What's New

The Applicant made a request for access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act) to the Alberta Human Rights Commission (the Public Body) for specific records, including a report of an investigation, a report regarding the Public Body, and a tracking document. The Public Body located records but refused access to some information in them under sections 19 (confidential evaluations) and 24 (advice from officials), and as “non-responsive”. The Applicant requested review of the Public Body’s severing decisions and the adequacy of its search. The Adjudicator determined that the information was responsive and that… Read More...

Rocky View School Division (the Public Body) made a decision to extend the timelines for responding to the Applicant’s access request by 30 business days under section 16(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act (ATIA or the Act).  The Adjudicator confirmed the extension of the time limit taken under section 16(1)(b). Read More...

The head of the Village of Edgerton (the Public Body) made four decisions to disregard four of the Applicant’s access requests under section 9(1) of the Access to Information Act (ATIA).  The Commissioner found the Public Body had not met its duty to assist under section 12 of ATIA and was therefore not permitted to disregard the Applicant’s access requests.  The Commissioner ordered the Public Body to respond to the access requests in accordance with its obligations under ATIA. Read More...

Under the Access to Information Act, the Applicant made an access to information request to Sturgeon Public School Division (the Public Body). The Public Body inadvertently failed to respond to the access request while dealing with other access requests from the Applicant. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body failed to comply with section 13 of ATIA (time limit for responding) and order the Public Body to respond to the access request as required. Read More...

An individual made an access request to Environment and Parks (now Environment and Protected Areas, the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP Act) for “Correspondence between Alberta Environment and Parks and [a named individual] relating to the Dam Safety Assessment and Risk Mitigation study relating to induced seismicity for the Brazeau Dam established in 2020.” The Public Body responded to the request, informing the Applicant that it was withholding 443 pages of responsive records in their entirety under section 27(1)(a) (legal privilege). The Applicant requested a review of this response. During the settlement… Read More...

The Applicant made an access request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act) to Energy and Minerals (the Public Body) for records pertaining to meetings that took place on May 21, 2019 (one meeting) and January 8, 2020 (two meetings). The Public Body located 1036 pages of responsive records. A fee was issued and after requesting an extension to reply, the Public Body informed the Applicant that most of the records were not responsive and records that were responsive had already been provided to the Applicant. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body failed… Read More...

Under the Access to Information Act (ATIA), the Applicant made an access to information request to the City of Spruce Grove (the Public Body) for information about agreements and financial arrangements between the Public Body and Accident Support Services International Ltd. (the Third Party). The Public Body notified the Third Party about possible disclosure of its information. The Third Party objected to the Public Body’s proposed disclosure and argued that its information must be withheld under section 19(1) of ATIA (disclosure harmful to business interests). The Adjudicator found that there was no substantial difference between section 19(1) of ATIA and… Read More...

An Applicant made a request to Alberta Environment and Parks (now Environment and Protected Areas) (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP Act), for communications and related records between the Public Body and the Alberta Energy Regulator regarding Benga Mining or the Grassy Mountain Coal Project. The Public Body responded to the Applicant, granting access to part of the requested records with information withheld under sections 17(1), 21(1)(a), 24(1)(a) and (b), and 27(1)(a) and (b) of the FOIP Act. The Public Body also removed some information as non-responsive. The Applicant requested a review… Read More...

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act), the Applicant made an access to information request to Public Safety and Emergency Services (the Public Body, formerly Justice and Solicitor General) for information regarding assaults on correctional officers and a related lockdown at the Edmonton Remand Centre. The request explicitly included CCTV recordings. The Public Body did not locate any CCTV recordings and withheld information under sections 17, 20, and 24 of the FOIP Act in response to the access request. Section 20 was not an issue at inquiry. Whether the Public Body met the duty… Read More...

The Applicant made a request for records from the Public Body (the City of Medicine Hat) pertaining to their campaign. After settlement efforts, the only document at issue was a one-page email. The Public Body withheld information under section 20(1) of the Access to Information Act, S.A. 2024, c. A-1.4 (ATIA). Eleven lines or blocks of information were withheld. The Adjudicator confirmed the decision to withhold identifying third party personal information in blocks 1-2, 7, 9-10 under section 20(1), and ordered the information withheld in blocks 3-6, 8 and 11 to be released as that information was not personally identifying… Read More...

Alberta’s Information and Privacy Commissioner joined her counterparts from across the country at annual meeting this week in Ottawa Canada’s federal, provincial and territorial information and privacy commissioners and ombuds gathered in Ottawa this week to explore ways to continue to foster public trust in democratic institutions through transparency, privacy protection and independent oversight. Hosted by Information Commissioner of Canada Caroline Maynard and Privacy Commissioner of Canada Philippe Dufresne, the annual meeting brought together information and privacy regulators from across the country to discuss their roles as independent oversight bodies and to exchange perspectives on issues affecting their respective jurisdictions.… Read More...

A corporate Third Party requested a review of the decision of Education and Childcare (the Public Body) to disclose information about it in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act (ATIA). The Adjudicator considered whether the Public Body’s proposed disclosure complied with section 19(1) of ATIA (Disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party). The Adjudicator found that the proposed disclosure complied with section 19(1). Read More...

The Applicant made an access to information request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act) to the Edmonton Police Service (the Public Body) for all records related to a Professional Standards Branch investigation into police officer conduct. The Public Body withheld information under sections 17(1), 20(1), 27(1), and 29(1) of the FOIP Act. Information withheld under section 27(1)(a) was withheld on the basis that it was subject to solicitor-client privilege and a statutory privilege under section 51 of the Police Act. The Applicant did not challenge the Public Body’s decision to withhold information as… Read More...

The head of Leduc County, a public body subject to the Access to Information Act (ATIA), made a decision to disregard an applicant’s access request (Applicant) under section 9(1)(d) of ATIA.  For part of the request, the Commissioner found that it had not met its duty to assist under section 12, and for the other part found it did not have authority under section 7(3) to request further information from the Applicant that is necessary to process the request.  The result was that Leduc County was not permitted to disregard the Applicant’s access request under section 9(1)(d) of ATIA.  Leduc… Read More...

City of Grande Prairie (the Public Body) made two decisions under section 16(4) of the Access to Information Act (ATIA or the Act) to extend the timelines for responding to the Applicant’s access request.  The Adjudicator found the Public Body was already in deemed refusal under section 13(2) of ATIA when the first extension decision was made and ordered the Public Body to respond to the request. Read More...

An Applicant made a request to The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company (the Organization) for a copy of a letter containing a decision to deny coverage and the reasons for the decision. The Applicant was not satisfied with the Organization’s response and requested review by the Commissioner under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). The Adjudicator determined that the Applicant has not made an access request for personal information. The Adjudicator confirmed that the Organization had not failed to meet any obligations imposed by PIPA. Read More...

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act) a media organization (the Applicant) made an access to information request to the City of Red Deer (the Public Body). Under sections 30 and 31 of the FOIP Act, the Public Body provided notice to a third party (the Third Party) that it was considering disclosing the Third Party’s personal information in response to the access request. The Third Party objected to disclosure of their personal information and requested a review of the Public Body’s decision to disclose it. The Third Party’s position was that disclosing the… Read More...

The head of ARROW Utilities (the Public Body) made a decision to extend the timelines for responding to the Applicant’s access request by 31 business days under sections 16(1)(b) and 16(3) of the Access to Information Act (ATIA or the Act).  The Adjudicator confirmed the extension of 31 business days taken under sections 16(1)(b) and 16(3) to respond to the access request. Read More...

The Applicant made a request for access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act) to Public Safety and Emergency Services (the Public Body) for: “ASIRT final report for 2015-19(S) – […] Time period: January 1, 2015 to August 29, 2019.” The ASIRT report documented an investigation of a fatal shooting involving members of the Calgary Police Service. The Public Body located responsive records but severed information from them under sections 17(1) (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) and 20(1)(c), (k), and (l) (disclosure harmful to law enforcement). The Applicant requested review by the Commissioner of… Read More...

The Complainant made a complaint to this office that the Town of Okotoks (the Public Body) collected, used and disclosed the Complainant’s personal information in contravention of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP Act or the Act). The Commissioner decided to conduct an inquiry into the matter. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body had authority to collect and use the Complainant’s personal information as it did. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body did not disclose the Complainant’s personal information. Read More...