA.

An individual complained that the Drugstore Pharmacy at Real Canadian Superstore collected health information in the form of the photo ID in contravention of HIA. The Adjudicator found that the pharmacy viewed, but did not record, the information in the complainant’s photo ID. The Adjudicator found that the Photo ID is “information” described in section 1(1)(i), 1(1)(o) or 1(1)(u) of HIA that is unrecorded. Unrecorded information is expressly excluded from the definition of “diagnostic, treatment and care information” in section 1(1)(i) of HIA and from the definition of “registration information” in section 1(1)(u) of HIA. However, she found that non-recorded “information” about health does fall under HIA. Due to the finding that the photo ID is “information” described in section 1(1)(i), 1(1)(o) or 1(1)(u) of HIA that is unrecorded, rather than recorded “health information”, the Adjudicator found that there is no “health information” to consider under section 20 of HIA. As there is no “health information”, the collection of photo ID could not contravene section 20 of HIA. The inquiry was held concurrent with the inquiry that resulted in Order P2007-15.

An individual made a complaint that Dr. Barry Lycka contravened HIA by collecting, using and disclosing her health information for purposes of marketing and soliciting for fundraising. The inquiry was held in conjunction with two other inquiries that resulted in Order P2007-006 and Order P2007-007. The order determined that a custodian is prohibited from collecting or using health information for a purpose that is not a prescribed purpose under HIA, such as marketing and soliciting for fundraising. Dr. Lycka was ordered to stop collecting, using and disclosing health information for purposes of marketing and soliciting for fundraising in contravention of HIA, and to submit a privacy impact assessment for the health information in a database.

The applicant’s husband made a request to the Calgary Health Region for access to records for specific hospital admissions at the Peter Lougheed Centre. A short time later the applicant made another request to the Calgary Health Region for access to the entire chart of her then-deceased husband, as the personal representative and the executrix of the estate. The applicant said the Calgary Health Region breached its duty to assist and failed to conduct an adequate search under section 10(a) of HIA. The Adjudicator found that the Calgary Health Region met its duties under section 10(a) of HIA.

The applicant made a request to Calgary Health Region for access to his hospital records at the Peter Lougheed Centre. The Calgary Health Region disclosed records but withheld some information, citing section 11(1)(b) of HIA (disclosure leading to identification of person who provided health information). The Adjudicator found that the Calgary Health Region properly applied section 11(1)(b) of HIA as (i) the disclosure could reasonably lead to the identification of a person who provided health information to the Calgary Health Region implicitly in confidence in circumstances where it was appropriate that the name of the person who provided the information be kept confidential, and (ii) the Calgary Health Region properly exercised its discretion.

The applicant made a request to Capital Health for access to information related to a prescription at the University of Alberta Hospital. Capital Health disclosed most of the information under HIA but withheld an incident report. Capital Health withheld the incident report under FOIP, not HIA, saying that section 17(1) of FOIP (unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal privacy), section 24(1)(a) of FOIP (advice or recommendations) and section 24(1)(b)(i) of FOIP (consultations or deliberations) apply. Capital Health also withheld the information under HIA, saying that section 11(2)(b) of HIA (investigation or practice review) and section 11(2)(d) of HIA (another enactment) and section 9 of the Evidence Act apply. The Commissioner found that the incident report was health information as defined in HIA and was excluded from FOIP pursuant to section 4(1)(u) of FOIP. The Commissioner found that the mandatory refusal provision in section 11(2)(b) of HIA applied to the incident report.

An individual made a correction request to Capital Health under HIA, which Capital Health refused to do. The Commissioner found that there was no error or omission proven under section 13(1) of HIA and that the information was a professional opinion or observation under section 13(6)(a) of HIA. Capital Health properly exercised its discretion in refusing to correct or amend the information.

The applicant alleged that Dr. Osinchuk improperly refused to correct or amend her health information in contravention of section 13 of HIA. The Commissioner found that there was no error or omission proven under section 13(1) and that the information was a professional opinion or observation under section 13(6)(a) of HIA.

An individual complained that Dr. Nagy Youssef refused to attach a statement of disagreement to Dr. Youssef's record about the applicant, in contravention of section 14(3) of HIA. The Commissioner found that section 14(1)(b) of the Act sets out the requirements for a statement of disagreement and that the applicant’s statement of disagreement did not meet those requirements.

The applicant made a series of requests to the Calgary Health Region (CHR) for his health records and records relating to his involvement with the Foothills Medical Centre. The Commissioner held that CHR had failed to meet its duty under section 12 of HIA to provide records within the time limits imposed by the section, and that it failed to meet its duty to assist the applicant under section 10(a) of the Act, though in neither case did he regard the failure as substantial. The Commissioner held that CHR conducted an adequate search for records.

The applicant complained that the Capital Health Authority had failed to conduct an adequate search for hospital records and breached its duty to assist under section 10(a) of HIA. The Commissioner found that Capital Health Authority had conducted an adequate search and thereby discharged its duty to assist the applicant in accordance with the Act, which establishes a standard of what is “reasonable” in the circumstances.

The applicant complained that Acadia Fairview Pharmacy had improperly estimated the fee for services under section 67(3) of HIA. The Commissioner found that Acadia Fairview Pharmacy could not charge the “professional fee” portion of the fee estimate. The Commissioner ordered Acadia Fairview Pharmacy to provide a fee estimate to the applicant that was in accordance with HIA.

The applicant made an access request to the Calgary Health Region (CHR) for information pertaining to psychological questionnaires in her daughter’s hospital records. CHR refused to provide the records to the applicant, saying the records contained standardized diagnostic tests or assessments under section 11(1)(e) of HIA. At inquiry, the issue arose as to whether the applicant had the authority to exercise the rights or powers of her daughter under section 104(1) of HIA. The Commissioner found that the information at issue was health information and therefore fell under HIA. The Commissioner found there was no evidence the applicant fell into any of the categories under section 104(1) of HIA, including the guardian of a minor that does not understand the nature of the right or power and the consequences of exercising the right or power under section 104(1)(c) of HIA. Consequently, the applicant did not have the authority to exercise the rights or powers conferred on her minor daughter by HIA. The Commissioner found there was no jurisdiction to decide the inquiry issues.

An individual complained that Dr. Murji disclosed his health information to the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) in contravention of HIA. The complainant had brought a medical malpractice action against three physicians, but not against Dr. Murji who was the complainant’s treating physician. CMPA, which is a quasi-insurer for physicians, was representing the three defendant physicians. In an interview with legal counsel for CMPA, Dr. Murji disclosed information about the complainant’s medical treatment. The complainant had expressly objected to the interview. The Commissioner found that section 3(a), which says HIA does not limit the information otherwise available by law to a party to legal proceedings, allows the Act and the common law to co-exist of the Act and did not remove this disclosure from the scope of HIA. The Commissioner found that Dr. Murji disclosed the health information in accordance with section 35(1)(h) of HIA as the information was disclosed for the purpose of a court proceeding.

The applicant alleged that Dr. Goldie improperly refused to correct or amend her physician office records in contravention of HIA. The Commissioner found there was no error or omission in the applicant’s health information under section 13(1) of HIA, and confirmed Dr. Goldie's decision not to correct or amend the health information under section 13(6)(a) of the Act.

The applicant made a request to Palliser Health Region (PHR) for access to her health information at the Medicine Hat Regional Hospital. PHR disclosed the information except for two incident reports, saying section 11(2)(d) of HIA (another enactment) applies as the disclosure is prohibited under section 9 of the Evidence Act. PHR also said it was also allowed to refuse access to the applicant under section 11(1)(b) of HIA (identification of another person), under section 11(1)(d) of HIA (advice or recommendations) and under the Wigmore criteria (common law privilege). PHR also raised a jurisdictional issue. The Commissioner found that HIA prevails over section 9 of the Evidence Act under the “paramountcy” clause in section 4 of HIA. PHR also initially refused to produce the incident reports, which the Commissioner compelled under section 88 of HIA and the Public Inquiries Act. The Commissioner found that section 11(2)(b) of HIA (investigation or practice review) applied to the health information in the incident reports, and did not find it necessary to also consider whether PHR was entitled to refuse access under section 11(2)(d) of HIA, section 11(1)(b) of HIA, section 11(1)(d) of HIA and under the Wigmore criteria (common law privilege).

The applicant made multiple requests for access to health information to Palliser Health Region (PHR). The applicant asked for a review of PHR’s decisions to withhold information under HIA. The Commissioner declined to exercise his discretion to decide the moot issue under section 7(1) of HIA as to whether the applicant had a right of access to names of health services providers. The Commissioner found that under section 7(1) of HIA, the applicant did not have a right of access to birthdates and home addresses of health services providers in records that do not contain the applicant’s health information. Given the decision under section 7 of HIA, there was no information/records remaining to be considered under section 11(1)(a) and section 11(2)(a) of HIA. The inquiry was held in conjunction with the inquiry that resulted in Order F2004-008.

An individual complained that the Mental Health Board (MHB) disclosed her health records/information in contravention of HIA. MHB disclosed the complainant’s mental health records to a regional health authority when transferring some of its former functions to the health authority during restructuring. The Commissioner found that MHB disclosed the health records/information in accordance with its authority under section 35(1)(q) and section 36(a) of HIA to transfer records to a successor custodian. The Commissioner did not find it necessary to consider whether MHB also had the authority to disclose under sections 35(1)(a), 35(1)(b) and 35(1)(p) of the Act.

An individual complained that Calgary Health Region (CHR) collected health information in contravention of section 22(3)(a) of HIA. Section 22(3)(a) of HIA requires a custodian to take reasonable steps to inform the individual of the purpose of the collection. A jurisdictional question arose during the inquiry, and the Commissioner found that there was no inconsistency or conflict between the Public Health Act and section 22(3)(a) of HIA in the circumstances of this case. The Commissioner held that CHR complied with section 22(3)(a) of HIA by taking reasonable steps to inform the complainant of the purpose of the collection when collecting the complainant’s health information.

The applicant made two requests to the Mental Health Board (MHB) for access to portions of her hospital record at Alberta Hospital Edmonton. The operation and management of Alberta Hospital Edmonton has since been transferred from the to the Capital Health Authority (CHA). CHA refused to disclose the health information to the applicant. CHA said it was exercising its discretion to refuse to disclose any of the records or information under section 11(1)(a)(ii) of HIA as the disclosure could reasonably be expected to threaten the mental or physical health or safety of another individual. The Commissioner found that all of the information met the requirements of section 11(1)(a)(ii) (threat to mental or physical health or safety of another individual) of HIA.

An individual complained that his physician, Dr. Daniel J. Toliver, disclosed his health information in contravention of HIA. The physician disclosed the applicant’s name, telephone number and a brief explanation when making a referral. The Commissioner found that the physician properly applied section 35(1)(a) when making the disclosure as the health information was disclosed in accordance with the authority established under HIA to disclose to another custodian for purposes of providing health services. The Commissioner found that the physician made a reasonable effort to ensure that the information was accurate and complete before disclosing the health information, as required by section 61 of HIA.

The applicants made requests to the David Thompson Health Region and to Dr. S. Beshai (the custodians) for access to hospital medical records of a deceased minor. One of the applicants was the biological father of the deceased and the other applicant was his current wife. The biological parents were divorced and had joint custody of the deceased minor at the time of her death. The custodians refused to disclose any health information to the applicants. The Commissioner found that the applicants are not personal representatives of the deceased under HIA. Additionally, HIA does not allow custodians to provide access to or disclosure of the health information of deceased minors even to a personal representative. The Commissioner recommended that the Minister of Health and Wellness amend HIA to authorize custodians to provide access to and disclosure of the health information of deceased minors.

The Commissioner initiated an investigation under section 84(a) of the Health Information Act (HIA) of this issue: Does HIA permit Alberta pharmacists and pharmacies to disclose health services provider information to IMS HEALTH, Canada (IMS)? The Commissioner found that Alberta pharmacists and pharmacies were disclosing to IMS up to 37 data elements that pertained to prescribing activity. The Commissioner made several findings, and ordered Alberta pharmacists and pharmacies not to disclose to IMS a health services provider’s first and last name in the context of the 35 other data elements, unless that health services provider’s consent was obtained as stipulated under HIA.

The applicant made a request to the Calgary Health Region (CHR) for access to correspondence about an internal review conducted after the applicant made a complaint about a surgeon. At issue was a two-page letter. CHR refused to provide the letter to the applicant on the grounds that it was practice review information, as provided by section 11(2)(b) of HIA. The Acting Commissioner found that the letter met the requirements for practice review information under section 11(2)(b) of HIA.

The applicant made a request to the Alberta Mental Health Board (AMHB) for access to his entire patient record. The record involved health information from two involuntary admissions. AMHB said it was prohibited from disclosing some of the health information under sections 11(2)(a), 11(1)(a), 11(1)(b) and 11(1)(e) of HIA. The Commissioner found that some of the health information met the requirements of section 11(2)(a) of HIA and must not be disclosed. The Commissioner found that some of the health information met the requirements of section 11(1)(a)(ii) (threat to mental or physical health or safety of another individual), section 11(1)(b) and section 11(1)(e) and that discretion was properly exercised. The Commissioner upheld the decision of AMHB to refuse to disclose that information. However, none of the information met the requirements of section 11(1)(a)(i) (harm to applicant) or section 11(1)(a)(iii) (threat to public safety) of HIA. The Commissioner ordered AMHB to disclose all of the 536 pages of the records, with limited severing.

An Applicant made an access request to Alberta Justice and Solicitor General (now Justice, the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act) for records relating to the process for obtaining McNeil disclosures from the Edmonton Police Service. The Public Body responded by providing some information to the Applicant but withholding most of the information in the responsive records under sections 17(1), 20(1), 21(1), 24(1), 25(1), and 27(1). The Applicant requested an inquiry regarding the Public Body’s application of sections 17(1), 20(1), 24(1), 25(1), and 27(1), as well as the Public Body’s characterization of some information as non-responsive. The Adjudicator determined that some of the information withheld as non-responsive is responsive to the Applicant’s request. The Adjudicator upheld the Public Body’s application of section 17(1). The Applicant was no longer interested in the information withheld under sections 20(1) and 25(1); as such, the Adjudicator did not consider those exceptions. The Adjudicator found that sections 24(1) and 27(1)(b) and (c) applied to much of the information withheld under those provisions, but not all. The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to provide additional information to the Applicant. The Adjudicator also ordered the Public Body to re-exercise its discretion to apply these exceptions.

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act), the Applicant made an access to information request to Brazeau County (the Public Body). The Applicant sought the names of those who received rebates through the Public Body’s Herbicide Rebate Program (the Program). The Public Body withheld the names on the basis that disclosing them would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy pursuant to section 17(1) of the FOIP Act. The Adjudicator found that the names were details of a discretionary benefit of a financial nature granted by the Public Body under section 17(2)(h) of the FOIP Act. Since section 17(2)(h) deems disclosure of such details to not be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy, the Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to disclose the names to the Applicant.

The Applicant is an employee of the Government of Alberta.  The Applicant made an access request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act) to the Public Service Commission (the Public Body) for information regarding an application she had made for vaccination exemption status. The Public Body located responsive records, but severed information from them under sections 17(1) (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), 18 (disclosure harmful to individual or public safety), 19 (confidential evaluations), 20 (disclosure harmful to law enforcement), 24 (advice from officials) and 25 (disclosure harmful to the economic and other interests of a public body). The Adjudicator found that there was insufficient evidence to support the Public Body’s severing decisions. She found that the Public Body was not authorized or required by the FOIP Act to withhold information from the Applicant and directed the Public Body to give the Applicant access to all the information it had severed from the records.

The Applicant made an access request to Medicine Hat College (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act). The Applicant stated: Please provide records, including reports, briefing notes, meeting notes and communication (email messages and other correspondence) pertaining to projects for an emergency notification system and mobile app through Campus Alberta Risk Assurance (CARA) and/or Mount Royal University. In particular, provide records specifying the following terms: CARA, RallyEngine, CutCom, AppArmor, SafeSpace, information escrow, sexual violence reporting, Virtual Safewalk, working/studying alone, work/study alone, SoloSafe, RFP, and proposal. The Public Body searched for responsive records. It provided notice to the third parties named in the records. CutCom Software Inc. / AppArmor Inc. (the Third Party) objected to disclosure of information in the records. The Public Body decided to withhold some information under section 16(1) but decided it would disclose the remainder to the Applicant. The Third Party requested review by the Commissioner of the Public Body’s decision to grant access to information in the records. The Adjudicator confirmed that none of the information the Public Body had decided to disclose was subject to section 16(1). She ordered the Public Body to disclose that information to the Applicant.

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act), the Applicant made an access to information request to the University of Calgary (the Public Body), seeking records related to receipt and handling of a registered letter. The Applicant sought review of the Public Body’s response to the request, and whether it met its duties under section 10(1) of the FOIP Act, and properly withheld information as subject to solicitor-client privilege under section 27(1)(a) of the FOIP Act. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body met its duties under section 10(1). The Adjudicator found that, contrary to earlier decisions of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, recent decisions of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench and Alberta Court of Appeal indicated that the duty to sever under section 6(2) of the FOIP Act applied to information in records over which solicitor-client privilege was asserted. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body had not demonstrated that it properly turned its mind toward the duty to sever when withholding information under section 27(1)(a). The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to reconsider its decision to withhold information subject to solicitor-client privilege, and to disclose to the Applicant any information it found was not privileged, and was also reasonably severable from information that was privileged. With respect to specific information sought by the Applicant — dates, time, senders, recipients, and subject lines of e-mails — the Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to explain how it determined such information was subject to solicitor-client privilege if it was not disclosed upon reconsideration.

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act), the Applicant made an access request to the Medicine Hat Police Service (the Public Body). The Applicant sought a review of whether the Public Body complied with the timelines set under section 11 of FOIP Act. The Public Body admitted that it failed to meet the timelines, and the Adjudicator concluded the same. When explaining why it missed the deadlines, the Public Body expressed the view that section 3(a) of the FOIP Act excused it from providing records in response to an access request where those records were available through another process. The Adjudicator clarified that section 3(a) does not excuse a public body from providing records in response to an access request simply because they are available through another process. Section 3(a) states that the process in the FOIP Act is in addition to other processes, and does not extinguish other processes.

An Applicant made a request to Environment and Protected Areas (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP Act) for records created in response to a previous access request. The Public Body responded to the Applicant, providing records with information withheld under several exceptions. The Applicant requested an inquiry into the Public Body’s application of section 24(1), including its exercise of discretion in applying that provision. The Adjudicator found that section 24(1) applied to some of the information withheld under that provision. The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to disclose to the Applicant the information not properly withheld under that provision. The Adjudicator also ordered the Public Body to re-exercise its discretion to withhold information to which section 24(1) applies.

An Applicant made a request to Treasury Board and Finance (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP Act) for records created in response to a previous access request. The Public Body responded to the Applicant, providing records with information withheld under several exceptions. The Applicant requested an inquiry into the Public Body’s application of section 24(1), including its exercise of discretion in applying that provision. The Adjudicator found that section 24(1) applied to some of the information withheld under that provision. The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to disclose to the Applicant the information not properly withheld under that provision. The Adjudicator also ordered the Public Body to re-exercise its discretion to withhold information to which section 24(1) applies.

An Applicant made a request to Municipal Affairs (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP Act) for records created in response to a previous access request. The Public Body responded to the Applicant, providing records with information withheld under several exceptions. The Applicant requested an inquiry into the Public Body’s application of section 24(1), including its exercise of discretion in applying that provision. The Adjudicator found that section 24(1) applied to some of the information withheld under that provision. The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to disclose to the Applicant the information not properly withheld under that provision. The Adjudicator also ordered the Public Body to re-exercise its discretion to withhold information to which section 24(1) applies.

An Applicant made a request to Energy and Minerals (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP Act) for records created in response to a previous access request. The Public Body responded to the Applicant, providing records with information withheld under several exceptions. The Applicant requested an inquiry into the Public Body’s application of section 24(1), including its exercise of discretion in applying that provision. The Adjudicator found that section 24(1) applied to some of the information withheld under that provision. The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to disclose to the Applicant the information not properly withheld under that provision. The Adjudicator also ordered the Public Body to re-exercise its discretion to withhold information to which section 24(1) applies.

The Applicant requested his personal information from the Calgary Police Service (the Public Body) on three occasions. In the most recent request, the Public Body limited its search to information that had not been the subject of previous searches. The Public Body located some records, but severed information from them under sections 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) and 20 (disclosure harmful to law enforcement). The Applicant requested review by the Commissioner of the Public Body’s most recent response to his access request, but not his previous requests. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body had met the duty to assist under section 10(1) by conducting a reasonable search with the exception of records documenting the Applicant’s complaints. The Public Body explained that it had not previously searched for records regarding his complaints as its FOIP unit had not had access to a database in which complaints were stored. The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to include the complaints it had located in its response to the Applicant. The Adjudicator determined that section 20 of the FOIP Act did not apply to the information severed by the Public Body under this provision. She ordered the Public Body to give the Applicant access to this information. The Adjudicator confirmed that section 17 required the Public Body to sever the personal information of individuals other than the Applicant where it appeared in the records.

The Applicant made an access request to Environment and Protected Spaces for the following: A copy of any spreadsheets or reports prepared annually or quarterly between Jan. 1, 2017 and Jan. 5, 2021 that outline fees collected or uncollected fees used to cover the costs of the Oilsands Monitoring Program Time period: Jan 1, 2017 to Jan 5, 2021 The Public Body located responsive records but severed information from them on the basis that it was “nonresponsive” and on the basis of section 25 of the FOIP Act, which authorizes a public body to withhold information from an applicant if the disclosure would be harmful to the economic interests of the Government of Alberta. The Adjudicator found that section 25 did not apply to the records and that the records were responsive. She ordered the Public Body to give the Applicant access to all the information it had severed from the records, including the records to which it had applied the term “non-responsive”

The Applicant made an access to information request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) to the Calgary Police Service (the Public Body) seeking video of an interview with her daughter (the Recording). The Public Body withheld the entire Recording under section 20(1)(c) of the Act (harm to law enforcement techniques and procedures). The Adjudicator found that the Public Body did not establish that disclosing the Recording would harm its investigative techniques or procedures. The Adjudicator also ordered the Public Body to consider or reconsider (as the case may be) whether or not section 17(1) required it to withhold any personal information in the Recording, and whether or not section 84(1)(e) applied in the circumstances of the access request. The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to disclose information improperly withheld under section 20(1)(c) to the Applicant, subject to the requirement to withhold information under section 17(1).

The Applicant made an access request dated February 22, 2024 to the City of Edmonton (the Public Body). The Public Body did not respond to the Applicant as required by section 11 of the FOIP Act. The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to respond to the Applicant.

On December 17, 2020, the Applicant made the following access request to Energy and Minerals (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act): ABHA [the Alberta Backcountry Hunters Association] requests all records relating to Alberta Energy’s assessment of the “policy gap risk” and to Alberta Energy’s “review of the coal categories,” as referenced in Alberta Energy’s March 20, 2020 Advice to Minister (AR35437). A copy of this Advice document is attached. The relevant portion is on page 2 of the Advice document, which states: Despite existing land use policies, there is a risk that rescission could result in policy gaps because several Integrated Resource Plans that remain active within the Eastern Slopes rely on the coal categories to establish baseline conditions (mostly in the South Saskatchewan Region, but also a portion of the Upper Athabasca Region). The full extent of the policy gap risk will not be quantified until Alberta Energy completes its review of the coal categories with input from Environment and Parks. This work is expected to be complete in summer 2020. The time period for the records we are requesting is from May 15, 2020 to the date of this records request. On February 2, 2022, the Public Body provided a response to the request for access. It withheld records under sections 24 (advice from officials), 25 (disclosure harmful to economic and other interests of a public body), and 27 (privileged information). The Adjudicator found that the Public Body had not demonstrated that it conducted an adequate search for responsive records. The Public Body’s explanation of its decisions regarding the responsiveness of records revealed that it had adopted an overly narrow interpretation of the access request. As the Applicant had requested records relating to the policy gap analysis and the Public Body indicated that only records created in the course of the analysis or used in the analysis were considered to be responsive, the Adjudicator determined that the Public Body had not conducted an adequate search for responsive records. The Adjudicator found that section 24(1)(a) applied to a portion of page 54, but found that section 24(1) did not apply to any other records to which the Public Body had applied this provision. The Adjudicator directed the Public Body to reconsider its decision to withhold the information on page 54 from the Applicant, as the Public Body’s submissions did not support finding that it had made the decision to withhold information based on relevant considerations. The Adjudicator found that section 25 did not authorize the Public Body to sever information. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body had not established the records to which it had applied section 27(1)(a) were subject to solicitor-client privilege. The Adjudicator directed the Public Body to provide adequate evidence and submissions supporting its claim of privilege or to disclose the records to which it had applied section 27(1)(a) to the Applicant.

On May 13, 2016, an individual (the Applicant) made an access request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act) to the City of Edmonton (the Public Body) for certain information. The Public Body located 75 pages of responsive records.  On June 9, 2016, the Public Body informed the Applicant that it was providing him with access to the records, but was withholding some information in the records under sections 17(1) (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), 24(1) (advice from officials), and 27 (privileged information) of the FOIP Act.  As well, it advised the Applicant that information in the records that did not respond to his request was marked NR as non-responsive.  Finally, it informed the Applicant that CCTV footage from the time period of the request had passed its retention period and had been destroyed. On June 17, 2016, the Applicant requested a review of the Public Body’s decision to withhold the remaining information, as well as the adequacy of the search the Public Body conducted for responsive records. The Commissioner confirmed the matter for an inquiry on May 2, 2017. On June 30, 2017, the Public Body voluntarily disclosed some additional information in the responsive records to the Applicant. Subsequently, on September 6, 2017, during the course of a judicial review proceeding commenced by the Applicant regarding the Public Body’s decision to ban him from its facilities, the Public Body was ordered by the Court to disclose some additional information in the responsive records to the Applicant. On April 26, 2024, the Public Body disclosed further information to the Applicant, including the information it had withheld under section 24(1) of the FOIP Act. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body had conducted an adequate search for responsive records and had met its duty to assist the Applicant under section 10(1) of the FOIP Act. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body had properly identified information at the bottom of page 1 as non-responsive to the Applicant’s access request and properly withheld this information. The Adjudicator found that section 17(1) did not apply to an employee’s work email address withheld by the Public Body and ordered the Public Body to disclose this to the Applicant.  The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to review the name of the individual on page 1 of the records and, if it was the name of an employee and not another third party, to disclose it to the Applicant, as there was no personal dimension which would require it to be withheld.  The Adjudicator also ordered the Public Body to disclose the phone number that appeared on page 23, which was replicated on page 68, as it was not recorded information about an identifiable individual, and could not be withheld under section 17(1).  The Adjudicator confirmed that the Public Body had properly applied section 17(1) to the rest of the information it had withheld under this section. The Adjudicator found that if the Court had not already concluded that solicitor-client privilege applied to the information withheld on pages 71-73, and it therefore remained within the jurisdiction for this Office to decide, the Public Body had established that solicitor-client privilege applied to the information and therefore it could be withheld under section 27(1)(a).

On February 17, 2022, Energy and Minerals (the Public Body, formerly Energy) received the Applicant’s request for access to:   All records that Alberta Energy withheld on "non-responsive" grounds, in EN000-2020-G-53 and, the parts of all records that Alberta Energy redacted on "non-responsive" grounds, in EN000-2020-G-53. These "non-responsive" items are marked on the attached "Applicant's Copy" in EN000-2020-G-53. By my count, the "non-responsive" pages that Alberta Energy withheld are pages 9, 19, and 22 of the Applicant's Copy; the "non-responsive" redactions are on pages 7, 8, 24, and 28 of that file. Timeframe: February 28, 2020 to June 11, 2020   The Public Body responded to the access request on April 12, 2022 and advised that some information was being withheld under sections 16(1) (disclosure harmful to business interests) and 24(1) (advice from officials) of the FOIP Act. The Applicant requested that the Commissioner review whether the Public Body properly withheld the information it severed from the records. The Adjudicator determined that the Public Body was not authorized or required to withhold the information from the Applicant and ordered the Public Body to give the Applicant access to the information it had severed.

The Applicant requested personal information from the Calgary Police Service (the Public Body) on three occasions. The Public Body did not respond to the access requests. The Adjudicator directed the Public Body to respond to the Applicant.

An individual made an access request to Alberta Health Services (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP Act) for “arbitration notes (Nov 24-28, 2014) between the Public Body, [Named Entity] and [the Applicant] with presiding Arbitrator [Named Individual].” The Applicant made two requests for the information. The first request was made to the arbitration counsel, an employee of the Public Body, directly, the arbitration counsel emailed a response stating that the records were subject to solicitor-client privilege and would be withheld. The response was never received by the Applicant due to an error in the email address. The second request was sent to the Public Body’s Information Access Services office and was responded to in accordance with the FOIP Act. Upon receiving the second request from the Applicant, the Public Body responded similarly as the lawyer did, stating that it was withholding the responsive records pursuant to solicitor-client privilege (section 27(1)(a)). The Applicant requested a review of the Public Body’s decision, and subsequently an inquiry. The Adjudicator found that upon receiving the initial email from the Applicant, the arbitration counsel failed in the duty to assist, pursuant to section 10 of the FOIP Act; she ought to have transferred the request to the Public Body’s Information Access Services office. The Adjudicator found that in response to the second request from the Applicant, the Public Body conducted an adequate search for the records; however, when responsive records were not found, the Public Body ought to have informed the Applicant that there were no records, instead of making a blanket claim of solicitor-client privilege.

An individual made an access request to Public Safety and Emergency Services (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP Act) for copies of the agendas and minutes of meetings, including all of the related notes, documents and attachments associated with these agendas and minutes, of the three most recent meetings of the Alberta Association of Chiefs of Police (AACP, or the Third Party). The Public Body located responsive records and determined that information in the records contained information the disclosure of which could affect the AACP. The Public Body informed the AACP of the request, as well as its decision to give the applicant access to information in the records. The AACP requested a review of the Public Body’s decision. A review was conducted, and the AACP subsequently requested an inquiry, arguing that the records are not in the Public Body’s custody or control within the terms of section 4 of the Act, and that section 17(1) requires the Public Body to withhold some information in the records. The Applicant was invited to participate in the inquiry and agreed. The Adjudicator determined that the records at issue are within the Public Body’s custody or control. The Adjudicator also determined that section 17(1) does not apply to information in the records at issue.

On August 16, 2023, the City of Edmonton received an access request made by the Applicant under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. On February 15, 2024, the Applicant requested a review of the Public Body’s failure to respond to the request. The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to respond to the request as required by the FOIP Act.

The Applicant made an access request dated September 12, 2023 to the City of Edmonton under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. On November 28, 2023, the Applicant requested a review of the Public Body’s failure to respond to the request. The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to respond to the request as required by the FOIP Act.

The Applicant made an access request to Justice (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act) for all records relating to a prosecution in which he was the accused. The Public Body conducted a search for responsive records and responded to the Applicant. In its response, the Public Body stated: We are pleased to provide access to 144 pages you requested; copies of which are enclosed. There were a total of 584 pages responsive to your request. Some of the records located contain information that is withheld from disclosure under the FOIP Act. We have severed (removed) the excepted information so that we could disclose the remaining information in the records. The severed information is withheld from disclosure under the following section(s): • Section 4(1)(a) - Records to which the FOIP Act applies, • Section 17(1) - Disclosure harmful to personal privacy, • Section 20(1)(g) - Disclosure harmful to law enforcement, • Section 21(1)(b) - Disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations, • Section 29(1)(a) - Information that is or will be available to the public. […] Certain pages of the records were severed in their entirety pursuant to Section 21(1)(b) of the FOIP Act, as the disclosure of the information therein could reasonably be expected to reveal information supplied by the Royal Canadian Mounted police. If you require access to these records, please submit a request to [the RCMP]. The Commissioner agreed to conduct an inquiry at the Applicant’s request. The inquiry addressed the Public Body’s decisions to sever information under sections 20(1)(g) (disclosure harmful to law enforcement), 21(1)(b) (disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations), and 17(1) (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The Adjudicator determined that the burden of establishing that either section 20(1)(g) or 21(1)(b) applied to any of the records was not met. The Adjudicator found that section 17(1) of the FOIP Act applied to the personally identifying information of witnesses in the records, and that there were no factors weighing in favor of disclosure; however, the Public Body had not turned its mind to the question of whether it could reasonably sever the personally identifying information of witnesses and provide the remainder to the Applicant. The Adjudicator directed the Public Body to meet its duty to determine whether it could reasonably sever the personally identifying information of witnesses under section 6(2) of the FOIP Act.

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act), the Applicant made an access to information request to the City of St. Albert (the Public Body). The Applicant sought the results of soil testing conducted on his neighbour’s (the Owner’s) property. The testing was carried out by Advanced Environmental Engineering Ltd. (the Consultant). The Public Body withheld the entire testing report (the Assessment) under section 16(1) of the Act. The Public Body also withheld some information under section 17(1). At inquiry the Applicant clarified that he only wanted the results of the testing, not the whole report. The results appeared on two pages, which the Adjudicator considered in the inquiry. The Adjudicator found that section 16(1) did not apply to the Assessment since it was not provided explicitly or implicitly in confidence. The Public Body had arranged to obtain the Assessment from the Owner in exchange for providing funding for it. That arrangement was the whole agreement between the Public Body and the Owner. While an agreement between the Owner and the Consultant to have the testing performed contained terms which stipulated the Assessment was confidential, those terms did not apply to the Public Body, which was not part of that agreement. The Adjudicator found that the Owner’s address was his personal information, but that disclosure of it was not an invasion of third party personal privacy. The Applicant was not interested in obtaining other personal information. The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to disclose the two pages containing the testing results, while withholding personal information that the Applicant was not interested in.

On July 27, 2023, the City of Edmonton (the Public Body) received an access request from an individual (the Applicant) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act), for certain information. On February 9, 2024, Applicant requested a review by this Office, indicating that the time limit for responding to the access request under the FOIP Act had expired and the Public Body had not provided a response. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body did not respond to the Applicant within the time limit set out in the FOIP Act and ordered the Public Body to respond to the Applicant’s access request as required by the FOIP Act.

The Complainant is a police officer and his employer is a municipal police service. The Workers’ Compensation Board (the Public Body) accepted his claim for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The Public Body arranged for the Complainant to attend a psychiatrist for an independent medical examination (IME). The Public Body provided a copy of the IME report to a general practitioner and a psychologist whom it knew to have treated the Complainant, and to his employer. The Public Body requested that the Complainant attend an additional IME. The Complainant declined. The Public Body asked a medical consultant of the Public Body to review the Complainant’s file. The memo included a summary of the Complainant’s medical history and the findings in the IME report. The Public Body then provided a copy of the memo to the Complainant’s employer. The Complainant complained to the Commissioner regarding the disclosures of the IME report to the general practitioner, the psychologist, and his employer and the disclosure of the medical consultant’s memo to his employer. The Public Body conceded that it disclosed the Complainant’s personal information in the circumstances alleged but argued that it had statutory authority to disclose the information. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body had contravened Part 2 of the FOIP Act when it disclosed the IME report and the medical consultant’s memo to the Complainant’s employer. The Adjudicator also found that the disclosure of the IME report to the general practitioner and the psychologist contravened Part 2 of the FOIP Act. She also found that the Public Body had disclosed more personal information than was reasonably necessary to meet its stated purposes in disclosing the information. She ordered the Public Body to cease disclosing the Complainant’s personal information in contravention of the FOIP Act.

An Applicant made a request to Alberta Executive Council (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP Act) for all records related to Benga Mining or the Grassy Mountain Coal Project. The Public Body responded to the Applicant, informing it that it located 613 pages of responsive records. The Public Body provided 17 pages with some information withheld, and withheld the remaining records in their entirety citing sections 6(4), 21, 22, 24, 25, and 29 of the Act. The Applicant requested an inquiry into the Public Body’s response. The Adjudicator determined that section 6(4) applied to a briefing binder, but ordered the Public Body to review the binder to determine whether any responsive record is likely to exist elsewhere. The Adjudicator found that sections 21(1) and 25(1) did not apply to the information withheld under that provision. The Adjudicator found that sections 22(1) and 24(1) applied to some but not all of the information withheld under those provisions. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body did not properly apply section 29(1) to the information in the records.

An Applicant made a request to Alberta Executive Council (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP Act) for communications between members of Cabinet and the Alberta Energy Regulator, for a specified time period. The Public Body responded to the Applicant, informing them that it located nine pages of responsive records but that it was withholding all pages in their entirety under section 22(1) of the Act. The Applicant requested an inquiry into the Public Body’s response. The Adjudicator determined that section 22(1) does not apply to the information in the records.

The Applicant made an access request to Justice (formerly Justice and Solicitor General) (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act) for any information and documentation in relation to himself in the custody of the “Red Deer Crown Prosecution Office”.  He also requested that the email inboxes of 25 Government of Alberta employees be screened for any emails and/or any information in relation to him. The Public Body located 875 pages of responsive records and provided the Applicant with 120 pages of the responsive records.  It informed the Applicant that it had withheld all or a portion of the information in the responsive records pursuant to sections 4 (records to which this Act applies), 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), 18 (disclosure harmful to individual or public safety), 20 (disclosure harmful to law enforcement), 24 (advice from officials), and 27 (privileged information). The Applicant requested a review of the adequacy of the Public Body’s search as well as its severing decisions. Following the review, the Public Body released additional information in 21 of the 120 pages to the Applicant, but continued to withhold some information on these pages under sections 18, 20, and 24. The Applicant was not satisfied with the outcome of the review and requested that the Commissioner conduct an inquiry.  The Commissioner agreed to conduct an inquiry. The Adjudicator found that section 4(1)(a) applied to certain records and therefore the FOIP Act did not apply to these records. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body conducted an adequate search for responsive records and met its duty to assist the Applicant under section 10(1) of the FOIP Act. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body properly withheld information under section 17(1). With the exception of a small amount of information withheld under section 18(1)(a), the Adjudicator found that the Public Body had properly withheld information under section 18(1)(a). The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to re-process information where she found section 18(1)(a) did not apply. The Adjudicator concluded that while sections 27(1)(b) or (c) applied to the information the Public Body had withheld under these sections, it had not established that it had properly exercised its discretion in withholding this information.  The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to reconsider its exercise of discretion and inform the Applicant of its reconsideration decision.

An Applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (the EPS or the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP Act) for records relating to the circumstances surrounding the death of an EPS officer in 2015. The Applicant also requested records relating to allegations made by the Applicant of misconduct or wrongdoing against various named officers. The Public Body located records responsive to the first part of the Applicant’s request, but withheld all records in their entirety under section 17(1). With respect to allegations of misconduct or wrongdoing against named officers, the Public Body refused to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records under section 12(2)(b). The Applicant requested a review of the Public Body’s response. Following the review, the Public Body provided the Applicant with records responsive to the first part of the request, with some information withheld under section 17(1). The Public Body continued to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records relating to the second part of the Applicant’s request. The Applicant requested an inquiry into the Public Body’s application of section 17(1) and 12(2)(b). The Adjudicator determined that the Public Body properly relied on section 12(2) to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records. The Adjudicator upheld the Public Body’s application of section 17(1) to personal information to which that provision can apply. However, the Adjudicator found that in some instances, the Public Body applied that provision to information to which that provision cannot apply. The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to provide additional information to the Applicant.

An Applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP Act) for the names of members that have been identified as using illegal steroids, and for information regarding the collapse of three tactical squads as the result of an investigation into illegal steroid use. The Public Body responded, severing the names of officers charged with offences and refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records relating to the second portion of the Applicant’s access request. The Applicant requested an inquiry. Affected parties were identified and invited to participate. Many Affected Parties agreed to participate. The Adjudicator determined that the Public Body did not properly refuse to confirm or deny the existence of a record as authorized by section 12(2) of the Act. The Adjudicator also found that the information characterized by the Public Body as non-responsive to the Applicant’s request is responsive. The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to provide a new response to the Applicant’s request without relying on section 12(2) and including the information characterized as non-responsive. The Adjudicator found that the names of officers in the record must be withheld under section 17(1) with the exceptions of any officers named in the record whose admission to the use of steroids has been made public in news articles. The Adjudicator also ordered the Public Body to disclose additional information that did not relate to an identifiable individual.

The Applicant made several access requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP Act) to the Calgary Police Service (the Public Body) for information relating to himself and two named Constables (Constable B and Constable G). The Public Body responded to these requests in one response; it provided the Applicant with responsive records, but withheld information from the Applicant under various sections of the Act. The Applicant requested an inquiry into the Public Body’s response, including its search for responsive records. The inquiry addressed the Public Body’s application of section 17(1), as well as its decision to not provide information to the Applicant as non-responsive and its search for records. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body conducted an adequate search for records. The Adjudicator agreed that the information identified by the Public Body as non-responsive was not responsive to the Applicant’s request. The Adjudicator also found that the Public Body properly withheld information under section 17(1).

An individual (the Applicant) made a request for access to certain information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act or the Act) to the St. Albert School Division (the Public Body). The Public Body responded to the Applicant’s access request, withholding some information under section 17(1) of the FOIP Act (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). In addition, some information was withheld as “non-responsive”. The Applicant then submitted nine Requests for Review asking this Office to review the Public Body’s decision to withhold the information under section 17 and its determination that some of the information was non-responsive. The Commissioner appointed a Senior Information and Privacy Manager (SIPM) to investigate and settle the matter. The Applicant and the Public Body entered into a settlement agreement regarding the Applicant’s resignation from his employment. A term of the settlement agreement was that the Applicant would withdraw his requests for information, complaints and applications under the FOIP Act. Subsequently, the SIPM completed the investigation and issued their findings. The Applicant was not satisfied with the outcome and requested that the Commissioner conduct an inquiry into the Public Body’s response to his access request. In his Request for Inquiry, the Applicant advised that he had entered into a settlement agreement with the Public Body; however, he took the position that the settlement agreement was null and void. The Public Body asked the Commissioner to close the file on the basis that it was a term of the settlement agreement the Applicant signed that he would withdraw all privacy complaints and FOIP requests before this Office. The Commissioner decided to conduct an inquiry, with the first issue being “[w]hat effect does a settlement agreement have on exercising rights under the Act?” This issue would consider whether parties can contract out of their rights and obligations under the FOIP Act. The Adjudicator determined that as a matter of public policy, the Public Body could not contract out of its obligations under the FOIP Act, and could not require the Applicant to withdraw his Request for Review or his Request for Inquiry into the Public Body’s response to his access request before this Office as a term of the settlement agreement. The Adjudicator determined that the settlement agreement did not oust the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to review the Public Body’s responses to the Applicant’s access request, and advised the parties that the matter would proceed to the second stage of the inquiry.

An Applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton (Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP Act), on August 11, 2023. By February 2, 2024, the Public Body had not responded to the Applicant’s request and the Applicant requested a review of the Public Body’s failure to respond. The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to respond to the Applicant’s access request as required by the Act.

The Applicants requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act) to all records in the possession of Edmonton School Division (the Public Body) relating to their son and themselves, including emails both internal and external. The Public Body located responsive records. It provided the Applicants with access to the records, although it withheld some information from the records under section 4 (records to which this Act applies), section 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), 24 (advice from officials, and section 27 (privileged information) of the FOIP Act. The Applicants requested review of the Public Body’s severing decisions. The Adjudicator found that section 4 of the FOIP Act did not apply to the information to which the Public Body applied this provision. The Adjudicator found that most of the information withheld under section 17 was properly withheld. The Adjudicator found that some information to which the Public Body had applied section 24 fell within the terms of this provision but it was unclear as to why the Public Body had exercised its discretion in favor of withholding the information. The Adjudicator found that it was likely that the Public Body was authorized to withhold information over which it claimed solicitor-client privilege under section 27(1)(a).

The Applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act) to Calgary Heritage Housing Foundation for access to records that included information about complaints made about them. In response Calgary Heritage Housing Foundation disclosed records with exceptions applied to them under section 17 of the Act. The Adjudicator found that a number of documents were duplicated and that the exceptions were not applied consistently throughout the records. The Adjudicator found that exceptions did not apply to information that has already been released; however, the information in the documents that are not duplicates has been withheld properly as disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of third parties.

An Applicant made an access request to the Alberta Energy Regulator (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP Act) for a briefing note prepared by named individuals. The Public Body provided responsive records with information withheld under section 24(1). The Applicant requested an inquiry into the Public Body’s decision to withhold information in the records. The Adjudicator found that the information withheld in the records consists of the type of information to which section 24(1)(a) applies, but that some of the information had been disclosed to the Applicant elsewhere in the records at issue. The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to review the withheld information in the context of the records in their entirety, to determine what information has already been disclosed elsewhere in the records. The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to disclose those portions of the withheld information to the Applicant.

The Applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (the Custodian) under the Health Information Act (HIA) for specified medical records. The requested records relate to the Applicant’s mother. On the access request form, the Applicant indicated that he is a personal representative of the deceased individual (his mother), and that the information relates to the administration of the individual’s estate. The Custodian responded to the request, providing responsive records with some information withheld under sections 11(1)(b) and 11(2)(a) of the HIA. The Applicant requested an inquiry into the Custodian’s response. With his request for inquiry, the Applicant argued that the information he is seeking consists of allegations made about him, concerning his mother. The Applicant argued that this is not his mother’s health information under the HIA. The Adjudicator considered whether the HIA or the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applied, determining that the HIA was the appropriate statute. The Adjudicator found that the Custodian properly applied section 11(1)(b) to the information in the records. As such, the Adjudicator didn’t need to consider the application of section 11(2) to the same information.

An Applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act) for the Contract between the Public Body and PCL (the Third Party) for the construction of the LRT Metro Line Northwest. The Public Body invited the Third Party to provide input regarding disclosure of the records relating to the Third Party. The Third Party proposed that specific information in the records be withheld under section 16(1). The Public Body informed the Third Party of its decisions regarding access, and the Third Party requested a review by this office of the Public Body’s decision to disclose some information. The Third Party subsequently requested an inquiry. The Adjudicator found that section 16(1) does not apply to the information at issue and ordered the Public Body to disclose it to the Applicant.

An individual had a claim with the Workers’ Compensation Board (the WCB) under the Workers’ Compensation Act (the “WCA”) relating to an injury. The Complainant made a complaint to this office that the WCB disclosed his medical information to the Alberta College and Association of Chiropractors (now the College of Chiropractors of Alberta, or CCOA), without authority under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP Act).The Adjudicator found that some of the information at issue was not personal information of the Complainant. However, some of the information disclosed by the WCB to the CCOA was the Complainant’s personal information; with respect to this information, the Adjudicator found that the WCB did not have authority under the FOIP Act to disclose it to the CCOA.

On January 22, 2018, an individual made an access request on behalf of Alberta Prison Justice Society (formerly Alberta Prisoners Legal Services ) (the Applicant) to Public Safety and Emergency Services (formerly Justice and Solicitor General) (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act), for all information relating to a hunger strike, complaints of the prisoners and investigations into the complaints, which were referred to in an article dated January 11, 2018 from the Edmonton Sun. The Public Body responded by providing some responsive information and withholding other responsive information under section 17(1) (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), and sections 20(1)(k) and 20(1)(m) (disclosure harmful to law enforcement).  The Applicant requested a review and subsequently an inquiry of the Public Body’s response. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body properly applied section 17(1) to withhold the personal information of the third parties. The Adjudicator found that neither section 20(1)(k) nor section 20(1)(m) applied to the information the Public Body withheld pursuant to these sections.  The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to give the Applicant access to information it withheld under these sections.

On April 5, 2016, an individual (the Applicant) made an access request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) to the City of Edmonton (the Public Body) for certain information. The Public Body located 22 pages of responsive records.  It provided some records to the Applicant, but also withheld some information under sections 17(1) (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), and 27(1)(a) (privileged information) of the Act. The Applicant requested a review and subsequently an inquiry into the Public Body’s decision to withhold the information. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body had properly applied section 17(1) and section 27(1)(a) to withhold the information.

The Complainant made a complaint against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 424 (the Union) to the Alberta Human Rights Commission (the Public Body) under the Alberta Human Rights Act. The Union was represented in the human rights complaint by a law firm (the Law Firm). The Complainant provided the Public Body with a medical report containing her personal information, and copied the Public Body on three emails she sent to her lawyer (collectively, the Records).  The Public Body included the Records in a four volume set of documents it provided to the Complainant and the Law Firm. Subsequently, the Complainant complained to this Office that the Public Body contravened the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) when it “released” the four volume set of documents containing the Records with her personal information, to the Chief of the Commission and Tribunals (the AHR Chief Commissioner). The Complainant also complained that the Public Body contravened the Act when it disclosed the four volume set of documents containing the Records with her personal information, to the Law Firm for the Union. The Adjudicator determined that the Complainant’s complaint with respect to the use or disclosure of her personal information to the AHR Chief did not make sense under the Act and could not be sustained. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body did not contravene the Act when it disclosed the Complainant’s personal information in the Records to the Law Firm for the Union.

The Alberta Court of Appeal quashed the decision in Order F2020-17 and remitted the matter back to the Information and Privacy Commissioner for further consideration of whether the Public Body properly withheld information under section 21(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. F-25 (the Act). The Court of Appeal found that the RCMP, which provided the information at issue to the Public Body, was a local government body as listed in section 21(1)(a)(ii), for the purposes of section 21(1)(b). Upon further consideration, the Adjudicator found that the Edmonton Police Service (the Public Body) applied section 21(1)(b) to information within its parameters, but failed to properly exercise its discretion to withhold information under that section. In particular, the Public Body’s reliance on its presumption that the RCMP would not consent to disclosure under section 21(3) was an irrelevant consideration. The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to reconsider its decision to withhold discretion, and to seek consent to disclose information as required under section 21(3) of the Act if it found any previously withheld information should be disclosed.

In 2014, the Applicant made an access to information request (the initial request) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) to the University of Alberta (the Public Body). The Public Body responded to that access request, providing records with some redactions. In 2019, the Applicant made another request (the current request) to the Public Body seeking unredacted versions of the records provided in response to the initial request. The Public Body elected not to process the current request and instead offered the Applicant a copy of its response to the initial request. The Applicant argued that the Public Body failed to meet its duty under section 10(1) (duty to assist applicants) of the Act. The Adjudicator found that providing a copy of the response to the initial request did not fulfil the duty to respond to the current request as required by section 10(1). Since the time of the initial request the circumstances relevant to withholding information may have changed, rendering those redactions inapplicable in response to the current request. Neither does the Act bar repetitious requests. The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to respond to the current request considering the circumstances that apply to it, not those that applied to the initial request.

The Applicant made an access request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act) for a copy of a Final Report in which her complaint that her research contributions to four scholarly articles had not been acknowledged, was dismissed. The Public Body refused to provide the Final Report on the basis that the Final Report was a “communication” by a person acting in a “quasi-judicial capacity” within the terms of section 4(1)(b) of the FOIP Act. The Applicant requested review by the Commissioner. The Adjudicator determined the Final Report did not fall within the terms of section 4(1)(b), as it was the final decision of a decision maker that was not acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. Having found that the Final Report was not exempt from the FOIP Act, the Adjudicator directed the Public Body to include the Final Report in its response to the Applicant.

An Applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act) for a record showing what the Public Body is paying Prestige Transport for Disabled Adult Transportation Services (DATS). The Public Body invited Prestige Transportation Ltd. to make written representations as to why the information should not be disclosed. Prestige Transportation objected to the disclosure of certain parts of the record under section 16 of the Act. The Public Body agreed to redact the certain information under section 16(1) of the FOIP Act. However, the Public Body found that some information could not be withheld under that provision. Prestige Transportation requested a review of the Public Body’s decision, and subsequently an inquiry. The Adjudicator found that section 16(1) does not apply to the information in the record at issue.

The Applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP Act) for records relating to patients hospitalized with COVID-19, as well as records relating to the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccinations. The Public Body located one page of responsive records, which was provided to the Applicant. The Public Body informed the Applicant that no further responsive records were located. The Public Body also informed the Applicant that Alberta Health is likely to have responsive records. The Applicant requested a review of the search for records conducted by the Public Body, and subsequently an inquiry. The Adjudicator found the Public Body met its duty to assist the Applicant by conducting an adequate search for responsive records.

An Applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP Act) to Service Alberta (now Service Alberta and Red Tape Reduction) (the Public Body) for records and correspondence between the Alberta Real Estate Association and Service Alberta. A Third Party requested a review by this office of the Public Body’s decision to disclose information affecting that Third Party. The Adjudicator found that the information withheld under section 16(1) is not commercial, financial, or labour relations information as argued by the Third Party; nor is it any other type of information listed under section 16(1)(a). The Adjudicator ordered this information to be provided to the Applicant. The Adjudicator found that most of the information about individuals in the records was not personal information to which section 17(1) can apply. However, the Adjudicator found that some discrete items of information was information to which section 17(1) applied. The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to review the records and sever this information before providing its final response to the Applicant.

An individual made a request to the Town of Two Hills (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP Act) for specific records relating to particular bylaws, and records relating to a particular property. The Public Body provided responsive records but withheld some information under section 17(1). The Applicant requested an inquiry into the Public Body’s response. The Adjudicator determined that she had insufficient information to determine whether section 17(1) applies to the information withheld by the Public Body. The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to review the records and make a new determination regarding the application of section 17(1).

The City of Calgary (the Public Body) received several access requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act) for records regarding a request for proposals (RFP) to operate e-scooter businesses in Calgary. The Public Body notified Bird Canada (the Third Party), an e-Scooter business whose proposal was successful, that it was considering disclosing information from its proposal to the requestors who made access requests. Bird made representations as to why particular information should not be disclosed. The Public Body decided to grant access to some information that was the subject of objections by Bird, but agreed to withhold other information. Bird asked the Commissioner to review the Public Body’s decision to grant access to the requestors. The Adjudicator determined that the information at issue was subject to section 16(1). The Adjudicator confirmed that the Public Body was required by section 16(1) of the FOIP Act to withhold the information at issue.

An individual made a request to Alberta Energy (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP Act) for “all notes, memos, emails, text messages, briefings, etc. regarding transition payments paid to generating unit operators under off-coal agreements in Alberta.” The Public Body responded, providing 170 pages of responsive records with information withheld under sections 16, 17, 20, 22, 24, 25, and 27 of the FOIP Act. The Applicant requested a review of the Public Body’s decision to withhold information on specific pages. A Senior Information and Privacy Manager was assigned to investigate and attempt to settle the matter. Prior to the end of the Manager’s review, the Commissioner decided that the issue of the Public Body’s claim of privilege under section 27(1)(a) would proceed to inquiry. In Order F2023-16, resulting from the first part of the inquiry, the Adjudicator accepted the Public Body’s claim of privilege under section 27(1)(a) with respect to most of the records, but found that the Public Body did not provide sufficient support for its claim of litigation privilege over several records (pages 29-31, 81, and 122). The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to review these records and respond to the Applicant without relying on section 27(1)(a). The Adjudicator also retained jurisdiction to review the Public Body’s new response to the Applicant, should the Applicant ask the Adjudicator to do so. The Public Body complied with the Order and provided the Applicant with new copies of pages 29-31, 81, and 122. The Public Body applied sections 24 and 25 to the information previously withheld under section 27. In accordance with Order F2023-16, the Applicant requested a review of the Public Body’s new decisions. The Public Body provided the Adjudicator with a copy of the records at issue for the inquiry. In the course of the second part of this inquiry, the Adjudicator was notified that the public body responsible for the records at issue is now Affordability and Utilities. The Adjudicator found that section 24(1) applied to some information in the records, but not all of the information to which that provision was applied. The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to disclose some additional information to the Applicant. The Adjudicator also ordered the Public Body to re-exercise its discretion to apply section 24(1). The Adjudicator found that section 25(1) did not apply to the information in the records.

An individual (the Applicant) made an access request to the Calgary Police Service (the Public Body). The Public Body provided the Applicant with responsive records while withholding some information under sections 17(1), 18(1)(a), 18(3), 20(1)(c), 20(1)(f), 20(1)(m), 24(1)(a), 24(1)(b), and 27(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act). The Public Body also refused to confirm or deny the existence of further records related to one of its employees (Employee 14) under section 12(2)(a) of the Act. At the time of inquiry, the Public Body was no longer withholding information under section 20(1)(f). The Adjudicator found that the Public Body properly utilized section 12(2)(a), and properly withheld information under sections 18(1)(a), 20(1)(c), and 27(1)(a). In light of changes to the interpretation of section 20(1)(m) the Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to reconsider whether information withheld under that section could be withheld under section 25(1)(c)(i). The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to disclose to the Applicant information improperly withheld under section 17(1). The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to disclose to the Applicant information improperly withheld under sections 24(1)(a) and (b), and to reconsider its discretion to withhold any information under those sections.

The Applicant made an access request to Justice (formerly Justice and Solicitor General) (the Public Body) for “all records relating to the prosecution of Syncrude for the bird landings in a tailing pond in April 2008” with a time period of April 1^st, 2008 to December 21^st, 2010.  The request was narrowed/clarified to “records showing how the sentence was determined (e.g. work done by the prosecutor to determine a fit and proper sentence and/or discussion between the prosecutor and defence counsel)”.  The time period was from August 1, 2010 to October 31^st, 2010. The Public Body responded by denying access to all of the information under sections 27(1)(a) and 27(2) of the Act, citing solicitor-client privilege. The Applicant requested a review of the Public Body’s decision. Following this review, the Applicant requested an inquiry. In the course of the inquiry the Public Body acknowledged that the majority of the records identified by the Public Body as responsive (and discussed in the Public Body’s submissions to the inquiry) were not actually responsive to the Applicant’s request. Based on the Public Body’s submissions to the inquiry, the question of whether the Public Body met its duty to assist the applicant was added to the inquiry. The Public Body also added a claim of settlement privilege over the portion of the record that was responsive to the Applicant’s narrowed request. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body did not meet its duty to assist the Applicant, and ordered the Public Body to conduct a new search for responsive records. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body’s evidence was insufficient to find that it properly claimed solicitor-client privilege over the responsive portion of the records at issue. The Adjudicator also found that the Public Body’s evidence was insufficient to find that the Public Body properly claimed settlement privilege over the responsive portion of the records at issue. The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to review those records and respond to the Applicant in accordance with directions in the Order. The Adjudicator further ordered the Public Body to provide the Adjudicator with a copy of its new response to the Applicant, along with a copy of the unredacted records at issue so that a final determination could be made regarding the Public Body’s application of section 27.

The Applicant made the following access request to Justice (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act): On September 22, 2016, […], Crown Prosecutor, directed the court clerk to stay the indictment no. 150070167Ql, in which (the Applicant] was accused of sexual assault. [The Applicant] requests disclosure of reasons for the decision not to prosecute under section 20(6) of the FOIP Act. The police investigation has long since been completed, and (the Applicant], as the accused, knew of and had a significant interest in the investigation. ln determining the proper exercise of the exemption from disclosure of this information, I would ask [the Public Body] to consider whether or not the reasons for the decision were disclosed to any other person, such as the police, the complainant, witnesses, or other public bodies. The Public Body located 14 pages of records, but withheld all information under section 20(1)(g). Some information was also withheld under section 17(1). It stated: There were a total of 14 pages responsive to your request. Unfortunately, access to these records is refused under the following section(s) of the FOIP Act Section 17(1) - Disclosure harmful to personal privacy, Section 20(1)(g) - Disclosure harmful to law enforcement. We have included a copy of the relevant sections of the FOIP Act to explain why information was withheld. The Public Body attached the statutory exceptions to disclosure it had applied to its response. The Public Body did not provide reasons for its refusal to release information under section 20(6) although it also attached this provision to the response. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body had not demonstrated that it properly exercised its discretion when it withheld the records under section 20(1)(g). The Adjudicator also ordered the Public Body to reconsider its decisions in relation to section 17 and to consider whether it was possible to sever personally identifying information under section 6(2).  

On March 12, 2018, the Applicant, a former employee of Alberta Health Services (the Public Body) requested records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act) regarding his employment. The Public Body responded to the Applicant, but severed information from the records under section 27(1)(a) (privileged information). The Applicant requested review. The Adjudicator issued Order F2022-28 on June 8, 2022. This order directed the Public Body either to give the Applicant access to the information in the records or to provide detailed submissions for the inquiry covering the points in the Privilege Practice Note, and to meet its duty under section 56(3) of the FOIP Act by providing the records described by the Public Body as having been sent to or sent by the Applicant for the Adjudicator’s review. The Public Body elected to provide detailed submissions for the inquiry covering the points in the Privilege Practice Note and to meet its duty under section 56(3) by providing records sent to or from the Applicant for the Adjudicator’s review. The inquiry reconvened. The parties provided both initial and reply submissions. The Public Body refused to provide records over which it claimed settlement privilege. The Adjudicator added the issue of whether the Public Body was under a duty to provide records over which it claimed settlement privilege to the Commissioner under section 56(3) of the FOIP Act. The Public Body made allegations of bias and that it had been denied procedural fairness. In Decision F2023-D-01, the Adjudicator determined that the Public Body had not been denied procedural fairness and had not established that it had a reasonable apprehension of bias. She determined that the inquiry would proceed. The Adjudicator determined that settlement privilege is a privilege of the law of evidence within the terms of section 56(3) and ordered the Public Body to provide the records over which it claimed settlement privilege, but not solicitor-client privilege, for the Adjudicator’s review in the inquiry, pursuant to section 56(3).

The Applicant made a request for access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act) to the Calgary Police Commission (the Public Body) for records in the custody of the Calgary Police Service relating to complaints he had made to the Public Body. The Public Body informed the Applicant that it was unable to obtain the records the Applicant was seeking. The Public Body searched for, and provided, records it did have in its custody with the Applicant’s personal information. The Public Body directed the Applicant to the Calgary Police Service for records in the custody of that public body. The Applicant asked the Commissioner to review the matter. The Commissioner’s delegated adjudicator found that the Public Body did not have custody or control over the records the Applicant was seeking. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body had met its duty to assist the Applicant.

On March 22, 2021, the Calgary Police Service (the Public Body) received an access request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) from an applicant (the Applicant), for certain information. On April 20, 2021, the Public Body informed the Applicant that it was extending the deadline to respond to the Applicant pursuant to section 14(1)(b) of the Act, due to a large number of records to be searched and processed. On April 20, 2021, the Applicant requested this Office review the Public Body’s decision to extend the time to respond to his access request under section 14(1)(b) of the Act. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body properly extended the time limit for responding to a request as authorized by section 14(1)(b) of the Act.

The Applicant made a request to the Calgary Police Service for access to all of the Applicant's personal information located in the CPS FOIP Administration files related to any and all CPS FOIP requests she had made at any time to the CPS since the beginning of 2003. The CPS responded by providing correspondence with the Applicant about the access requests and re-release of all records that were previously provided to the Applicant for every access request processed since 2010 (advising that pre-2010 records had been destroyed according to retention requirements). The CPS did not provide records concerning the internal administrative handling of the requests, as it did not consider those records to be responsive to a request for personal information. The Applicant requested review on the basis that the CPS had interpreted her request too narrowly when it interpreted “personal information” in the context of the request as having the meaning it had been assigned by earlier decisions of this office. The Applicant also stated that the CPS should have provided information in the files that had been withheld from her in previous requests as it existed in the administration files, or alternatively it should have provided the reasons for withholding the information. She also stated her belief that more information existed in the files that had not been provided to her (or that it had been inappropriately destroyed), referring in particular to information that she had provided in support of a correction request she had made to CPS. The Adjudicator held that CPS had interpreted “personal information” in the context of the access request appropriately, as the interpretation was in accordance with earlier decisions of this office. She also held that CPS was not required to again specify the reasons for withholding information it had withheld in earlier requests. The Adjudicator also found that CPS’s explanations for why it was unable to locate the information that the Applicant had provided to it in support of the correction request was inadequate. She ordered CPS to consider whether there might be more information as to what may have happened to these records, and to conduct a new search if this consideration made such a course reasonable. Otherwise, she ordered it to provide any other information available to it that would explain why neither the records nor information about what became of them could be located.

The Applicant, the Criminal Trial Lawyers’ Association (CTLA) made an access request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act) to the Calgary Police Service (the Public Body). The Applicant requested: Access to information relating to the Calgary Police Service's reaction to the comments of the Judge in the R. v. Girbav matter [R. v. Girbav, 2012 ABPC 219] (Girbav) as well as the reaction to [the Applicant’s representative’s] letters of October 17, 2012 and February 24, 2017 and the administrative review and recommendations and administrative conclusion referred to by the Chief in his letter of April 18, 2017. The Public Body located responsive records. It responded to the Applicant on January 2, 2019. It withheld some information under sections 17(1) (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), 24 (advice from officials), and 27 (privileged information). The Applicant requested review by the Commissioner. The Commissioner authorized a senior information and privacy manager to investigate and attempt to settle the matter. At the conclusion of this process, the Applicant requested an inquiry into the fact that the Public Body did not apply section 17(5)(a) of the FOIP Act when making its decision. The Adjudicator found that section 17(5)(a) had not been demonstrated to apply and confirmed the Public Body’s decision to apply section 17(1) to the personal information in the records.

On May 27, 2020, the Applicant made lengthy and detailed access requests for records to different public bodies. The access requests related to the Government of Alberta’s implementation of COVID-19 measures and the evidence on which it had relied. The Public Bodies determined that the requests should be transferred to Health for response under section 15 of the FOIP Act. On September 21, 2022, the Applicant requested that the Commissioner review the Public Body’s failure to respond to the access requests. The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to respond to the Applicant’s access requests.

An individual (the Applicant) made an access request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) to the Town of Irricana (the Public Body). The Applicant alleged that the Public Body failed to respond to her access request in time, as required under section 11 of the Act. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body failed to respond to the access request within the timelines provided for under the Act. While the Public Body complied with section 11(1) regarding one requested record, it failed to comply with regard to the remainder of the requested information. The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to respond to the access request as required by the Act.

The Applicant made two requests for access to information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act) for records relating to the City of Calgary’s (the Public Body) decision to approve a secondary suite in the Applicant’s cul-de-sac. The Public Body searched for records and provided what it located to the Applicant. The Applicant requested a review by the Commissioner. The Public Body conducted an additional search for responsive records. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records. She confirmed that the Public Body had met its duty to assist the Applicant under the FOIP Act.

An Applicant made five access requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) to the Alberta Energy Regulator (the Public Body). The Public Body responded to the fifth request, which is not at issue in this inquiry. The Public Body received permission to extend the time to respond to one request (request 0001), on two occasions. This request is not directly at issue in this inquiry. The Public Body also received permission to extend the time to respond to the remaining three requests (requests 0002-0004) on one occasion, but was denied the second time. This inquiry relates to these three requests. The Applicant requested a review of the time taken by the Public Body to respond to the remaining three requests. During the inquiry the Public Body stated that it had determined that request 0001 also encompassed requests 0002-0004 such that it decided to amalgamate the remaining four requests into one (request 0001). The Applicant requested that this decision be added to the inquiry. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body did not meet its duty to assist the Applicant when it decided to amalgamate four of the Applicant’s requests into one, without the Applicant’s express consent. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body failed to make every reasonable effort to respond to requests 0002-0004 within the timelines provided in the Act.

On July 12, 2018, the Applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (now Public Safety and Emergency Services) (the Public Body) for the following: [R]ecords of communications related to 2 appeals to the Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board (LERB) of the dispositions of 2 complaints I made to the Professional Standards Branch (PSB) of the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). The records will mostly be emails, but they could also consists of letters, notes, or other written documents. Excluding duplicate records. The Public Body responded to the access request on May 9, 2019. It severed some information from the records it located under sections 4 and 17 of the FOIP Act. The Applicant requested a review of the timing of the Public Body’s response and the adequacy of its search. He also requested review of the Public Body’s decisions to apply sections 4 and 17. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records. The Adjudicator confirmed the decision of the Public Body to sever the personally identifying information of third parties from the records; however, she noted that the records the Public Body had severed under section 17 had not been requested by the Applicant and were also “nonresponsive”. The Adjudicator found that section 4(1)(a) applied to a decision made by a member of the Court of Appeal regarding leave to appeal. The Adjudicator determined that the Public Body’s response to the access request did not comply with section 11; however, as it had responded, there would be no purpose served by issuing an order regarding its noncompliance.

On August 31, 2022, an applicant (the Applicant) made an access request to Environment and Protected Areas (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act), for certain information. On April 25, 2023, the Applicant requested a review by this Office, indicating that the time limit for responding to the access request under the Act had expired and the Public Body had not provided a response. The Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to respond to the Applicant’s access request as required by the Act.

The Complainant made a complaint under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) that the Alberta Motor Vehicle Industry Council (AMVIC or the Public Body) disclosed his personal information to a reporter for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (the CBC) in contravention of the Act. Specifically, he complained that the Public Body provided copies of Informations sworn by a peace officer, which contained his personal information, to a CBC reporter in contravention of the Act. The Adjudicator determined that section 4(1)(a) of the Act applied to the Informations and therefore, the Informations were excluded from the application of the Act. Accordingly, the Adjudicator determined she did not have the jurisdiction to consider the Complainant’s complaint regarding the disclosure of the Informations, or the disclosure of information which had as its source the Informations, by the Public Body to the CBC reporter.

The applicant made an access request to the University of Calgary. The applicant requested a review of the University of Calgary’s failure to respond. The Adjudicator ordered the University of Calgary to respond to the applicant’s access request as required by FOIP.

The applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton. The applicant requested a review of the City of Edmonton’s failure to respond. The Adjudicator ordered the City of Edmonton to respond to the applicant’s access request as required by FOIP.

An individual made a complaint that several public bodies collected, used and disclosed his personal information in contravention of FOIP when emails he sent to the public bodies were redirected to an employee of Justice (now Public Safety and Emergency Services) without the complainant’s knowledge. The Commissioner named Service Alberta, Children’s Services, Agriculture and Forestry as responding public bodies, in addition to Public Safety and Emergency Services (the Public Bodies). The Adjudicator found that the Public Bodies had collected, used, and disclosed the complainant’s personal information in compliance with Part 2 of FOIP.

The applicant made an access request to the Village of Edgerton for his own personal information. The Village of Edgerton responded, advising the applicant that “there is a $25.00 administration fee for this, as well you are responsible for paying all costs [associated] with copying relevant documents, and you are responsible for paying costs associated with my time being spent redacting documents”. The applicant argued that his request was for his own personal information, and also requested that fees be waived. The Adjudicator found that the applicant’s request was for personal information, and ordered the Village of Edgerton to process the applicant’s request accordingly.

The applicant made an access request to Justice, now Public Safety and Emergency Services, for CCTV footage of an incident in which he had been involved at the Calgary Remand Centre on November 29, 2015. A video compiled from footage was located, but not the original CCTV footage. Public Safety and Emergency Services withheld the video it did locate in its entirety under section 20 (disclosure harmful to law enforcement). Public Safety and Emergency Services took the position that the video would reveal blind spots in its video surveillance system, as well as law enforcement tactics and the layout of the Calgary Remand Centre, if it were disclosed. In particular, it argued that disclosure could reasonably be expected to facilitate the escape from custody of an individual who is being lawfully detained, facilitate the commission of an unlawful act or hamper the control of crime, or harm the security of any property or system, including a building, a vehicle, a computer system or a communications system, as contemplated by sections 20(1)(j), (k), and (m) of FOIP. The Adjudicator determined that it had not been established in the inquiry that disclosing the video footage the applicant had requested would reasonably be expected to result in harms contemplated by section 20 of FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Public Safety and Emergency Services to give the applicant access to the video. The Adjudicator also determined that Public Safety and Emergency Services had not properly considered whether it was possible to sever information from the video, as required by section 6(2) of FOIP.

The applicant made an access request to Justice for copies of written communications between Justice employees about him regarding a talk given at a conference in Edmonton, and/or communications containing a particular attachment. Justice withheld responsive records in their entirety, citing section 4(1)(a) of FOIP. Justice refused to provide records for the inquiry, stating that the records were not in its custody or control. The first part of this inquiry resulted in Order F2022-33. In this second part of the inquiry, the Adjudicator found that Justice did not have custody or control of the records, except the 26 pages identified by Justice. With respect to the 26 pages that were within Justice’s custody and control, the Adjudicator found that section 4(1)(a) applied and as a result were records not subject to FOIP.

An individual made a request to Alberta Energy (Energy) for “all notes, memos, emails, text messages, briefings, etc. regarding transition payments paid to generating unit operators under off-coal agreements in Alberta.” Energy responded, with information withheld under sections 16, 17, 20, 22, 24, 25 and 27. Some information was also withheld as non-responsive. The Commissioner decided that the issue of Energy’s claim of privilege under section 27(1)(a) would proceed to inquiry. The Adjudicator accepted Energy’s claim of privilege under section 27(1)(a) with respect to most of the records, but found that Energy did not provide sufficient support for its claim of litigation privilege over several records.

The applicant made an access request to Children’s Services for records relating to herself and her daughter. Children’s Services initially withheld all information on the basis of privilege. When its initial submissions were due for this inquiry, Children’s Services decided that most of the records were not subject to privilege. It provided access to most of the records but withheld information under sections 17, 18, 21, 24, and 27 of FOIP. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

This inquiry relates to information in the possession of the Calgary Police Service (CPS) relating to a specified RCMP file, which the applicant requested a second time after the related prosecution had been completed. This order relates to the second part of the inquiry. The first part of the inquiry resulted in Order F2021-19. In Order F2021-19, the Adjudicator reserved jurisdiction to decide whether section 17(1) applied to withheld information in a number of instances in which the Adjudicator determined that third parties whose information was at issue should be notified. The Adjudicator held that some of this information should be disclosed, and that some of it, although it had been provided to the CPS for the purposes of the response to the access request, was not in the CPS’s custody or control at the time the request was made, nor was it responsive to the terms of the applicant’s access request.

The applicant made a request to Children’s Services for family services records relating to her. Children’s Services provided responsive records, with information withheld under sections 4(1)(a) (records in a court file), 17(1) (invasion of third party privacy), 21 (harm to intergovernmental relations), and 27 (privileged information) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that some of the information withheld under section 17(1) is not information to which that provision applies. The Adjudicator also found section 17(1) did not apply to information that had been supplied to Children’s Services by the applicant. The Adjudicator upheld the Children’s Services’ application of section 17(1) to the remaining information. The Adjudicator found that section 21(1) did not apply to the information in the records. The Adjudicator found that Children’s Services properly applied section 27(1)(a) to the information in the records.

The applicant made an access request to Agriculture and Irrigation. The applicant requested a review of Agriculture and Irrigation's failure to respond to the request under FOIP. The Adjudicator found that Agriculture and Irrigation failed to make every reasonable effort to respond within the timelines provided in the Act.

The applicant submitted an access request to Energy. The applicant did not receive a response from Energy within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator found that Energy failed to comply with section 11, but had since responded to the access request.

The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for a 911 call, and all video-audio and handwritten records from the initial 911 call to patient hand over at the Misericordia hospital. AHS responded and provided the applicant with a recording of the 911 call and records it located.  It informed the applicant that although ambulances are equipped with cameras in the patient compartment, there was no functionality to record audio or video. The Adjudicator found that AHS had conducted an adequate search for the 911 call and for any video-audio from the ambulance patient compartment, but had failed to conduct an adequate search for any handwritten records.  The Adjudicator ordered AHS to conduct a further search for any responsive handwritten records. The Adjudicator found there was no obligation for AHS to create the record requested by the applicant.

The applicant made an access request to Energy under FOIP. The applicant requested a review of Energy’s failure to respond. The Adjudicator ordered Energy to respond to the applicant’s access request as required by FOIP.

Individuals made complaints that the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) disclosed their personal information to members of the media. In particular, they complained that the EPS had referred to them as “persons of interest” in relation to a criminal investigation in which EPS had executed search warrants on properties they owned. At inquiry, EPS argued that it had disclosed the complainants’ personal information for purposes consistent with its original purpose in collecting the complainants’ personal information. It also argued that it was not an invasion of personal privacy to disclose the information and also argued that the information that was disclosed was publicly available in any event. The Adjudicator found that EPS had not disclosed the complainants’ personal information for a purpose consistent with the purposes for which it was collected. The Adjudicator also found that the disclosure was an invasion of personal privacy within the terms of section 17(1) of FOIP and that the information disclosed was not available to the public at the time of disclosure.

The applicant made an access request under FOIP to Environment and Parks (now Environment and Protected Areas) for records between Environment and Protected Areas and the Strategic Alliance Vendor consortium. Environment and Protected Areas searched for and located responsive records. It applied sections 24(1) (advice from officials) and 25 (disclosure harmful to economic and other interests) of FOIP to withhold some information from the applicant. The Adjudicator confirmed that section 24(1) applied to the information to which Environment and Protected Areas had applied this provision, but found that Environment and Protected Areas had not demonstrated that it had exercised its discretion reasonably when it elected to withhold the information. The Adjudicator found that section 25 did not apply to the information to which Environment and Protected Areas had applied this provision and directed it to disclose any information withheld solely under this provision. The Adjudicator also directed Environment and Protected Areas to meet its duty to assist the applicant by conducting a search for records that includes records relating to the meetings referenced in the records and providing an account of its search.

The applicant submitted an access request for certain information to Public Safety and Emergency Services (formerly Justice and Solicitor General). The applicant indicated that the time limit for responding to the access request under FOIP had expired and Public Safety and Emergency Services had not provided a response. The Adjudicator ordered Public Safety and Emergency Services to respond to the applicant’s access request as required by the Act.

The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (now Public Safety and Emergency Services) for particular reports of the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT). Public Safety and Emergency Services responded, with information withheld citing disclosure harmful to personal privacy under FOIP (section 17(1)). The Adjudicator found that Public Safety and Emergency Services properly applied section 17(1) to most, but not all, information withheld under that provision.

The applicant made an access request to the Public Service Commissioner (PSC) for records in the applicant’s personnel file. PSC did not respond to the applicant under FOIP although it contacted the applicant regarding obtaining the requested records through processes other than those governed by FOIP. The Adjudicator directed PSC to respond to the applicant.

The applicant made an access to information request to Alberta Energy. Alberta Energy extended time to respond to the access request under section 14(1)(b) and obtained a further extension to the deadline to respond from the OIPC. Alberta Energy failed to respond to the access request within the extended time period. The applicant complained that Alberta Energy failed to comply with section 11 of the Act (time to respond). Alberta Energy admitted that it failed to comply with section 11, but had since responded to the access request.

The applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for information relating to him as a former EPS employee. EPS responded to the request, providing 1,886 pages of records, as well as a video recording. Some information was withheld under sections 17(1), 20(1), 21(1), 23(1), 24(1) and 27(1) of FOIP. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

The applicant made two access requests to the City of Edmonton for notes and actions taken by bylaw enforcement officers regarding two addresses. The City of Edmonton refused to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records on the basis that doing so would be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy under section 12(2)(b) of FOIP. The Adjudicator determined that confirming the existence of responsive records would not disclose personal information, and ordered the City of Edmonton to respond to the applicant without reliance on section 12(2)(b).

On judicial review of Order F2017-58, the Court of Queen’s Bench quashed and remitted the order in part. In this reconsideration, Edmonton Police Service (EPS) claimed solicitor-client privilege over six pages of records over which privilege had not been claimed in the initial inquiry or judicial review proceeding. The Adjudicator noted that section 17(1) of FOIP applied to three pages of those records in their entirety, such that the claim of privilege need not be decided. With respect to the remaining three pages of records, the Adjudicator concluded that the court limited the reconsideration to EPS' application of section 17(1). The Adjudicator found that section 17(1) applied to some of the information in the records at issue but not all.

The applicant made an access request to the City of Calgary for a study/report for Hillhurst/Sunnyside, prepared by Coriolis Consulting Corp. The City of Calgary provided the applicant with a copy of the report marked “draft". The applicant advised the City of Calgary that she was seeking the final version of the report. The City of Calgary conducted additional searches and informed the applicant that the draft report was the only version of the report that it had. The Adjudicator found that the City of Calgary did not conduct an adequate search for a final version of the report under section 10(1) of FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered the City of Calgary to conduct a further search.

The applicant made an access request to Environment and Protected Areas for for all records related to the Saddle Hills Target Sports Association's proposed shooting range. Environment and Protected Areas did not respond to the access request within the time limit set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator directed Environment and Protected Areas to respond to the access request.

The applicant made an access request to Environment and Protected Areas (formerly Environment and Parks) for briefings to the Minister regarding the decision to rescind the document ‘A Coal Development Policy for Alberta’. Environment and Protected Areas identified and provided access to four responsive records, with some information withheld under sections 22(1) (cabinet and treasury board confidences) and 24(1)(a) (advice from officials) of FOIP. The Adjudicator determined that Environment and Protected Areas properly applied section 24(1) to most of the information withheld in the records, but ordered the disclosure of some additional information to the applicant to which section 24 did not apply. The Adjudicator also ordered Environment and Protected Areas to re-exercise its discretion to withhold information to which section 24(1) does apply.

The applicant made an access request to Public Safety and Emergency Services (formerly Justice and Solicitor General) but did not provide a response within the time limit set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Public Safety and Emergency Services to respond to the applicant’s access request as required by the Act.

The applicant made an access request to Indigenous Relations. Indigenous Relations failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Indigenous Relations to respond to the access request in accordance with its remaining duties under the Act.

The applicant made an access request to Justice. The applicant requested a review indicating that the time limit for responding to the access request under FOIP had expired and Justice had not provided a response. The Adjudicator ordered Justice to respond to the applicant’s access request as required by FOIP.

The applicant made an access request to Justice. The applicant requested a review indicating that the time limit for responding to the access request under FOIP had expired and Justice had not provided a response. The Adjudicator ordered Justice to respond to the applicant’s access request as required by FOIP.

The applicant made an access request for certain information to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). The applicant indicated that the time limit for responding to the access request under the Act had expired. The Adjudicator found that EPS did not comply with section 11 of FOIP, but responded responded to the applicant during the inquiry.

In Order F2022-22, the Adjudicator ordered the University of Alberta to reconsider its discretion to withhold information responsive to an access request under sections 19 and 24(1) of FOIP. The University of Alberta reconsidered its discretion and elected not to release any further information. The applicant who made the access request requested a review of the University of Alberta’s reconsideration. The Adjudicator found that upon reconsideration, the University of Alberta properly exercised its discretion to withhold information under sections 19 and 24(1) of the Act.

The applicant made an access request to Public Safety and Emergency Services (PSES; then Justice and Solicitor General) . The applicant alleged that PSES failed to respond to her access request in time, as required under section 11 of FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered PSES to respond to the access request as required by the Act.

An individual made a complaint that employees of the Alberta Health Services' (AHS) 911 centre had accessed her schedule information for their own purposes, without authority under FOIP. In the processing of an access request, the complainant also raised concerns that her identity as a FOIP applicant was inappropriately disclosed. In her request for inquiry, the complainant raised a concern about the security measures taken by AHS to ensure that unauthorized access of scheduling information did not continue. The Adjudicator found that AHS made reasonable security arrangements to protect the complainant’s personal information as required by section 38 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that AHS had authority to use and/or disclose the complainant’s personal information as it did.

The applicant made three access requests to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for records of named CPS officers that relate to the applicant. CPS informed the applicant that it did not locate records responsive to one of the requests. The Adjudicator found that CPS conducted an adequate search for records.

The applicant made an access request to the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC). AHRC informed the applicant that it was extending its time to respond under section 14(1)(b) of FOIP. The applicant did not receive a response from AHRC within the time limit. The Adjudicator ordered AHRC to respond to the applicant’s access request as required by FOIP.

The applicant made an access request to the City of Lethbridge.The City of Lethbridge did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered the City of Lethbridge to respond to the applicant’s access request.

The applicant made an access request to the City of Lethbridge.The City of Lethbridge did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered the City of Lethbridge to respond to the applicant’s access request.

The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks for “information related to flooding issues at my property and the information regarding the illegal and reported 'activities' of my 2 downstream neighbors”. The applicant included a related incident file number, as well as the names of the two neighbors referenced in the request. Environment and Parks provided responsive records but withheld some information under sections 17(1), 18, and 27(1) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that Environment and Parks properly withheld personal information under section 17(1). The Adjudicator found that section 18(3) applied to the information withheld under that provision. However, Environment and Parks did not give sufficient explanation regarding how it exercised its discretion to withhold this information and was ordered to re-exercise its discretion to apply that provision. The Adjudicator accepted Environment and Parks’s claim of privilege under section 27(1)(a).

The applicant made an access request to Health for information related to COVID-19 and public health measures related to COVID-19. Health did not respond to the applicant’s access request. The Adjudicator ordered Health to respond to the access request.

The applicant made a request to Health for emails sent to and from the email domain @pfizer.com. Health refused to respond to the access request on the basis that the applicant had not specified a subject for the search. The Adjudicator directed Health to respond to the applicant fully, accurately, and completely, as required by sections 10 and 11 of FOIP.

The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for records relating to training given to new registered nurses employed by Alberta Health Services working at two remand centres in Alberta. The request also asked for records that discuss or reference security clearances. JSG provided responsive records to the applicant, with information withheld under sections 17(1), 20(1) and 24(1) of FOIP. The Adjudicator accepted JSG’s applications of sections 20(1) and 24 to some information to which the exceptions were applied. However, the Adjudicator found that JSG did not consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to apply those provisions. The Adjudicator ordered JSG to re-exercise its discretion.

The applicant made a request to the City of Calgary for access to all information pertaining to himself, specifying the kinds of documents he was seeking, and the city departments he believed would have information. The City of Calgary responded to the applicant’s request by providing some records, withholding information under sections 17 (unreasonable invasion of privacy), 19 (confidential evaluations), 20 (disclosure harmful to law enforcement), 24(1)(a) (advice from officials), 24(1)(b) (consultations and deliberations) and 27(1) (privileged information) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found the City of Calgary conducted an adequate search for records as required by section 10. The Adjudicator found that section 17(1) cannot apply to some information withheld under that provision. However, the Adjudicator upheld the City of Calgary’s decision to withhold all information to which section 17(1) can apply. The Adjudicator found that section 24(1) was properly applied in most, but not all, instances. The Adjudicator ordered the City of Calgary to re-exercise its discretion whether to withhold the information to which section 24(1) applies. The Adjudicator upheld the City of Calgary’s application of section 27(1)(a) to information in the records.

The applicant made an access request to Alberta Pensions Services Corporation (APSC) for information sent and received on her file during a specified period. APSC provided responsive records, with information withheld under sections 17, 24, and 27 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that APSC properly applied section 17 to information in the records, but not section 24. The Adjudicator found that APSC properly applied sections 27(1)(a) and (c) in most cases, but ordered APSC to disclose some further information to the applicant. The Adjudicator found that APSC had authority to disclose the applicant’s personal information.

The applicant made an access to information request to the City of Calgary. The City of Calgary transferred part of the access request to the Kensington Business Improvement Area (KBIA). When it transferred the request, the City of Calgary disclosed the applicant’s name, contact information, and full request for information. The applicant complained that the City of Calgary improperly transferred the request, and disclosed her personal information in contravention of FOIP when it did so. The Adjudicator found that the City of Calgary properly transferred part of the request to KBIA under section 15(1) of the Act. This was so even if KBIA had not appointed a head under section 95(a) of FOIP, and was not listed in a directory of public bodies required under section 87(1) of the Act. The Adjudicator found that the City of Calgary complied with FOIP when it disclosed the applicant’s personal information.

The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered JSG to respond to the applicant.

The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for his personal information contained in the inboxes of eight provincial prosecutors. He also requested his personal information contained in messenger services, pagers, or cell phones assigned to these provincial prosecutors. JSG originally applied sections 17, 18, 20(1), 24(1), and 27(1)(a) of FOIP to withhold information from the records. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for pager, cellphone and internal Government of Alberta messenger communications relayed by three specific employees and all email correspondence from the email inbox of one of the employees about the applicant for the time period of 2013 to the date of the request (July 28, 2015). JSG responded to the access request, severing some information under sections 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), 18 (disclosure harmful to individual or public safety), 24 (advice from officials), and section 27 (privileged information) of FOIP. The Adjudicator confirmed JSG’s decisions to withhold information under sections 17, 24, and 27 of FOIP, and determined that section 18 of FOIP did not apply and directed the Public Body to disclose the content of a record to which only section 18 had been applied.

An individual made a complaint that the Town of Penhold had collected his personal information in contravention of FOIP when it collected CCTV footage and then issued a traffic ticket for failing to stop at a stop sign outside a fitness facility. The Adjudicator determined that it did not matter whether the Town of Penhold had collected the complainant’s personal information using CCTV cameras, as it would have the authority to collect this information for the purpose of law enforcement in any event. Law enforcement is a purpose for which a public body may collect personal information about an individual without providing the individual notice about the collection.

The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks for records relating to rangeland health inventories.  As the records related to information provided to Environment and Parks by a third party, Environment and Parks notified the third party of the request and its decision to provide some records to the applicant, as required by FOIP. The third party objected to the disclosure of any responsive records. The applicant also requested a review of the exceptions applied by Environment and Parks. The Adjudicator found that Environment and Parks had custody and control of the responsive records, and that section 16(1).

An applicant made an access request under FOIP to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for cover letters of an ASIRT Executive Director that accompanied three specified files sent to the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service. JSG located responsive records relating to one of the specified files, but withheld the records relying on section 27(1)(a) (legal privilege). The Adjudicator found that the evidence provided by JSG met the requirements set out in ShawCor and was consistent with the test for finding solicitor-client privilege applies.

An individual made a complaint alleging that the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) collected, used and disclosed her personal information in contravention of FOIP in a series of interactions with her through its crisis response team in partnership with Alberta Health Services. EPS disclosed the complainant’s personal information to its own members in a bulletin and to the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC), operated by the RCMP. EPS used the complainant’s personal information to execute an admission certificate issued under the Mental Health Act. The Adjudicator found that EPS complied with FOIP.

The applicant made an access to information request to the University of Calgary. The University of Calgary determined that all responsive records were exempt from FOIP as either teaching materials under section 4(1)(h) or research information under section 4(1)(i). The Adjudicator found that the University of Calgary had incorrectly identified some records as teaching materials or research information. The Adjudicator ordered the University of Calgary to process the access request with regard to those records.

The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for copies of written communications between JSG employees about him regarding a talk given at a conference in Edmonton, and/or communications containing a particular attachment. JSG located 261 pages of responsive records but withheld them in their entirety, citing section 4(1)(a) of FOIP (records to which FOIP does not apply). At inquiry, JSG refused to provide records, stating that the records were not in its custody or control. The Adjudicator ordered JSG to provide the Adjudicator with the records at issue and/or an affidavit of records for any records containing judicial information or court information, detailing how the information falls within those categories, in order for the Adjudicator to make a determination as to whether the responsive records fall within the scope of FOIP. The Adjudicator retained jurisdiction to make a determination regarding the application of FOIP to the record.

The applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton. The City of Edmonton extended its time to respond under section 14(1) of FOIP. The City of Edmonton did not respond to the applicant’s request within timelines set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered the City of Edmonton to respond to the applicant’s access request as required by FOIP.

The applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton for copies of nuisance complaints made about his dog. The City of Edmonton provided responsive records, but withheld information under section 4 (records to which this Act applies) and section 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The Adjudicator confirmed the City of Edmonton’s severing decisions.

On behalf of a teacher employed by Chinook's Edge School Division (CESD), the Alberta Teachers' Association made a complaint that CESD had collected the teacher’s personal information in contravention of FOIP when a physician disclosed information about the teacher to CESD. The Adjudicator found that CESD collected the complainant’s personal information in contravention of section 33 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the additional information provided by the physician was not necessary for managing the complainant’s employment.

The applicant made an access request to Rocky View County for records relating to residential developments. The Adjudicator considered whether Rocky View County fulfilled the duty to assist under section 10(1) of FOIP when it responded to the access request. The Adjudicator found that Rocky View County failed to meet the duty to assist since it had not adequately explained why it believed no further records exist. In particular, Rocky View County failed to address the applicant’s concerns that under Rocky View County’s existing bylaws and published practices respecting residential developments there ought to be further responsive records than what was provided in response to the access request. The Adjudicator ordered Rocky View County to provide an explanation of the basis for its conclusion that no further records exist.

The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for information related to his employment and termination of employment. AHS provided disclosure of some records, but severed information under sections 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), 19 (confidential evaluations), 24 (advice from officials) and 27 (privileged information) of FOIP. The inquiry proceeded on the issue of section 27 as a preliminary issue. For reasons set out in the order, the Adjudicator determined that there was inadequate evidence to support AHS' application of section 27(1)(a) to any of the information in the records. The Adjudicator also determined that AHS was required under FOIP to provide records for the Commissioner’s review that cannot be subject to solicitor-client privilege or litigation privilege.

The applicant made a request to the Town of Beaverlodge for specific records relating to the Beaverlodge Airport. The Town of Beaverlodge provided responsive records but some information was withheld under sections 16(1), 17(1), 18(1), 24(1), 25(1) and 27(1) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that sections 16(1), 18(1) and 25 did not apply. The Adjudicator determined that some information withheld under section 17(1) is information to which that provision does not apply. The Adjudicator upheld the Town of Beaverlodge’s claim of privilege under section 27(1)(a). Given this finding, the Adjudicator did not need to consider the Town of Beaverlodge’s application of section 24 to the same information.

An individual made a request to the Town of Beaverlodge for specific records relating to the Beaverlodge Airport. The Town of Beaverlodge provided responsive records but some information was withheld under sections 17(1), 24(1), 25(1) and 27(1) of FOIP. The Adjudicator determined that some information withheld under section 17(1) is information to which that provision does not apply. The Adjudicator found that section 25 does not apply. The Adjudicator upheld the Town of Beaverlodge’s claim of privilege under section 27(1)(a). Given this finding, the Adjudicator did not need to consider the Town of Beaverlodge’s application of section 24 to the same information.

The applicant made an access request to Health. Health said that the access request was too vague to meet the requirements of section 7(2) of FOIP and it did not respond to the applicant. The Adjudicator determined that the access request was clear and directed Health to search for responsive email records. In the event that Health determined that it had destroyed responsive records, the Adjudicator ordered it to determine whether any such records could reasonably be restored or recovered.

The applicant made an access request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for information related to the applicant’s professional performance and applications for promotion. CPS provided responsive records with information withheld under sections 17(1), 19, 24 and 27(1)(a) of FOIP. The applicant requested an inquiry into CPS' application of section 27(1)(a). The Adjudicator found that the evidence provided by CPS met the requirements set out in ShawCor and was consistent with the test for finding solicitor-client privilege applies.

An individual made a complaint alleging that the Village of Longview disclosed her personal information in contravention of FOIP when it forwarded an email from the complainant to a third party engineering firm. The Adjudicator found that the Village of Longview contravened FOIP when it provided the email to the engineering firm.

The applicant made an access to information to the University of Alberta. The inquiry considered the University of Alberta's decisions to withhold some information under sections 19 and 24(1) of FOIP, as well as on the basis that it was non-responsive. The Adjudicator found that the University of Alberta properly withheld information as non-responsive. The Adjudicator ordered the University of Alberta to reconsider its use of discretion to withhold information under sections 19 and 24(1).

The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered JSG to respond.

The applicants made an access request to Energy about the change to Energy's coal policy. Energy responded to the applicants, but severed information under sections 21, 22, 24 and 25 of FOIP. It also withheld information on the basis that it was nonresponsive. The Adjudicator found that the information Energy had withheld from the applicant as nonresponsive was responsive. The Adjudicator also found that none of the exceptions to disclosure on which Energy had relied to withhold information applied. In its submissions for the inquiry, Energy indicated that there were 2,100 remaining records to process.

The applicant made an access request to Strathcona County for certain information. The applicant did not receive an email which he said had been shown to him by an employee of Strathcona County. The Adjudicator found that Strathcona County failed to meet its duty to assist the applicant under FOIP by not providing any explanation for not locating the email the applicant stated he was shown.

The applicant made an access request to the University of Calgary. The University of Calgary provided eight emails and attachments in response to the request. The applicant sought a review of whether the University of Calgary had met its duty to properly respond to the access request under section 10(1) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the University of Calgary did not have custody or control over the records the applicant sought. The Adjudicator found that the University of Calgary met the duty under section 10(1).

The applicant made an access request to Health. Health did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Health to respond.

The applicant sought copies of records from the Canadian Energy Centre Ltd. (CEC). In response, CEC advised that it was not a public body under FOIP. The applicant sought a finding that CEC qualifies as a public body despite the fact that it has not been designated as such. The Adjudicator concluded that CEC is not a public body within the meaning of the definitions set out in the Act and does not qualify as a public body. The Adjudicator determined that the decision to subject CEC to public scrutiny and accountability under the Act does not rest with the Commissioner. Only the government can decide to designate the CEC as a public body covered by FOIP.

The applicant made an access request to the Kensington Business Revitalization Zone (KBRZ). KBRZ did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. However, KBRZ responded during the inquiry.

The applicant made an access request to Health. Health did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Health to respond.

An individual made a complaint that the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) had provided his personal information to a medical consultant without his consent. The Adjudicator found that WCB had complied with FOIP when it provided the information to the medical consultant.

The applicant made a request to the Summer Village of South View for records relating to a particular residential property. The Summer Village of South View provided some responsive records to the applicant, and withheld others in part or in their entirety under sections 17(1), 24(1), and 27(1) of FOIP. The Adjudicator determined that the Summer Village of South View properly applied section 17(1) to the third party personal information in the records. The Adjudicator determined that the Summer Village of South View properly applied section 24(1) to most information in the records, but ordered it to disclose additional information to the applicant. The Adjudicator also found that the Summer Village of South View established its claim of privilege under section 27(1)(a).

The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks. Environment and Parks did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Environment and Parks to respond.

The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks. Environment and Parks did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Environment and Parks to respond.

The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks. Environment and Parks did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Environment and Parks to respond.

The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks. Environment and Parks did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Environment and Parks to respond.

The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks. Environment and Parks did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Environment and Parks to respond.

The applicant made an access request to CapitalCare. CapitalCare did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. However, CapitalCare responded prior to the inquiry.

An individual complained that in 2011 he was contacted by a survey company that asked him about his experience with the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) including detailed information about the medical issues he sought coverage for. The complainant argued that his personal information was provided to the survey company without his consent, and in contravention of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that WCB’s disclosure of the complainant’s personal information to the survey company was for the purpose of evaluating the services provided to the complainant, and that his purpose was consistent with the purpose for which the information was collected as authorized under FOIP. The amount of information disclosed was also limited to what was reasonable for the purpose.

The applicant made an access request to the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) for records relating to his employment. The applicant questioned the adequacy of AER’s search for responsive records. The Adjudicator found that AER conducted a reasonable search for responsive records and met its duty to assist the applicant.

The applicant requested access from Labour and Immigration to her employment standards file. The applicant believed more records existed than what Labour and Immigration had provided to her. The Adjudicator found that Labour and Immigration met its duty to assist the applicant in relation to her access request as required by section 10 of FOIP.

The applicant made an access request to Energy. Energy did not respond within the time limits set out in FOIP. However, Energy responded during the inquiry.

The applicant made an access request to Health. Health did not respond within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Health to respond.

The applicant made an access request to Health. Health did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Health to respond.

An individual made a complaint that the City of Calgary failed to take reasonable steps to determine the accuracy of a third party statement, alleging that the complainant threatened to kill the third party and her dog. The complainant also alleged that the city contravened FOIP when it disclosed the statement to numerous employees. The Adjudicator found that the city was permitted to disclose the complainant's personal information to some, but not all, of the employees to whom the information had been disclosed under section 40(1)(h). The Adjudicator found that section 35(a) of FOIP did not apply in this case.

In Order F2021-21, the Adjudicator directed Environment and Parks to provide additional details to the applicant regarding its search for records. Environment and Parks conducted a new search for records, and provided a new response to the applicant. The applicant requested a review of the new response. The Adjudicator determined that Environment and Parks met its duty to assist the applicant under FOIP.

The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered JSG to respond.

The applicant made an access request to Health. Health did not respond within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Health to respond.

The applicant made an access request to Health. Health did not respond within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Health to respond.

The applicant sought information from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) about guidelines for creative sentencing under section 234(1) of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA). In response to the access request, JSG withheld information under FOIP, citing disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17(1)), disclosure harmful to law enforcement (section 20(1)(g)), advice from officials (section 24(1)(a) and (b)), and privileged information (section 27(1)(a) and (b)). Information withheld under section 27(1)(a) was withheld on the basis that it was subject to solicitor-client privilege or work-product (litigation) privilege.

The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered JSG to respond.

The applicant, which consists of the estate of a deceased person and the mother of the deceased person, made an access request to Children’s Services. Children's Services refused the access request on the basis that the requested file did not contain “testamentary wishes”. It applied section 17 of the FOIP Act (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) to withhold the file from the applicant. It also relied on section 126.1 of the Child, Youth, and Family Enhancement Act to withhold the identities of reporters from the applicant. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

An applicant requested CCTV footage of an incident that took place at the Calgary Remand Centre. The applicant expressly requested that the footage contain time stamps. Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) located footage that did not contain time stamps. JSG withheld this video in its entirety under section 20 (disclosure harmful to law enforcement). The Adjudicator asked JSG to conduct a new search that would include the saved source footage to which it referred, as the applicant had requested a copy of the source CCTV footage with time stamps and the video JSG created lacked time stamps. The Adjudicator decided to postpone making a decision in relation to JSG’s application of section 20 until JSG conducted a new search for the CCTV footage with time stamps.

An individual made a complaint that Children’s Services collected her personal information in the course of an investigation regarding someone else, and used that information to open an investigation into the complainant with respect to her children. The complainant also said that Children’s Services disclosed her personal information without authority. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

The applicant made an access request to Health. Health did not respond within the time limits set out in FOIP. However, Health responded during the inquiry.

An individual made a complaint that the City of Edmonton disclosed his personal information in contravention of FOIP. The complainant alleged that the City of Edmonton contravened FOIP when it disclosed to TransEd his contact information and the body of a complaint about noise generated by TransEd as it worked on a construction project. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

In Order F2019-22, the Adjudicator directed Edmonton Catholic Separate School Division (ECSSD) to respond to the access request by searching for responsive records, rather than by creating records, as required by FOIP. In its response, ECSSD provided records of expenses submitted by teachers and principals for all conferences and meetings attended during the relevant time. The applicant requested a review of ECSSD’s response on the basis that most of the records he received were not responsive, while he had not been provided with records that he expected to receive. The Adjudicator found that ECSSD had not searched for all records responsive to the access request and directed it to conduct a new search.

An individual made a complaint on her own behalf and that of her minor children that the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) had collected and disclosed her personal information, and that of her minor children, by accessing her Facebook account, printing off pictures of the complainant and her minor children, and providing the pictures to various members of WCB and to her employer, in contravention of FOIP. The Adjudicator found WCB's collection and use of personal information was in compliance with FOIP. The Adjudicator also found there was no information to support the complainant's allegation that WCB had disclosed the complainant's or her minor children's images to the complainant's employer.

The applicant made an access request to the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass. The Municipality of Crowsnest Pass did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. However, the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass responded during the inquiry.

The applicants requested access to an Edmonton Police Service (EPS) file that had been opened to investigate the death of their daughter. The EPS investigation concluded that the applicants' daughter died by suicide. EPS provided some information from the records on compassionate grounds, but withheld the remainder on the basis that it would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of the deceased and other third parties whose personal information was contained in the records (section 17 of FOIP). The Adjudicator determined that the interests of family members in coming to terms with their loss was a relevant consideration in determining whether personal information could be disclosed to the family members. In most cases, the Adjudicator found that this factor applied and outweighed the public interests that supported withholding the personal information of the deceased from the applicants.

The applicant made a request for his personal information, and records containing information about his two children and his spouse, from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). The Adjudicator determined that JSG properly withheld information citing disclosure harmful to individual or public safety (section 18(1)(a)). The Adjudicator found that JSG properly withheld information citing disclosure harmful to law enforcement (section 20(1)(m)). The Adjudicator decided to retain jurisdiction, however, regarding JSG's application of disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations (section 21(1)(b)), pending the appeal of Edmonton Police Service v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2021 ABQB 304.

The applicant made a request for his personal information from the Edmonton Catholic Separate School Division (ECSSD). The Adjudicator confirmed that ECSSD conducted a reasonable search for responsive records. The Adjudicator also confirmed ECSSD’s decision to sever information citing advice from officials (section 24(1)). The Adjudicator confirmed the decision of ECSSD to sever information regarding employee absences, but directed it to disclose to the applicant the remainder of the information to which ECSSD had applied disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17(1)).

The applicant made an access request to the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (RMWB). RMWB did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. However, RMWB responded during the inquiry.

The applicant made an access request to the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass. The applicant requested a review of the time taken for the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass to respond. The Adjudicator found that the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass responded within the time limits set out in FOIP.

The applicant made an access request to the Town of Ponoka. The applicant requested a review of the time taken for the Town of Ponoka to respond. The Adjudicator found that the Town of Ponoka made every reasonable effort to respond within the time limits set out in FOIP.

An individual made a complaint that the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) collected medical information from him without his consent, and subsequently disclosed it without authority. The complainant also alleged that EPS collected personal information about him from a third party and used it in its file, without authority. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

The applicant made a request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for information related to a specified CPS action number. CPS responded to the applicant, severing information under sections 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), 20(1)(g) and (m) (disclosure harmful to law enforcement), and 24(1)(b) (advice from officials). The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

The applicant made an access request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for all records relating to CPS' response to the R v. Ashe, 2009 ABPC 154 decision. CPS provided responsive records with information withheld citing disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17(1)), advice from officials (section 24(1)(a)) and privileged information (section 27(1)(a)) under FOIP. In the course of the inquiry, CPS withdrew its application of section 24(1). The Adjudicator upheld CPS’ claim of solicitor-client privilege under section 27(1)(a). The applicant did not ask for a review of information withheld under section 17(1).

The applicant requested all records containing information related to him from several parts and employees of the City of Calgary. The City of Calgary initially provided 25 pages of responsive records, and a further 134 pages after clarifying the access request. It withheld information citing disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17(1)) and advice from officials (section 24(1)(a) and (b)), and on the basis that information was non-responsive. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

An individual complained that an employee of Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) had accessed his personal information in databases to which JSG has access and then disclosed information about him to an individual, whom he had been dating. The Adjudicator found that JSG had not met its duty to take reasonable security measures to protect against the risk of unauthorized access, and directed JSG to comply with this duty in relation to the complainant’s personal information.

The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for records relating to the capture of wild horses under section 9 of the Stray Animals Act. JSG located responsive records but withheld them in their entirety, citing privileged information (section 27(1)(a) of FOIP). The Adjudicator determined that JSG met its duty to assist the applicant under section 10, but did not provide sufficient detail about the responsive records in its response to the applicant to meet its obligation under section 12(1)(c)(i). The Adjudicator also upheld JSG’s claim of solicitor-client privilege under section 27(1)(a).

The applicant made an access request to Rocky View County for records relating to the Elbow Valley West stormwater management system, specifying four particular records. Rocky View County located three of the four records but withheld them in their entirety citing privileged information (section 27 of FOIP). The fourth record was not located. The Adjudicator found that Rocky View County properly applied section 27(1)(a) to the settlement agreement. The Adjudicator also determined that Rocky View County failed to meet its duty to assist the applicant by not providing any explanation for not locating the fourth record.

The applicant made an access request to the City of Spruce Grove for records relating to contracts. The City of Spruce Grove provided the applicant with a fee estimate of $5,525.00 and requested a deposit of $2762.50 in order to continue processing the request. The applicant requested a fee waiver on the grounds of public interest. The Adjudicator found that the request did not meet the test for a fee waiver in the public interest. The Adjudicator made other determinations on fees charged by the City of Spruce Grove.

The applicant made a request to Environment and Parks for records relating to the capture of wild horses under the Stray Animals Act. Environment and Parks responded to the request, stating that it did not locate any responsive records. The Adjudicator determined that Environment and Parks failed to meet its duty to assist the applicant by not providing any explanation of its search for records. The applicant had provided reasons to expect that records would exist, and Environment and Parks ought to have provided an explanation of its search to the applicant, including why it believes that no responsive records exist.

A former employee of Brazeau Seniors Foundation made an access request to the foundation for access to records related to an incident and an investigation into the incident. The Brazeau Seniors Foundation responded to the request, but withheld third party personal information (section 17) and information subject to solicitor-client privilege and litigation privilege (section 27(1)(a)). The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

The applicant made an access request to Calgary Police Service (CPS) relating to a specified RCMP file. CPS provided 65 pages of records, some of which were partially redacted in reliance on exceptions for disclosure harmful to personal privacy (sections 17(1)), disclosure harmful to law enforcement (section 20(1) and 20(3)), advice from officials (section 24(1)(a) and 24(1)(b)), and privileged information (section 27(1)(a)). CPS also withheld an audio file responsive to the second request in reliance on section 17(1). The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks for records relating to an employee survey conducted by the department. The applicant also requested a fee waiver on the grounds that the records related to a matter of public interest. The Adjudicator found that the records sought and obtained by the applicant did not meet the test for a fee waiver on the grounds of public interest.

The applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton for a list of properties required for LRT projects. During the inquiry, the City of Edmonton provided all responsive records to the applicant. The applicant then argued that it was seeking an updated version of the responsive records. The City of Edmonton had not made a decision on the updated list of properties and there was no updated decision for the Adjudicator to review.

The applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton for a list of properties required for the Yellowhead Trail freeway conversion. During the inquiry, the City of Edmonton provided all responsive records to the applicant. The applicant then argued that it was seeking an updated version of the responsive records. The City of Edmonton had not made a decision on the updated list of properties and there was no updated decision for the Adjudicator to review.

The applicant made an access request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS), including a request for contact information for an individual in order to serve him documents in a civil proceeding. CPS provided 13 responsive records withholding some information citing disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17), including the contact information the applicant sought. The Adjudicator determined some information was required to be withheld from the applicant. The Adjudicator ordered that some information be disclosed by CPS to the applicant.

The applicant made an access request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for records related to disposition letters issued by CPS from complaints where the Chief determined the allegations in the complaint were not serious in nature. The applicant also requested a fee waiver, on the grounds that the records relate to a matter of public interest (section 93(4)(b)). The applicant requested a review of CPS' decision regarding fees. The Adjudicator concluded that in the circumstances it was appropriate to waive 50% of the fees for the request, and ordered CPS to refund the applicant that amount.

The applicant made an access request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for records relating to polygraph testing results and his HR file. CPS provided some records, withholding information under sections pertaining to confidential evaluations (section 19), disclosure harmful to law enforcement (section 20), and testing procedures, tests and audits (section 26). The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

The applicant (referred to as the complainant in this order) made an access request to the University of Alberta, and made a complaint that it collected, used, and disclosed her information in contravention of FOIP. The two matters were joined into one inquiry since the records at issue regarding the access request are relevant to the collection, use and disclosure issues. In order to avoid disclosing information that the U of A is entitled to withhold in response to an access request, as required by section 59(3)(a) of FOIP, the Adjudicator dealt only with access issues in this order.

The applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton for records relating to a decision to locate an LRT station at a particular site. The applicant requested a review of the adequacy of search. The Adjudicator found that the scope of the search was unclear and ordered the City of Edmonton to conduct another search for responsive records.

An individual complained about the disclosure of his personal information by the City of Edmonton to a medical expert without his consent during a grievance process. The Adjudicator found that the City of Edmonton had authority to disclose the complainant's personal information to the medical expert without the complainant's consent.

An individual complained that his employer, Indigenous Relations, disclosed his personal information on two occasions contrary to FOIP. The Adjudicator found that an email sent by an employee contained personal information that was disclosed in contravention of FOIP (section 40). The Adjudicator also found that some of the complainant's personal information was disclosed by another employee during a staff meeting in contravention of FOIP, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether a particular statement about the complainant had been made during the meeting.

An individual requested an audit log from the Calgary Police Service (CPS) of all times its employees and members had accessed his personal information. Upon receiving the audit log, the individual asked CPS why the employees listed had accessed his name. The individual also requested information from CPS' Behavioural Sciences Unit. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

An individual submitted a correction request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). The Adjudicator determined that, for the most part, EPS properly refused to correct the personal information the applicant requested be corrected.

An individual made a complaint alleging that the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) was using inaccurate and incomplete information about her in order to make decisions. In particular, she complained that EPS was retaining and using inaccurate and incomplete health information including diagnoses that have not been made by a qualified physician. The Adjudicator found EPS made every reasonable effort to ensure information used to make a decision about the applicant is accurate and complete, and it had authority to use and disclose her information in the circumstances.

An individual complained that two managers with the City of Edmonton had made statements criticizing his work as a project manager to a reporter and that these statements had been published in the Edmonton Journal and the Edmonton Sun. The Adjudicator found that the evidence did not establish that the statements in the newspaper article had, as a source, recorded information in the custody or control of the City of Edmonton, and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for certain information. AHS responded but the applicant believed AHS did not provide her with all responsive records. The Adjudicator found that AHS had conducted an adequate search and met its duty to assist the applicant under section 10(1) of FOIP.

An individual made a request to correct personal information contained within an Edmonton Police Service (EPS) street check report. EPS refused to correct the information on the basis that it was opinion. It appended the information to the applicant’s request pursuant to section 36(3) of FOIP, which requires a public body to annotate or link a correction request to personal information, rather than correct it, when the personal information that is the subject of the request is opinion. The Adjudicator determined that EPS had complied with its duty under section 36 of FOIP. However, the Adjudicator found that the correction request was more properly characterized as a privacy complaint, rather than a correction request, in that EPS had not met its duty to the applicant to ensure the accuracy and completeness of personal information that it would use to make decisions affecting the applicant’s rights.

The applicant made an access request under FOIP to the Town of Athabasca for a legal opinion that was given to the town council by a particular lawyer with a named law firm, about a specific matter (requested record). The Town of Athabasca denied the applicant access to the requested record under section 27(1)(a) of FOIP on the basis of solicitor-client privilege. The Adjudicator found that the Town of Athabasca had established on a balance of probabilities that solicitor-client privilege applied to the requested record.

The applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton for information related to a property adjacent to her own property. During the inquiry, the City of Edmonton decided to release to the applicant all information withheld under sections 24 and 25 of FOIP. It continued to withhold some information under section 17. The Adjudicator found the City of Edmonton conducted a reasonable search for records as required by section 10, and properly redacted information under section 17 and as non-responsive.

On judicial review of Order F2017-54, the Court of Queen’s Bench held that parts of the order by which the previous adjudicator ordered Alberta Emergency Management Agency (AEMA) to disclose records to which section 24(1) had been applied was unreasonable. In this reconsideration, AEMA applied sections pertaining to disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17), advice from officials (section24(1)) and privileged information (sections 27(1)(b) and/or (c)) to information in several pages of records. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this reconsideration, and ordered the disclosure to the applicant a limited amount of information to which section 24(1)(a) did not apply.

The applicant made an access request to Service Alberta for records relating to the Alberta Real Estate Association or its senior leadership team. The applicant requested a review of Service Alberta’s application of sections 16 and 17 to withhold some information in the records (disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party and disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The Adjudicator found that the information withheld under section 16(1) was not commercial information as argued by the Real Estate Council of Alberta and Service Alberta, or any other type of information listed under section 16(1)(a). The Adjudicator found that some information withheld by Service Alberta under section 17(1) is information that cannot be withheld under that provision, including work-issued phone numbers and opinions or comments made by third parties in their representative capacity. The Adjudicator ordered the information to which the exceptions did not apply be provided to the applicant.

The applicant made an access request to Children's Services for records containing references made by her to foster parents, including any comments about their parenting. Children's Services provided some information in the records to the applicant and withheld information under section section 17(1) (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) and as non-responsive to the request. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

The applicant made an access request to Thorhild County for records relating to email exchanges between Thorhild County officials concerning a specific issue. Thorhild County released 24 pages of records, partially redacting some pages and fully redacting others, under sections pertaining to disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17(1)), local public body confidences (section 23(1)) and advice from officials (section 24(1)). The applicant was aware of other emails that would have been responsive to the access request that were not provided by Thorhild County, and requested a review of its duty to perform an adequate search (section 10(1)). The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

An individual made a correction request to the Calgary Board of Education (CBE) under FOIP by asking that particular information be removed. CBE refused to correct the information, stating that it consisted of opinions, and instead annotated the applicant's file. The Adjudicator found that CBE properly refused to correct the information.

The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for information regarding a complaint she had made to AHS. AHS sent the response package but it went missing and the applicant never received the package. The applicant complained to the Commissioner that AHS had not taken reasonable steps to ensure the security of her personal information when it mailed the records to her, in contravention of section 38 of the FOIP Act. The Adjudicator found that although the package went missing, AHS had taken reasonable steps to ensure the security of the complainant's personal information.

The applicant requested access to survey results from the University of Calgary. The University of Calgary refused access citing section 4(1)(i) of FOIP, which exempts the research of an employee of a post-secondary educational body from the scope of FOIP. The Adjudicator accepted that the records were research. However, the Adjudicator found that the research was used by both the employee and the University of Calgary itself, rather than only by the employee. As a result, the research at issue did not fall within the scope of section 4(1)(i). The Adjudicator directed the University of Calgary to respond to the access request with reference to the requested survey results.

An individual, who appears as an agent in traffic court, complained that Justice and Solicitor General had used his personal information in contravention of FOIP when it diverted his request for disclosure in a traffic court matter on behalf of clients to its corporate security branch, and that it had disclosed his personal information in contravention of FOIP when it included an email from the corporate security branch referring to the complainant as a “complex client” in a disclosure package he had requested on behalf of clients. The Adjudicator found the collection and use of the complainant's personal information was authorized by FOIP, because it related to the complainant acting in a representative, not a personal, capacity. The Adjudicator found, however, that the reference to the complainant as a "complex client" contravened FOIP, because it was about the complainant in a personal, not representative, capacity.

An individual complained that the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) collected inaccurate information about him and used it to decide to ban him from a City of Edmonton facility. The Adjudicator concluded that it was the City of Edmonton that issued the ban. The decision EPS made about the complainant was whether to pursue an investigation into possible criminal activity, and it decided a further investigation was not warranted. The Adjudicator determined that EPS met its duty under section 35(a) of FOIP to make every reasonable effort to ensure the accuracy of personal information when making a decision about an individual.

The applicant made an access request to the City of Calgary. The City of Calgary responded that its search failed to produce records responsive to the access request. The Adjudicator found that the City of Calgary conducted an adequate search for records and met its duty to assist the applicant (section 10(1) of FOIP).

An individual made a complaint that Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) collected, used and disclosed his personal information in contravention of FOIP when it posted an internal security bulletin containing a picture of the complainant and a statement that the complainant was gathering information about employees. The Adjudicator found that JSG's collection and use of the complainant's personal information was authorized by FOIP, and determined that the information was not disclosed outside JSG.

An individual made a complaint that his employer, the Calgary Police Service (CPS), collected, used and disclosed his personal information without authority under FOIP. The Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) had contacted CPS to advise it that CBSA was investigating an allegation made against its employee. CPS' Security Operations Unit subsequently began its own investigation, and contacted the complainant's supervisor. The Adjudicator found that CPS collected the complainant's personal information for the purpose of determining how to deal with the report of the complainant's conduct. The Adjudicator determined that the provision of the complainant's information to his current supervisor was for the same purpose, and this use and disclosure was authorized by FOIP.

The applicant made an access request to his employer, the Calgary Board of Education (CBE), for records relating to him and CBE, including communications between CBE and outside or third parties. CBE responded to the request under FOIP, with some information severed under sections pertaining to disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17), advice from officials (section 24) and disclosure harmful to economic and other interests of public body (section 25). The Adjudicator found that CBE's search for records was adequate, and it properly applied the exceptions to access.

The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG provided the applicant with a fee estimate of $650 to provide responsive records. The applicant sought a review of that decision. The Adjudicator found that JSG failed to establish that the $0.25 per page for photocopying it used in its fee estimate did not exceed its actual costs for photocopying, as required by FOIP. The Adjudicator reduced the fees for photocopying responsive records to zero.

The applicant made an access request to the Board of Trustees of Edmonton School Division (ESD) seeking information about her son, who was a student at one of its schools. ESD identified some information as non-responsive and withheld some records under FOIP, citing sections pertaining to disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17(1)), advice from officials (sections 24(1)(a) and (b)) and privileged information (section 27). The applicant believed that the school division did not meet its duty under section 10(1) of FOIP, and failed to properly search for and provide all records responsive to the access request. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

The applicant made an access request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for records containing information about him. The request also included records relating to whether a a named constable had been suspended. CPS withheld some information from those records under sections pertaining to disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17(1)), disclosure harmful to law enforcement (section 20(1)), disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations (section 21(1)) and advice from officials (section 24(1)). Regarding the named constable, CPS refused to confirm or deny the existence of disciplinary records under section 12(2). The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

An individual submitted a complaint that the Workers’ Compensation Board had disclosed his personal information in contravention of FOIP when a claims adjudicator provided his contact information to a psychologist. The Adjudicator found that the disclosure was authorized by section 24 of the Workers’ Compensation Act and therefore section 40(1)(e) of FOIP (for the purpose of complying with an enactment of Alberta or Canada).

An individual made a complaint that the amount of personal information the Capital Region Housing Corporation requested was excessive for the purpose to ascertain his eligibility for subsidized housing. The Capital Region Housing Corporation requested credit card statements, banking information, vehicle registration information and proof of payment for an online course. The Adjudicator found that of the information identified in the complaint, only the complainant’s banking information was ultimately collected and used by the Capital Region Housing Corporation. The Adjudicator found that this information was directly related to and necessary for the Capital Region Housing Corporation to determine the total income of the complainant, in order to verify his eligibility for social housing.

The applicant made an access request to Energy for records related to curriculum development involving Inside Education, specially communications between Energy and Inside Education representatives. The applicant requested a fee waiver with the access request, on the grounds that the records relate to a matter of public interest (section 93(4)(b)). The Adjudicator found that a significant number of the records appeared to relate to a matter of public interest and ordered 50% of the applicant's fees be waived.

The applicant made an access request to Energy for records related to curriculum development involving Inside Education, specially records related to collaboration with Inside Education on curriculum or teaching materials. The applicant requested a fee waiver with the access request, on the grounds that the records relate to a matter of public interest (section 93(4)(b)). The Adjudicator determined that in the circumstances it was appropriate to waive 25% of the fees for the applicant’s request, and ordered Energy to refund the applicant that amount.

The applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) seeking records it obtained from an RCMP file. The applicant wanted to use the information to lay an information under the Criminal Code. EPS withheld all responsive records in their entirety citing disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations (section 21(1)(b)) and disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17(1)). The Adjudicator found that section 21(1)(b) did not apply to the records at issue. The information in the records was collected by the RCMP acting a provincial police service under the Police Act. As a provincial police service, the RCMP are considered a representative of the Government of Alberta. The Adjudicator found that EPS properly applied section 17(1) to information that is personal information, but ordered the disclosure of some information that had been withheld.

The applicant made an access request to the City of Calgary for specific records relating to his property. The City of Calgary located responsive records but withheld them in their entirety, citing FOIP sections relating to records to which the FOIP Act applies (section 4(1)), disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party (section 16(1)), disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17(1)), disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations (section 21(1)), advice from officials (section 24(1)), disclosure harmful to economic and other interests of a public body (section 25(1)) and privileged information (section 27(1)). The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

The applicant made an access request o the City of Calgary for the Calgary Fire Department Workplace Review conducted by a consultant. The applicant asserted that the consultant had created and provided the City of Calgary with a written report and the City of Calgary was not being truthful about having the report. The City of Calgary provided evidence to rebut the applicant's assertion that the consultant had created and provided the City of Calgary with a written report. The Adjudicator determined that the City of Calgary's subsequent search was adequate, and it had met its duty to assist the applicant under section 10(1) of FOIP.

The applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton for records relating to the downtown arena development in Edmonton. The City of Edmonton located responsive records but withheld them in their entirety, citing disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party (section 16(1)) and privileged information (section 27(1)(a)). The applicant also requested a review of the time taken by the City of Edmonton to respond to his request (section 11). The Adjudicator determined that the City of Edmonton's claim of privilege met the standard for as set out in Canadian Natural Resources Limited v. ShawCor Ltd., 2014 ABCA 289 (CanLII), and was consistent with case law regarding solicitor-client privilege. Following the Court’s direction in Edmonton Police Service v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2020 ABQB 10, the Adjudicator found that the City of Edmonton established its claim of privilege on a balance of probabilities.

The applicant made an access request for all information held by the Calgary Police Service (CPS) in specified investigation files in which she had been involved, and provided details about the information. CPS provided some information but some was redacted relying on a number of exceptions in FOIP (sections 4(1)(k), 17(1), 20(1)(m), 21(1)(b), 24(1)(b) and 27(1)(a)), and some was withheld in its entirety. CPS also provided copies of information it had given to the applicant in response to earlier access requests. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for data from the Alberta electronic health record regarding Netcare accesses by health services providers at specific locations. AHS responded to the applicant by stating that it did not have responsive records. It also explained that it could not create responsive records, given the nature of the database. As the information requested could not be accessed under FOIP, and as AHS lacked authority to access the requested information, the Adjudicator confirmed that AHS had met its duties in relation to the access request.

The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks for records related to a respectful workplace investigation. The applicant believed that further responsive records existed beyond what Environment and Parks provided in response to the access request. The Adjudicator found that the Environment and Parks failed to establish that it met its duty to assist the applicant. The Adjudicator also found that Environment and Parks omitted to search for the records of an individual who likely had responsive records, and that it had truncated a search for other possible responsive records.

An individual made a complaint that Environment and Parks imprperly used and disclosed his personal information in the course of addressing a respectful workplace complaint filed against him. The Adjudicator found that Environment and Parks collected the complainant’s personal information for the purpose of addressing the complaint, as part of its responsibility to manage and administer its personnel, and used the information for the same purpose. The use was authorized by section 39(1)(a) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that Environment and Parks disclosed information in order to permit its employees to carry out their duties or in order to manage or administer its personnel as authorized under sections 40(1)(h) and (x) of FOIP, respectively.

An individual made a complaint that the City of Edmonton contravened FOIP by using and disclosing her personal information in the course of prosecuting a municipal bylaw offence. The Adjudicator found that the records related to an ongoing prosecution (section 4(1)(k)) at the time of the use and disclosure. Therefore, FOIP did not apply and the Adjudicator did not have jurisdiction to review the use or disclosure of personal information.

In Order F2019-09, the Adjudicator retained jurisdiction to determine the application of section 18(1) to the information relating to certain employees, after hearing from them. Sixteen employees provided submissions to this part of the inquiry. The Adjudicator reviewed the submissions of the individual employees, as well as submissions made by AER and the applicant. The Adjudicator found that several employees met the test for the application of section 18(1)(a), but most did not. The Adjudicator provided a list to AER of employees whose information must be disclosed to the applicant.

The applicant requested that the Commissioner review a fee estimate calculated by the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). The Adjudicator found that EPS had estimated the fees for searching for and retrieving responsive records appropriately. However, the Adjudicator did not have sufficient evidence to confirm EPS' estimate for photocopying costs and asked EPS to review the costs it had estimated for leasing a photocopier.

The applicant requested records from the University of Calgary relating to a named professor. The University of Calgary declined to search for records stating that the records related to the professor's volunteer role with the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. The Adjudicator determined that the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench decision in University of Alberta v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2012 ABQB 247 (CanLII) was directly relevant in this case, and found that the University of Calgary does not have custody or control of the records at issue.

An individual made a complaint that the former chief administrative officer (CAO) of the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo had disclosed details of a whistleblower complaint he had made to the councillor who was the subject of the complaint. The Adjudicator found that there was insufficient evidence in the inquiry to support the complainant’s allegations and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant made four separate access requests to Health. Each request was for any documentation containing the applicant’s name, held by a specific Health employee. A different employee was named by the applicant in each request. Health withheld some information citing FOIP sections pertaining to disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17), confidential evaluations (section 19) and advice from officials (section 24). The applicant requested an inquiry into Health's decision to continue to withhold information under section 17(1) for one record. The Adjudicator found that section 17(1) did not apply to some of the information Health had withheld and ordered Health to disclose this information to the applicant.

The applicant made a request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for records relating to the 2013 floods and more specifically, information relating to the berms that were constructed. The inquiry was divided into two parts. The first part of the inquiry resulted in Order F2018-27, which addressed JSG's claim of solicitor-client privilege. This order addressed JSG's application of sections pertaining to records to which FOIP does not apply (section 4(1)(a)), disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17(1)) and advice from officials (section 24(1)). The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

The applicant made an access request to Peace River School Division (PRSD) seeking records that would identify the individuals responsible for a trespass issued against her. Emails were collectively withheld under FOIP sections pertaining to disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party (section 16(1)), disclosure harmful to individual or public safety (section 18) and privileged information (section 27(1)(a)). The Adjudicator made several determinations regarding the withheld information. The applicant also sought review of PRSD's duty to assist (section 10(1)). The Adjudicator ordered the school division to respond to the access request as required by section 10(1).

An individual made a complaint that Alberta Health Services (AHS) improperly disclosed his personal and health information to the Lethbridge Police Department (LPD). The disclosure related to a complaint an AHS employee made about the individual to the LPD. The Adjudicator determined that the disclosure was done for the purpose of mitigating the risk of imminent harm to the mental and physical health of employees and was authorized by FOIP (section 40(1)(ee)). The Adjudicator also determined that AHS had not disclosed any more personal information than was reasonably necessary for meeting its purpose in disclosing the information.

This order is a reconsideration of Order F2013-47. On judicial review of that order, the Court of Queen’s Bench held that parts of the order by which the previous Adjudicator reasoned that the records did not meet the terms of disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party (section 16(1)(b)) were unreasonable. The court remitted the matter for reconsideration as to whether the withheld records meet the criteria of sections 16(1)(b) and 16(1)(c) of the FOIP Act. In this inquiry, heard by a different Adjudicator, Health provided further information about the records, including that some of them were already in the public realm. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order, and ordered that all the records be disclosed to the applicant.

An individual made a complaint that a bylaw officer employed by the City of Edmonton collected and disclosed her personal information in contravention of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the City of Edmonton did not collect the complainant’s personal information when the peace officer recorded the number of dogs she observed in a front window. The City of Edmonton did record personal information of the complainant during the investigation of a bylaw complaint. The Adjudicator found that the disclosure of personal information by the City of Edmonton to the municipal prosecutor in relation to the contravention of the Animal Licensing and Control Bylaw was authorized under FOIP.

An individual made a complaint that Peace River School Division (PRSD) indirectly collected, used and disclosed their personal information contrary to FOIP. The Adjudicator made several determinations regarding the collection, use and disclosure of the individual's personal information, and concluded that PRSD complied with FOIP.

After receiving information from an access request, an individual submitted a complaint that Calgary Police Service (CPS) that a police officer (referred to as AB), now married to the complainant’s former spouse, as well as by other CPS staff who had relationships with AB or with the complainant’s former spouse contravened FOIP. CPS acknowledged that AB had used the complainant’s personal information by accessing it from a CPS database and that this use was unauthorized. However, the Adjudicator found that there was insufficient evidence to determine that AB disclosed the personal information that was used (accessed) without authority.

The applicant made an access request to Grande Prairie Public School District (GPPSD) for her entire human resources file, board meeting information regarding her employment, and copies of certain contracts, project, jobs, work and designs awarded to a particular trustee and any of his companies. The applicant requested a review of GPPSD's search for responsive records, as well as exceptions to access applied by GPPSD to withhold information. The Adjudicator determined that the school district conducted an adequate search for responsive records.

The applicant made an access request to the Municipal District of Opportunity. The Municipal District of Opportunity did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered the Municipal District of Opportunity to respond.

The applicant made an access request to Community and Social Services (CSS) for his file from EmployAbilities, a nonprofit organization that provided services to CSS under contract. CSS provided any responsive records it located in their entirety. The Adjudicator confirmed that CSS had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records and had provided a satisfactory account of the search it conducted.

The applicant made an access request to Community and Social Services (CSS) for their personal information. CSS located 78 records and provided them to the applicant in their entirety. The Adjudicator confirmed that CSS had met its duty to assist the applicant by conducting a reasonable search for responsive records.

An individual made a complaint that Justice and Solicitor General had collected, used and disclosed his personal information in contravention of FOIP by conducting searches of databases to which it has access. The Adjudicator found there was insufficient evidence to support finding that the complainant's personal information had been collected, used or disclosed in the circumstances the complainant alleged.

The applicant made an access request to Thorhild County for copies of emails between two Thorhild County employees and the Deputy Minister and Assistant Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs. Thorhild County responded to the request, stating that it did not locate any responsive records. The Adjudicator determined Thorhild County conducted an adequate search for records.

The applicant made a detailed access request to Labour and Immigration (formerly Jobs, Skills, Training and Labour). The applicant requested a review as to whether Labour and Immigration had met its duty to assist him, as required by section 10 of FOIP. The Adjudicator concluded that Labour and Immigration had met its duty to assist the applicant.

The applicant made an access request to Municipals Affairs for emails sent by an individual employed by Municipal Affairs to Thorhild County Councillors and the Thorhild County Acting CAO. The Adjudicator determined that Municipal Affairs conducted an adequate search for records.

The applicant requested records regarding positions excluded from the bargaining unit from ATB Financial. ATB Financial refused access on the basis that it believed the records were excluded under section 4(1)(r), which states that FOIP does not apply to a record in the custody or control of a treasury branch other than a record that relates to a non-arm's length transaction between the Government of Alberta and another party. ATB Financial also refused access on the basis that it did not have responsive records. The Adjudicator determined that section 4(1)(r) did not apply to the requested records. The Adjudicator ordered ATB Financial to search for, and produce, records relating to policies and classifications for specified positions without reference to section 4(1)(r).

The applicant requested records from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) regarding the RCMP's authority to enter properties during a flood and seize weapons. JSG informed the applicant that it was unable to locate responsive records. The Adjudicator confirmed that JSG had conducted an adequate search for responsive records and met the duty to assist in relation to the access request.

An individual made a complaint that a senior investigator of the Calgary Police Service improperly accessed her personal information by reviewing a file containing reference to her. The complainant did not provide submissions for the inquiry. The Adjudicator found that it had not been established that the complainant's personal information had been accessed. The Adjudicator dismissed the complaint.

Two applicants each made one access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). The first applicant’s access request was for any requests for proposals from, and agreements entered into, by JSG regarding external legal services, and without limiting the request, naming three specific law firms, with respect to the recovery of health care costs associated with the use of tobacco. The second applicant’s access request was for all records related to the awarding of the Contingency Fee Agreement (CFA) between JSG and the law firm group retained and the CFA itself. In addition, the request was for records related to the process of awarding the tobacco litigation legal work as to how the firm selected was chosen over its competitors. The External Adjudicator made several determinations in this part of the inquiry, and ordered the release of certain records.

Two applicants made separate access requests to Justice and Solicitor General. The first applicant made two requests and the second applicant made one request. The first request from the first applicant was for the Contingency Fee Agreement (CFA) and the second for documents related to the CFA, in particular, records regarding the arrangements the Government of Alberta made with outside counsel to pursue litigation to recoup smoking-related health care costs. The second applicant's request was for all records related to the contract tendering process, the selection process of counsel and any requests for proposals and bids submitted connected to the CRA litigation. However, the second applicant withdrew their request for inquiry during the inquiry. The External Adjudicator made several determinations in this part of the inquiry, and ordered the release of certain records.

An applicant made two separate access requests to Health. The first access request was for the Contingency Fee Agreement (CFA) and the second for documents related to the CFA, in particular, records regarding the arrangements the Government of Alberta made with outside counsel to pursue litigation to recoup smoking-related health care costs. The External Adjudicator made several determinations in this part of the inquiry, and ordered the release of certain records.

The applicant requested records related to communication between himself and staff of Edmonton Public School District No. 7 (EPSD). EPSD responded to the access request. It provided some responsive information, but applied sections 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), 20 (disclosure harmful to law enforcement), 24(1)(b) (advice from officials) and 27 (privileged information) of FOIP to sever information from the records. It also withheld information from the applicant as non-responsive. The applicant requested review of EPSD's severing decisions with regard to section 24(1)(b). The Adjudicator confirmed EPSD's decision to sever the information to which it had applied section 24(1)(b).

The applicant requested records regarding NorQuest College's respectful workplace policy and a summary report that had been prepared by an investigator regarding the applicant's allegations of workplace bullying. NorQuest College severed most of the information in the records citing disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17(1) of FOIP) and advice from officials (section 24). The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

An individual made a complaint that the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) disclosed his personal information in contravention of FOIP when it sent his medical information and its reasons for refusing his claim to the company that employed him. The complainant also claimed that the information was subsequently disclosed to various people within WCB. The Adjudicator found that the disclosure was not authorized by a FOIP provision pertaining to disclosure of personal information (section 40(1)).

The applicant requested records related to all retreats and/or meetings attended by principals of Edmonton Catholic School District No. 7 (ECSD) that took place outside of Edmonton. A similar request for records regarding retreats or meetings attended by teachers was also made. ECSD responded by providing a summary it had created for the purpose of responding to the access request. The Adjudicator found that manually creating a summary of information to respond to the access request was not a response contemplated by FOIP. As a result, the Adjudicator found that ECSD had not responded to the applicant.

The applicant made an access request to the County of Two Hills No. 21 for records related to expense claims made by county council members from a specified period of time. The County of Two Hills provided the applicant with a fee estimate in the amount of $1,000. The applicant requested that the county waive the fee on the basis that the records were in the public interest. The county declined to waive the fee. The Applicant paid the fee but requested a review of the county’s decision. The Adjudicator found the County of Two Hills failed to substantiate that the $0.25 per page that it charged to the applicant for photocopying did not exceed its actual costs as required by FOIP. The County of Two Hills also did not provide sufficient information or evidence on how it calculated the estimated or actual cost of any of the additional items it charged the applicant for. As a result, the Adjudicator ordered the county to refund all fees that were paid by the applicant.

The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered JSG to respond.

The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for records related to her mother. AHS provided a response to the applicant under FOIP, withholding information under sections 17, 24 and 27. The Adjudicator determined that the majority of the severed information fell within the terms of HIA, rather than FOIP, as it was about the applicant’s mother’s health and the health services provided to her. As a result, sections 24(1)(b) and 27(1)(a) of FOIP could not apply to the information in the records. The Adjudicator determined that the information AHS had severed under section 24(1)(b) and 27(1)(a) could not be withheld from a patient or the executor of a patient’s estate under HIA.

The applicant requested personal information from the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (RM of Wood Buffalo), including communications with the Workers' Compensation Board and various departments involved in the accommodation process. The applicant requested a review of the RM of Wood Buffalo's fees and adequacy of search in responding to the access request. The Adjudicator found that the RM of Wood Buffalo performed an adequate search, with the exception of the search performed by an employee identified by the applicant as possibly having records. The Adjudicator also found that the RM of Wood Buffalo failed to substantiate that the $0.25 per page for photocopying that it charged to the applicant did not exceed the RM of Wood Buffalo’s actual costs, as required by FOIP.

The applicant requested records from Infrastructure related to a purchase of land by a third party, and records related to communications between Infrastructure and the applicant related to a specified project. Infrastructure provided responsive records with information withheld under sections pertaining to records to which FOIP applies (section 4), disclosure harmful to business interests (section 16(1)), disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17(1)), advice to officials (section 24), disclosure harmful to economic and other interests of a public body (section 25(1)) and privileged information (section 27). Other information was withheld as non-responsive. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

The applicant made an access request to Health. Health did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Health to respond.

An individual submitted a complaint that the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) disclosed without authorization details of a previous WCB injury claim to the physician she had seen regarding the new injury. The Adjudicator accepted WCB's argument that the information about the previous claim was relevant to the complainant's recent claim. The Adjudicator determined that WCB had authority to disclose the complainant's personal information regarding her prior claim to the physician under FOIP (section 40(1)(l)).

The applicant requested an in-car digital video system recording for a specified period of time from the Calgary Police Service (CPS). CPS discovered the camera installed in the relevant police vehicle was non-operational. The Adjudicator determined that CPS had met its duty to assist the applicant under FOIP.

The applicant made an access request to Service Alberta. Service Alberta did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Service Alberta to respond.

The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered JSG to respond.

The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered JSG to respond.

The applicant made an access request to Children's Services regarding a complaint made about him. The applicant requested an inquiry into Children's Services' decision to withhold the name of the complainant under the section pertaining to disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17(1)). The Adjudicator determined Children's Service properly applied section 17(1).

The applicant made an access request to the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) for an electronic copy of the complete staff directory for AER, including job titles, phone numbers, email addresses and organization structure. AER withheld all information under FOIP, citing disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17), disclosure harmful to individual or public safety (section 18), and information that is or will be available to the public (section 29). The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

The applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). EPS did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered EPS to respond.

The applicant made five access requests to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for information related to an employment issue concerning her. AHS provided one response to all requests. It provided some documents, but also withheld information in reliance on sections pertaining to disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17), confidential evaluations (section 19) and advice from officials (section 24). AHS also withheld some information on the basis that some of it was unresponsive. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

The applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for all records related to a specific case. EPS withheld records under FOIP sections pertaining to invasion of third party privacy (section 17(1)), disclosure harmful to law enforcement (section 20) and harm to intergovernmental relations (section 21). During the inquiry, EPS provided the applicant with a new set of records, with more information disclosed. EPS continued to withhold some information under the above cited sections. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

An individual made a complaint that the Human Rights Commission (HRC) collected, used or disclosed his personal information in his personal files. Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) was added as a party to the inquiry. The Adjudicator made several findings in relation to whether HRC or JSG collected, used or disclosed the complainant's personal information in contravention of FOIP. The Adjudicator also made determinations on whether reasonable security arrangements had been made by HRC and JSG.

The applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). EPS did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. However, EPS responded during the inquiry.

The applicant made an access request to Agriculture and Forestry. Agriculture and Forestry did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Agriculture and Forestry to respond.

The applicant requested access to a list of Twitter users or accounts that had been blocked for each Twitter account operated or authorized by Education. Education severed the names of some blocked Twitter accounts. The Adjudicator determined that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the names of blocked Twitter accounts had a personal dimension, and directed Education to give the applicant access to the severed information.

The applicant made an access request to the City of Calgary. The City of Calgary did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered the City of Calgary to respond.

The applicant made an access request to Health. Health did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. However, Health responded during the inquiry.

An individual made a complaint that a consultation request (a summary of the complainant's file) created by the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) and provided to a doctor contained inaccurate and irrelevant information. The consultation request was for the purpose of requesting an independent examination file review from a doctor. The complainant also said that it was inappropriate to provide a summary where this could have the effect that the requested file review report would not be based on a complete file review. The Adjudicator determined that WCB had authority to disclose the complainant's personal information to the doctor, and that it did not fail to ensure the accuracy and completeness of information as required by FOIP (section 35(a)).

An individual requested a correction to his personal information in a document related to an ongoing claim with the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB). The Adjudicator determined that WCB met its duty to make every reasonable effort to ensure the personal information was accurate and complete (section 35(a) of FOIP). The Adjudicator also found that WCB responded properly to the applicant's request for correction of his personal information (section 36 of FOIP).

In response to an access request, the City of Leduc decided it would release information about a request for proposal. A third party objected to the disclosure. The Adjudicator upheld the City of Leduc's decision, as the information was not supplied in confidence.

The applicant made an access request to the Peace River School Division (PRSD) for any records or information that was used and given to a lawyer with the Alberta School Boards Association to write a response to the applicant's human rights complaint, including the information she provided to the superintendent during a meeting. PRSD withheld some information on the basis of solicitor-client privilege. It did not locate the notes the applicant indicated she had left on a table during the meeting with the superintendent. The Adjudicator determined PRSD met its duty to assist the applicant and was authorized to sever privileged information (section 27(1)(a) of FOIP).

The applicant requested records from the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) related to a claim he made. In Order F2013-54, the Adjudicator ordered WCB to recalculate its fees for the request. In this inquiry, the applicant requested a review of WCB's recalculation of fees, and requested a review of WCB's decisions to withhold records. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

The applicant requested records from the Edmonton Police Commission (EPC) related to a former employee. There were five categories of records requested. For two categories, EPC located 46 responsive records. It provided one record in its entirety, but severed the remaining records citing disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17). EPC refused to confirm or deny the existence of records for the remaining three categories of records (section 12(2)). The Adjudicator confirmed EPC's decisions.

The applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). EPS failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. However, EPS responded during the inquiry.

An individual made a complaint that Calgary Police Service (CPS) had disseminated his personal information in contravention of FOIP when its former FOIP Manager provided information about a letter comprised of questions he had written regarding his access request to the Chief and to other CPS officials. The complainant also said that CPS had disseminated his personal information without authority when a law firm was chosen to respond to the access request. Finally, the individual argued that the law firm was not properly delegated to respond to the access request and was in a conflict position. The Adjudicator determined that CPS had not disseminated the individual’s personal information in contravention of FOIP. The Adjudicator determined that the law firm had been delegated to respond to the individual’s letter in accordance with FOIP (section 85).

An individual made a complaint that Parkland School Division (PSD) had collected, used and disclosed her son's personal information and her own personal information in contravention of Part 2 of FOIP. The Adjudicator determined that PSD’s use and collection of personal information was authorized under FOIP. The Adjudicator also determined that there was no evidence that PSD had disclosed personal information when the teacher had attempted to speak to the complainant.

Two separate applicants filed access requests with Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) related to the Government of Alberta's recovery of health care costs litigation under the Crown’s Right of Recovery Act including records related to the selection process of the law firm group chosen to conduct the litigation and the contingency fee agreement between the government and the law firm group. The External Adjudicator made several findings in this part of the inquiry, and ordered JSG to give the applicants access to certain records at issue including one record where specific parts had been partially waived.

The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS). AHS failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered AHS to respond.

The applicant made an access request to the Town of Peace River. The Town of Peace River failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered the Town of Peace River to respond.

The applicant made an access request to the Town of Peace River. The Town of Peace River failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered the Town of Peace River to respond.

The applicant made an access request to the Town of Peace River. The Town of Peace River failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered the Town of Peace River to respond.

The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered JSG to respond.

The applicant made an access request to Status of Women. Status of Women failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Status of Women to respond.

The applicant made an access request to Community and Social Services (CSS). CSS failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered CSS to respond.

The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered JSG to respond.

The applicant made an access request to Energy. Energy failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Energy to respond.

An individual made a complaint that Edmonton Police Service (EPS) had improperly disclosed her personal information under FOIP, when her personal and medical history was provided to other EPS employees as part of an investigation into a complaint made against her under the Police Act. The Adjudicator decided that EPS was authorized under FOIP to collect the personal information in the complaint, and use and disclose the personal information as part of its policing functions. EPS was also found to have used the information necessary for meeting its policing purposes, and made appropriate security arrangements in relation to the information in the complaint.

An individual made a complaint that the University of Alberta contravened FOIP when it disclosed his personal information to the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS). The Adjudicator found the University of Alberta had authority to disclose the complainant's personal information for use in a proceeding before a court or quasi-judicial body to which the public body is a party (section 40(1)(v)). The Adjudicator also determined that the University of Alberta did not disclose beyond the extent necessary (section 40(4)). While some of the personal information disclosed by the University of Alberta to the RTDRS may not have been used by the RTDRS, it is not reasonable to assess the University of Alberta's disclosure on this basis, in hindsight.

The applicant made an access request to the City of Calgary. The City of Calgary failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. However, the City of Calgary responded during the inquiry.

The applicant made an access request to Community and Social Services (CSS). CSS failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered CSS to respond.

The applicant made an access request to Children's Services. Children's Services failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Children's Services to respond.

The applicant requested a fee waiver from Labour for a request for records relating to an investigation report authored by a particular occupational health and safety officer. Labour provided a fee estimate of $290.25; the final fees were $304.25. The applicant paid the fees, and also requested a waiver of the fees on the basis that the records related to a matter of public interest. The Adjudicator found that the records do not relate to a matter of public interest such that a fee waiver would be warranted. The Adjudicator also found that Labour did not provide satisfactory reasons for some of the fees charged to the applicant. The Adjudicator ordered a refund of some of the fees.

The applicant made two access requests to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG), and requested a fee waiver under FOIP. JSG denied the fee waiver, but reduced the initial fee for each access request to $1.00 following the direction of Order F2016-61. The applicant requested that JSG consider the total number of access requests he had before JSG and reduce his fees to zero. After closure of submissions in the inquiry, the applicant paid the initial fees to JSG. JSG asked the Commissioner to close the inquiry for being moot; however, the Commissioner determined the matter was not moot and continued the inquiry. Requests for fee waivers under FOIP must be considered on a case by case basis (section 93(4)). JSG was not required to consider the total number of access requests the applicant had made to it in determining whether the applicant should be excused from paying all or part of the initial fee for his access requests. JSG properly exercised its discretion in reducing the initial fee to $1.00 for each of the two access requests at issue in this inquiry.

The applicant requested his claim history for a specified time period from the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB). The applicant requested a review of whether WCB conducted a reasonable search for responsive records. The Adjudicator found that WCB conducted a reasonable search for responsive records, and had also satisfied the informational component of the duty to assist by explaining the search it had conducted and by satisfactorily explaining why it believed no additional records existed.

The applicant made a request to Labour for briefing material created for the Deputy Minister of Labour who was transitioning to this role. FOIP removes the right of access to a record that is created solely for the purpose of briefing a member of cabinet in respect of assuming responsibility for a ministry (section 6(4)(a)). The Adjudicator confirmed Labour's decision to refuse access to the record.

The applicant requested a copy of the contents of briefing binders for representatives of Treasury Board and Finance (TBF) attending the debate of the budget estimate for Budget 2014-15. The applicant also requested a copy of the binder created for anyone from the Deputy Minister down to Executive Director level that would be attending the debate. TBF provided some responsive records, but withheld other records on the basis that the records were created for the sole purpose of briefing a member of Executive Council in preparation for a sitting of the legislature (section 6(4)(b) of FOIP). For several reasons set out in the order, the Adjudicator determined that TBF was authorized to refuse access to the records at issue.

The applicant requested a copy of the contents of briefing binders for representatives of Executive Council attending a specified Standing Committee on Public Accounts meeting. Executive Council withheld the records on the basis that the records were created for the sole purpose of briefing a member of the Executive Council in preparation for a sitting of the legislature (section 6(4)(b) of FOIP). The Adjudicator found that records prepared for a sitting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts do not fall within the scope of section 6(4)(b) and directed Executive Council to respond to the applicant without reliance on that section.

The applicant requested a copy of the contents of briefing binders for representatives of Culture and Tourism attending a specified Standing Committee on Public Accounts meeting. Culture and Tourism withheld the records on the basis that the records were created for the sole purpose of briefing a member of the Executive Council in preparation for a sitting of the legislature (section 6(4)(b) of FOIP). The Adjudicator found that records prepared for a sitting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts do not fall within the scope of section 6(4)(b) and directed Culture and Tourism to respond to the applicant without reliance on that section.

The applicant requested a copy of the contents of briefing binders for representatives of Seniors and Housing attending a specified Standing Committee on Public Accounts meeting. Seniors and Housing withheld the records on the basis that the records were created for the sole purpose of briefing a member of the Executive Council in preparation for a sitting of the legislature (section 6(4)(b) of FOIP). The Adjudicator found that records prepared for a sitting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts do not fall within the scope of section 6(4)(b) and directed Seniors and Housing to respond to the applicant without reliance on that section.

The applicant requested a copy of the contents of briefing binders for representatives of Education attending the debate of the Ministry's budget estimate. Education withheld records on the basis that the records were created for the sole purpose of briefing a member of Executive Council in preparation for a sitting of the legislature (section 6(4)(b) of the FOIP Act). For several reasons set out in the order, the Adjudicator determined that Education was authorized to refuse access to the records.

The applicant requested a copy of the contents of briefing binders for representatives of Executive Council attending the debate of the Ministry's budget estimate. Executive Council withheld records on the basis that the records were created for the sole purpose of briefing a member of Executive Council in preparation for a sitting of the legislature (section 6(4)(b) of FOIP). For several reasons set out in this order, the Adjudicator determined that Executive Council was authorized to refuse access to the records.

The applicant requested a copy of the contents of briefing binders for representatives of Health attending the debate of the Ministry's budget estimate. Health withheld records on the basis that the records were created for the sole purpose of briefing a member of Executive Council in preparation for a sitting of the legislature (section 6(4)(b) of FOIP). For several reasons set out in this order, the Adjudicator determined that Health was authorized to refuse access to the records.

The applicant made an access request to Health. Health failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Health to respond.

In Order F2017-40, Peace River School Division's (PRSD) decisions with respect to an applicant's correction request were confirmed. The applicant then requested PRSD to confirm that it had provided notice of the annotations to public bodies and organizations under section 36(4) of FOIP. PRSD initially did not respond to the request but subsequently conducted a search for responsive records and provided them to the applicant. The Adjudicator found that PRSD's initial response was deficient, but that it had subsequently brought itself into compliance with its duties under section 10 of FOIP. With respect to the other information for which annotations had been made, the Adjudicator found that PRSD had complied with any duties to provide notice of the annotations imposed by section 36(4) of FOIP.

The applicant made an access request to Service Alberta. Service Alberta failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Service Alberta to respond. The Adjudicator noted that there is no provision of FOIP that authorizes a public body to stop making reasonable efforts to respond to an applicant under section 11 when the applicant requests review of the public body’s compliance with section 11, as Service Alberta had done in this case.

The applicant made an access request to Health. Health failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. However, Health responded during the inquiry.

The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS). AHS failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. However, AHS responded during the inquiry.

An applicant filed two access requests with Health related to the Government of Alberta's tobacco lawsuit. The External Adjudicator made several determinations in this order, including finding that the applicant successfully met their burden to prove that the public interest override (section 32(1)(b)) should be applied to all records at issue, excluding any record subject to legal privilege.

Two separate applicants filed access requests with Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) related to the Government of Alberta's tobacco lawsuit. The External Adjudicator made several determinations in this order, including finding that one of the applicants successfully met their burden to prove that the public interest override (section 32(1)(b)) should be applied to all records at issue, excluding any record subject to legal privilege.

An individual made a complaint alleging that two nurses employed by Alberta Health Services (AHS) had collected a physician's note that she had submitted to the University of Calgary. The two nurses offer services on behalf of AHS at a building where the complainant’s employer also provides services and at which the complainant works. AHS is not the complainant’s employer. The individual explained that the basis of her complaint was that she discovered the note in question lying face up on the fax in the office used by the two nurses. The Adjudicator found that it had not been established that AHS had collected the note and also found that even if it had been proven that the nurses had gained access to the note, or reviewed its contents, it would not mean that AHS had custody or control over the note. The Adjudicator determined that AHS did not have any duties for the protection of personal information (section 38) that it had failed to meet in relation to the note.

The applicant requested all records relating to the Edmonton Police Service's (EPS) YouTube series, “The Squad”. EPS located 1,448 pages of responsive records but severed information under provisions relating to disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party (section 16(1)), disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17(1)), disclosure harmful to law enforcement (section 20(1)), advice from officials (section 24(1)) and privileged information (section 27(1)) of FOIP. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.

The applicant made a request to Community and Social Services (CSS), for Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped (AISH) policy and procedure manuals used during a specified time. CSS provided copies of its policy and procedure manual, but the applicant requested a review of the response arguing he received nonresponsive records. The Adjudicator determined that any recorded information used by employees as policies, guidelines, directions or procedures for making current decisions would be responsive to the applicant's access requests. The Adjudicator directed CSS to conduct a new search for responsive records.

The applicant made an access request to Service Alberta. Service Alberta failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Service Alberta to respond.

The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks for records concerning the eligibility of groups or individuals to appear at hearings of the Alberta Energy Regulator. This was the third part of the inquiry. The other issues were previously dealt with in Orders F2018-20 and F2018-21. Concerning the records at issue in this part, the Adjudicator found that the records were properly withheld under provisions related to advice from officials and privileged information (sections 24(1) and 27(1)) of FOIP.

The applicant requested access to a third party's response to the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology's (NAIT's) request for quotes. The third party disputed NAIT's decision that the exception pertaining to disclosure harmful to third party business interests (section 16(1) of FOIP) did not apply to the record. The Adjudicator confirmed NAIT's decision that section 16(1) did not apply and ordered NAIT to disclose the disputed information to the applicant.

In Order F2014-23, the Adjudicator did not confirm the City of Lethbridge's decisions to sever statements made by an officer who was the subject of an investigation, and directed the City of Lethbridge to make a new decision taking into consideration relevant factors. The Adjudicator also directed the City of Lethbridge to make a new decision regarding information that the Adjudicator was unable to find had a personal dimension. In this order, the Adjudicator found that there was no indication that the City of Lethbridge had complied with the directions in Order F2014-23. The Adjudicator ordered the City of Lethbridge to give the applicant access to the records.

The applicant made an access request to Seniors and Housing. Seniors and Housing failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Seniors and Housing to respond.

The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS). AHS failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered AHS to respond, if it had not already done so.

The applicant made an access request to the University of Alberta. The University of Alberta failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered the University of Alberta to respond.

The applicant requested records from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) related to the 2013 floods and more specifically information relating to the berms that were constructed. JSG withheld records in their entirety, citing sections related to records to which FOIP does not apply (section 4), disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party (section 16), disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17), disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations (section 21), advice from officials (section 24), disclosure harmful to economic and other interests of a public body (section 25) and privileged information (section 27). This order dealt with the claim of solicitor-client privilege to some of records, which were not provided to the Adjudicator for the inquiry. The Adjudicator determined that JSG failed to meet its burden to show that it properly claimed solicitor-client privilege over the records at issue in this part of the inquiry.

The applicant made a request to Service Alberta for specific categories of information, such as advice that it had relied on in determining its position as to whether the Residential Tenancies Act applied in national parks. Service Alberta provided some records, but withheld information it claimed to be privileged (section 27(1)(a) of FOIP). The Adjudicator determined that the withheld records were subject to solicitor-client privilege on the balance of probabilities.

The applicant made an access request to Corporate Human Resources (CHR) for a copy of a services agreement between CHR and Great-West Life Assurance Company. CHR provided a copy of the agreement with information severed citing the section related to disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party (section 16 of FOIP). The Adjudicator found that disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party did not apply to the pricing schedule, as it was not supplied in confidence. The Adjudicator also determined that there was insufficient evidence to show that disclosure of the pricing schedule could reasonably be expected to result in a harm set out in FOIP.

The applicant made an access request to the Human Rights Commission (HRC) for records containing information about a human rights complaint she had made against the University of Calgary. In Order F2013-51, HRC was directed to disclose further information and to reconsider its reliance on the section pertaining to disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17 of FOIP). HRC continued to rely on the section pertaining to disclosure harmful to personal privacy to withhold some information in the records from the applicant. HRC did not provide additional information during this inquiry. In the absence of additional evidence establishing context, the Adjudicator was bound by the decision in Order F2013-51 that it was not possible to determine whether the information in the records had a personal dimension. The Adjudicator ordered HRC to disclose the records to the applicant, with the exception of contact information which the applicant had clarified she was not seeking.

The applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). EPS failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered EPS to respond.

The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered JSG to respond.

The applicant requested from Environment and Parks information concerning the eligibility of groups or individuals to appear at hearings of the Alberta Energy Regulator. Environment and Parks responded but withheld some information citing sections related to advice from officials (section 24 of FOIP) and privileged information (section 27). Given the recent Court of Appeal decision, Calgary (Police Service) v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2018 ABCA 114 (Order F2016-35), the Adjudicator decided to hold this inquiry in two parts. This is the order for the second part of the inquiry, which deals with the records to which the section related to privileged information was applied. The Adjudicator found that Environment and Parks properly applied a privileged information exception to certain pages of the records at issue, but did not meet its burden to show that it properly claimed solicitor-client privilege and another privileged information exception to other pages of the records at issue.

The applicant requested from Environment and Parks information concerning the eligibility of groups or individuals to appear at hearings of the Alberta Energy Regulator. Environment and Parks responded but withheld some information citing sections related to advice from officials (section 24) and privileged information (section 27). Given the recent Court of Appeal decision, Calgary (Police Service) v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2018 ABCA 114 (Order F2016-35), the Adjudicator decided to hold this inquiry in two parts. This is the order for the first part of the inquiry, which deals with the records to which the section related to advice from officials was applied. The Adjudicator found that Environment and Parks properly applied the advice from officials exceptions to the records at issue.

The applicant made an access request to Agriculture and Forestry. Agriculture and Forestry failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Agriculture and Forestry to respond.

The applicant made an access request to Labour for records that documented his dealings with Labour. In Order F2017-65, the Adjudicator concluded that many of the records contained information which Labour used to make decisions, and on this account they fell under the section pertaining to advice from officials. However, the Adjudicator asked Alberta Labour to take into account in exercising its discretion with respect to some of the emails. Labour continued to withhold the emails by claiming solicitor-client privilege (section 27 of FOIP). The Adjudicator agreed with Labour's decision to withhold the emails on the basis that the information was covered by solicitor-client privilege.

The applicant made an access request to Culture and Tourism. Culture and Tourism did not inform the Adjudicator whether it had responded to the applicant.

The applicant requested information about him in the possession of the City of Calgary's prosecution branch. The City of Calgary withheld some information citing sections related to disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17 of FOIP) and advice from officials (section 24). The Adjudicator found that the City of Calgary properly applied the section related to disclosure harmful to personal privacy to the information on page 29 of the records at issue with the exception of the first part of the first sentence. The Adjudicator also found that the City of Calgary properly applied the section on advice from officials to the information on page 30 but not to the first half of the first sentence severed by the city on page 29 of the records at issue, and ordered that information to be disclosed.