Decisions

Other Decisions

Other decisions include:

  • A "decision" is a direction issued by the Commissioner during an inquiry that does not usually conclude the inquiry. The type of decision that typically concludes an inquiry is called an "order".
  • An "advance ruling" is made under the Personal Information Protection Act (section 36(3)) where the Commissioner may, on request, give advance rulings in respect of any matters that are or could potentially be the subject of an investigation.
Decision Entity Summary
P2020-D-01 Weinrich Contracting Ltd. The Adjudicator determined that an agreement between the complainant and Weinrich Contracting Ltd, for which the complainant was a sole director and equal shareholder with his brother, does 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.
P2013-D-01 Legal Aid Society of Alberta The Adjudicator decided that the Legal Aid Society was subject to PIPA.
P2012-AR-01 AYSA Pharm Inc. AYSA Pharm Inc. requested an advance ruling on whether it should release contact information about its employees to the union that had recently become certified to represent some of its employees. The Commissioner delegated authority to the British Columbia Information and Privacy Commissioner.
P2011-D-03 Davidson & Williams LLP A law firm was ordered to respond in accordance with the OIPC's Solicitor-Client Adjudication Protocol.
P2011-D-01 Alberta Teachers' Association The Adjudicator did not recuse himself from a matter regarding the Alberta Teachers' Association (ATA), and found that an inquiry into a complaint against the ATA was warranted.
P2010-D-01 Alberta Teachers' Association The Alberta Teachers' Association objected to the continuation of an inquiry on the basis of a Court of Appeal decision. It was found, however, that PIPA permitted more than one time extension. A "presumption of termination" had not arisen in this case. This decision was subject to judicial review. It was quashed on other grounds and remitted. Decision on remittance - see Order P2012-002 and Decision P2011-D-001.
FOIP2025-D-02 & HIA2025-D-01 Shepherd's Care Foundation The Applicant made an access request to Shepherd’s Care Foundation (SCF) for copies of all records, including health records, relating to their mother, who resided at SCF. The Applicant stated that they were making the request on behalf of their mother. SCF responded to the request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP Act). SCF provided records, with information withheld under sections 17(1), 20, 24, and 27 of the FOIP Act. The Applicant requested an inquiry into SCF’s response. The first part of the inquiry addressed whether the Applicant had authority to act on behalf of their mother. It also addressed whether the FOIP Act or the Health Information Act (HIA), or both, apply to the information in the responsive records. The Adjudicator found that the Applicant had authority to make the access request, and subsequently request a review of SCF’s response, on behalf of their mother. The Adjudicator found that much of the information in the records at issue is information subject to the FOIP Act; however, some information is health information of the Applicant under the HIA. SCF must therefore process the relevant portion of the records under the HIA.
FOIP2025-D-01 University of Alberta Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act), the Applicant made four access requests to the University of Alberta (the Public Body). The Applicant sought review of the Public Body’s response to each access request; each review proceeded to the inquiry stage. The first inquiry was discontinued because of the Applicant’s failure to participate. The Public Body requested that the remaining inquiries be discontinued on the basis that the Applicant would not participate, and that proceeding would be unfair and an abuse of process. The Applicant wished the remaining inquiries to continue. Under those circumstances the Adjudicator found that continuing them as prescribed by the FOIP Act would not be an abuse of process or unfair to the Public Body. Even if the Applicant made no further substantial submissions in the inquiries, the inquiry process did not require him to. Since the Applicant remained interested in the outcome, the Adjudicator decided that the remaining inquiries should proceed.
F2024-D-02 Justice An applicant (the Applicant) made an access to information request to Justice (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act). Canadian National Railway Company is an affected third party in the inquiry into the Public Body’s response to the access request (the Affected Third Party). In the course of the inquiry, the Affected Third Party raised an argument that the records at issue in the inquiry were not properly responsive to the access request. The Adjudicator found that the Affected Third Party’s argument about responsiveness raised a separate issue: whether an affected third party could raise a challenge to a public body’s determination that the records were responsive, and hence whether the Affected Third Party’s argument should be considered in the inquiry. The Adjudicator sought submissions from the parties on the issue. The Adjudicator found that the matter of whether records are responsive to an access request is relevant to sections 10(1) and 7(2) of the FOIP Act. While the FOIP Act suggests that only an applicant can challenge responsiveness with respect to duties owed to an applicant under section 10(1), responsiveness is a jurisdictional matter with respect of section 7(2). As a matter of jurisdiction, challenges to responsiveness in relation to section 7(2) may be brought by any party, including the Affected Third Party. The Adjudicator decided to consider the Affected Third Party’s challenge to responsiveness.
F2024-D-01 University of Calgary The Public Body requested that the adjudicator recuse herself on the basis that it had a reasonable apprehension of bias regarding the adjudicator. The Public Body pointed to the fact that in Order F2023-45 the adjudicator did not follow a precedent the Public Body argued she should have followed, and because the adjudicator changed the order of submissions, which the Public Body considered to reverse the burden of proof in the inquiry. The Public Body also pointed to the fact that it had applied for judicial review of Order F2023-45. The Adjudicator determined that the Public Body had not established that it had been denied procedural fairness or that it had a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Adjudicator determined that the inquiry would proceed on the issues of whether section 4(1)(b) applies.
F2023-D-01 Alberta Health Services On March 12, 2018, the Applicant, a former employee of Alberta Health Services (the Public Body) requested records 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 my 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 Adjudicator sent a letter to the parties requesting further submissions regarding the Public Body’s application of settlement privilege and the fact that it had not provided copies of records over which settlement privilege was claimed. The Public Body requested a three-month extension to provide the requested submissions. The Adjudicator denied the requested extension with reasons. The Public Body alleged bias by the adjudicator and denial of procedural fairness. The Public Body raised five issues of bias:
  1. Did the framing by the Adjudicator, in her letter of May 31, 2023, of the issue of the application of section 56(3) of the FOIP Act to the records over which the Public Body claims settlement privilege effectively render a decision prior to the submissions of the parties, resulting in a reasonable apprehension of bias or a lack of procedural fairness, or both, in this Inquiry?
  2. Did the Adjudicator’s request for submissions from the Public Body on the application of section 56(3) of the FOIP Act to the records over which the Public Body claims settlement privilege, prior to framing the issue and adding it as an issue in this Inquiry, result in a lack of procedural fairness in this Inquiry?
  3. Did the Adjudicator’s rendering of a decision on the Public Body’s extension request dated June 12, 2023, prior to the expiry of the Applicant’s deadline to respond to such extension request, result in a reasonable apprehension of bias in this Inquiry?
  4. Did the Adjudicator’s denial of the Public Body’s request for an extension to the June 21, 2023 deadline result in a lack of procedural fairness in this Inquiry?
  5. Did the procedure directed by the Adjudicator for the Public Body to respond to the Adjudicator’s May 31, 2023 correspondence absent an extension result in a lack of procedural fairness in this Inquiry?
The Adjudicator answered all five questions in the negative and determined that the Public Body had not established that it had been denied procedural fairness or that it had a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Adjudicator determined that the inquiry would proceed on the issues of whether section 56(3) of the FOIP Act required the Public Body to provide the records over which it claimed settlement privilege and whether the Public Body properly applied section 27(1)(a) to the information in the records.
F2020-D-01 Labour Relations Board An individual made a complaint about a Labour Relations Board (LRB) decision to refuse to mask his personal information in a publicly available decision and argued that failing to mask his personal information from the decision on the LRB’s website contravened Part 2 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the decision not to mask personal information was made by a vice-chair of LRB and was made within LRB’s exclusive jurisdiction to make under section 12(4) of the Labour Relations Code. The Adjudicator determined that the doctrine of issue estoppel or “res judicata” applied and that factors relevant to this doctrine weighed against exercising discretion to deciding the issue for inquiry.
F2018-D-03 City of Calgary The applicant made a request for records from the City of Calgary. The City of Calgary acknowledged that it did not respond to the applicant within the time limit set out in FOIP, and said it expected to provide a response by a certain date. The Adjudicator required the City of Calgary to provide the Adjudicator with a copy of its cover letter responding to the applicant when responding to him. The Adjudicator reserved jurisdiction to make an order in relation to the time limit set out in FOIP if the circumstances require it.
F2017-D-02 City of Calgary On the fourth page of a letter sent to the City of Calgary, the applicant made an access request. The applicant requested a review of the City of Calgary's failure to respond to her access request. The City of Calgary informed the Adjudicator and the applicant that it now realized that the letter was an access request and it had begun processing it. The Adjudicator decided not to make an order, because making an order would mean that the City of Calgary would be required to delay its response by 45 days in accordance with FOIP. However, the Adjudicator reserved jurisdiction to make an order in relation to the timing of the City of Calgary’s response if it became necessary to do so.
F2017-D-01 University of Calgary After the Supreme Court of Canada, in Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. University of Calgary, 2016 SCC 53, found that the Commissioner does not have the power to compel such records, the Commissioner delegated a different Adjudicator to complete the inquiry. The University of Calgary took the position that the question of whether the records had been properly withheld from an applicant by the University of Calgary in reliance on the exception of privileged information had already been decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. However, the Adjudicator held that the Supreme Court had not already made a decision about whether privilege had been properly claimed over all the records at issue for a number of reasons set out in this decision.
F2015-D-01 Calgary Regional Partnership Inc. The Calgary Regional Partnership Inc. found not subject to FOIP.
F2014-D-02 Alberta Health Services The applicant requested information regarding her employment history from Alberta Health Services (AHS). AHS responded to the applicant but severed some information under sections 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) and 27 (privileged information). With regard to section 27(1)(a), the Adjudicator decided that AHS should have opportunity to obtain evidence and precedents to support its application of section 27(1)(a) to the records, which resulted in this interim decision for this aspect of the inquiry.
F2014-D-01 Jobs, Skills, Labour and Training The Adjudicator concluded that a review of the application of section 16(1) of FOIP to the requested information could proceed, so as to determine whether disclosure of the information would be harmful to the business interests of any third party. The applicant had requested information from Jobs, Skills, Labour and Training relating to the province's "highest-risk employers" in terms of compliance with occupational health and safety standards.
F2013-D-01 Alberta Treasury Branches This decision provided supplementary reasons to Order F2012-09. This decision was subject to judicial review. It was upheld.
F2012-D-02, P2012-D-01 & M2012-D-01 Service Alberta & Sentinel Registry Ltd. A jurisdictional issue related to a complaint against Sentinel Regisry Ltd. was found to be subject to FOIP not PIPA.
F2012-D-01 Workers' Compensation Board The Adjudicator decided notification of affected third parties was not practicable for the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB). Instead, the adjudicator decided to review the submissions of WCB and the applicant before considering whether any affected parties should be given notice.
F2011-D-02 Service Alberta The Adjudicator determined that the issues for inquiry had not been decided in Order F2009-024 and that there was jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry. Service Alberta had made a jurisdictional challenge of the adjudicator to conduct an inquiry.
F2010-D-03 The Adjudicator decided not to conduct an inquiry in relation to the Calgary Police Service's decision to withhold information from the applicant in response to an access request.
F2010-D-02 Grande Yellowhead Public School Division A time extension to complete an inquiry was challenged based on a test set out in a Court of Appeal decision. The inquiry proceeded because delays had been occasioned by operational factors inherent to the inquiry process, as well as by positions taken by the parties involved. This decision was subject to judicial review. The application was discontinued.
F2010-D-01 Edmonton Police Service Edmonton Police Service objected to an inquiry on the basis that the timelines had set out in FOIP had been exceed, and that the inquiry must be terminated by reference to the test set out in a Court of Appeal decision. It was found that the court's decision did not apply in this case, and the inquiry could continue. This decision was subject to judicial review. It was not heard.
F2009-D-01 Solicitor General and Public Security The Adjudicator decided that there was no basis for accepting Alberta Solicitor General and Public Security's submissions and evidence "in camera". This decision was subject to judicial review. It was upheld.
F2008-D-03 Edmonton Police Commission The Adjudicator decided that the Edmonton Police Service Chief of Police was a person affected by a request for review.
F2008-D-02 Employment and Immigration The Adjudicator concluded that those employers that indicate that they wish to participate in the inquiry would be affected by the request for review, and that those employers would then be provided with a copy of the applicant's request for review. This decision was subject to judicial review. It was quashed and remitted to a different adjudicator.
F2008-D-01 Employment and Immigration The Adjudicator determined that employers mentioned in records subject to inquiry were required to be notified of the applicant's request for review on a request for records from Alberta Employment and Immigration. This decision was subject to judicial review. It was quashed and remitted to a different adjudicator.
Go to Top