PIPA |
2024 |
|
P2024-07
|
October 1, 2024 |
University of Alberta Students' Union
The Complainant was an elected member of the Council of University of Alberta Student’s Union (the Organization) in 2004. In…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2024 |
|
P2024-06 & H2024-02
|
July 16, 2024 |
Dr. Derick Rautenbach
The Complainant filed two complaints regarding a transfer of his information from Dr. Derick Rautenbach (the Custodian) to Sun Life…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2024 |
|
P2024-05
|
June 21, 2024 |
Veterans Villa Housing Project
An individual made a complaint under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) alleging that the Veterans Villa Housing Project (the…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2024 |
|
P2024-04
|
May 31, 2024 |
Endeavor Parking Corp.
A tenant at a condominium complex (the Complainant), made a complaint that the policies and practices of Endeavor Parking Corp.…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2024 |
|
P2024-03
|
March 28, 2024 |
Loblaw Companies Limited
The Complainant is a PC Optimum loyalty program member. On June 1, 2020, he received an email from Shoppers Drug…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2024 |
|
P2024-02
|
March 28, 2024 |
United Nurses of Alberta
The Complainant made a complaint under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) alleging the United Nurses of Alberta (the Organization)…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2024 |
|
P2024-01
|
March 25, 2024 |
United Nurses of Alberta
An individual (the Applicant) made a request to the United Nurses of Alberta (the Organization) for the notes taken by…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2023 |
|
P2023-10
|
December 8, 2023 |
Frohlich Rollins Schwab, Barristers and Solicitors
The Complainant complained that Frohlich Rollins Schwab, Barristers and Solicitors (the Organization) collected and used his personal information in contravention…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2023 |
|
P2023-09
|
October 20, 2023 |
Association of Academic Staff of the University of Alberta
Pursuant to the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA or the Act), an individual (the Applicant) requested a copy of his…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2023 |
|
P2023-08
|
October 13, 2023 |
West Fraser Mills LTD.
An Applicant made an access request under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) to West Fraser Mills Ltd. (the Organization)…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
P2023-07 / F2023-36
|
August 24, 2023 |
Credit Counselling Services of Alberta Ltd. O/A Money Mentors and The Debtors’ Assistance Board
The Complainant alleged that Money Mentors (the Organization) collected her personal information contrary to the Personal Information and Protection Act…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2023 |
|
P2023-06
|
August 1, 2023 |
Lindt & Sprungli (Canada) Inc.
The Applicant made an access request under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) to Lindt & Sprungli (Canada) Ltd. (the…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2023 |
|
P2023-05
|
April 5, 2023 |
TD Insurance Meloche Monnex
An individual made a complaint alleging that TD Insurance Meloche Monnex (TD Insurance) required insurance claimants to consent to the…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2023 |
|
P2023-04
|
March 31, 2023 |
Alberta Teachers' Association
An individual (the Applicant) made an access request to the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) under PIPA for records of an…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2023 |
|
P2023-03
|
March 3, 2023 |
Advanced Upstream Ltd.
An individual made a complaint alleging that Advanced Upstream Ltd. disclosed his personal information in contravention of PIPA when, through…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2023 |
|
P2023-02
|
February 8, 2023 |
Direct Energy Regulated Services
An individual made a complaint that Direct Energy Regulated Services (Direct Energy) collected, retained and used his personal information in…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2023 |
|
P2023-01
|
January 19, 2023 |
Acuren Group Inc.
The applicant made a request to the Acuren Group Inc. for access to his own personal information. Acuren Group withheld…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2022 |
|
P2022-07
|
June 30, 2022 |
Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta
The applicant made an access request to the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) requesting all records…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2022 |
|
P2022-06
|
June 13, 2022 |
Shell Canada Ltd.
The applicant made an access request to Shell Canada Ltd. requesting information related to employment and termination of employment. Shell…
[More]
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).
|
|
PIPA |
2022 |
|
P2022-05
|
June 10, 2022 |
Canem Systems Ltd.
The applicant made an access to information request to Canem Systems Ltd. The applicant sought review of Canem Systems’ response…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2022 |
|
P2022-04
|
April 13, 2022 |
Inner Solutions Ltd.
The applicant emailed an access request to Inner Solutions requesting on behalf of herself and her former spouse all records…
[More]
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).
|
|
PIPA |
2022 |
|
P2022-03
|
March 3, 2022 |
Little A Accounting
An individual made a complaint alleging that Little A Accounting disclosed her personal information in contravention of PIPA when an…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2022 |
|
P2022-02
|
March 8, 2022 |
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta
The applicant made an access to information request to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA). The applicant…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2022 |
|
P2022-01
|
January 5, 2022 |
Grosvenor House Condominium Plan 772-2911
An individual made a complaint that the Grosvenor House Condominium Plan 772-2911 (organization) contravened PIPA when it posted a notice…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2021 |
|
P2021-13
|
December 20, 2021 |
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta
An individual made a complaint alleging the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA) collected, used and disclosed his…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2021 |
JR
|
P2021-12
|
December 7, 2021 |
Clearview AI, Inc.
Clearview AI, Inc. was ordered to comply with PIPA after it refused to implement recommendations in Investigation Report P2021-IR-01. Clearview…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
PIPA |
2021 |
|
P2021-11
|
October 29, 2021 |
Rogers Insurance Ltd.
An individual made a complaint that her insurance broker, Rogers Insurance Ltd., improperly collected her personal information. The complainant’s insurance…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2021 |
|
P2021-10
|
September 30, 2021 |
Direct Energy Regulated Services
A personal complainant and corporate complainant alleged that Direct Energy Regulated Services (Direct Energy) contravened PIPA when it used their…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2021 |
|
P2021-09
|
September 14, 2021 |
Luminos Consulting & Production Inc.
Two individuals complained that Luminos Consulting & Production Inc. (Luminos) had posted personal information about them online without authority under…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2021 |
|
P2021-08
|
September 9, 2021 |
Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL)
The applicant requested access to his personnel file and other records related to him from Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL).…
[More]
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)).
|
|
PIPA |
2021 |
|
P2021-07
|
August 30, 2021 |
Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc.
An individual made a complaint that Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. (Industrial Alliance) collected or disclosed his personal…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2021 |
|
P2021-06
|
July 9, 2021 |
ATB Financial
An individual made a complaint about ATB Financial’s collection, use and disclosure of his personal information in a loan application…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2021 |
|
P2021-05
|
June 8, 2021 |
Weinrich Contracting Ltd.
In Decision P2020-D-01, the Adjudicator determined that an agreement between a complainant and Weinrich Contracting Ltd., for which the complainant…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2021 |
|
P2021-04
|
March 31, 2021 |
ABC Benefits Corporation
An individual made a complaint that ABC Benefits Corporation, operating as Alberta Blue Cross (ABC), disclosed her personal information to…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2021 |
|
P2021-03
|
March 26, 2021 |
General Teamsters, Local Union No. 362
An individual complained that the General Teamsters, Local Union No. 362 had collected her social insurance number contrary to PIPA.…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2021 |
|
P2021-02
|
March 26, 2021 |
Anglican Diocese of Calgary
An individual complained that The Anglican Diocese of Calgary sent copies of a letter regarding him to clergy, retired clergy…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2021 |
|
P2021-01
|
March 22, 2021 |
PriceWaterhouseCoopersLLP
PriceWaterhouseCoopersLLP (PWC) required an employee to fill out a form for independence testing, which asked for detailed information about the…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2020 |
|
P2020-07
|
December 9, 2020 |
Hi Line Farm Equipment Ltd.
An individual made a complaint that his former employer Hi Line Farm Equipment Ltd. had collected, used and disclosed his…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2020 |
|
P2020-06
|
September 22, 2020 |
TWR C Motors GP Inc.
An individual made a complaint that TWR C Motors GP Inc. (TWR C Motors) collected and used her personal information…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2020 |
|
P2020-05
|
July 27, 2020 |
Divergent Healthcare Limited
In the course of divorce proceedings, the complainant underwent paternity testing to determine if he was the father of his…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2020 |
|
P2020-04
|
July 16, 2020 |
Davidson & Williams LLP
Two applicants made access requests to a law firm for their personal information contained in a client file that had…
[More]
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)).
|
|
PIPA |
2020 |
|
P2020-03
|
May 8, 2020 |
Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP
An individual made a complaint that Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, during the course of ongoing litigation, obtained his credit report…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2020 |
|
P2020-02
|
January 31, 2020 |
Manulife
An individual made a complaint that the Standard Life Assurance Company (now Manulife) had collected and disclosed her personal information…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2020 |
|
P2020-01
|
January 31, 2020 |
Primco Dene (EMS) Ltd.
An individual made a complaint that her employer, Primco Dene, had disclosed details of a work place conflict to Standard…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2019 |
|
P2019-07
|
November 15, 2019 |
Co-operators Group Limited
An individual made a complaint that The Co-operators Group Limited (Co-operators Group) had required him to provide a power of…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2019 |
|
P2019-06
|
October 23, 2019 |
Worley Parsons Canada
The applicant made an access request to Worley Parsons Canada for his personal file, in addition to other records regarding…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2019 |
|
P2019-05
|
October 4, 2019 |
YWCA of Calgary
The applicant made an access request to the YWCA of Calgary for his and his children’s personal information. The Adjudicator…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2019 |
|
P2019-04
|
July 8, 2019 |
NAL Resources Management Ltd.
Individuals made complaints that NAL Resources Management Ltd. (NAL Resources) contravened PIPA when it instituted a policy that required contractors,…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2019 |
|
P2019-03
|
June 11, 2019 |
Servus Credit Union Ltd.
An individual made a complaint that Servus Credit Union Ltd. disclosed her personal information, contained in a form entitled personal…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2019 |
|
P2019-02
|
June 11, 2019 |
Servus Credit Union Ltd.
An individual made a complaint that Servus Credit Union Ltd. disclosed his personal information, which was contained in a form…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2019 |
|
P2019-01
|
May 29, 2019 |
De Beers Canada Inc.
An individual made a complaint that De Beers Canada Inc. (De Beers) had collected his passport information in contravention of…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2018 |
|
P2018-09
|
December 21, 2018 |
Maxim Research and Consulting Corporation Ltd.
An individual made a complaint that Maxim Research and Consulting Corporation Ltd. (Maxim) had collected, used and disclosed information about…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2018 |
|
P2018-08
|
December 3, 2018 |
7-Eleven Canada, Inc.
The applicant requested surveillance tapes of an incident involving him and another individual from 7-Eleven Canada, Inc. The applicant specified…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2018 |
|
P2018-07
|
November 21, 2018 |
Canadian Energy Workers' Association
An individual made a complaint that the president of the Canadian Energy Workers’ Association (CEWA) disclosed his personal information at…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2018 |
|
P2018-06
|
September 14, 2018 |
Ideal Housing Cooperative
An individual complained that the Ideal Housing Cooperative (Ideal Housing) used and disclosed her personal information in an investigation report…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2018 |
|
P2018-05
|
September 11, 2018 |
Syncrude Canada Ltd.
The applicant made an access request to Syncrude Canada Ltd. (Syncrude) for specific records he believed to be part of…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2018 |
|
P2018-04
|
September 10, 2018 |
Primaris Management Inc.
The applicant requested access from Primaris Management Inc. to surveillance video. The Adjudicator determined that the video cannot be withheld…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2018 |
|
P2018-03
|
August 23, 2018 |
Primaris Management Inc.
An individual made a complaint about the collection and use of their personal information via video surveillance by Primaris Management…
[More]
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).
|
|
PIPA |
2018 |
|
P2018-02
|
August 13, 2018 |
Ninkovic Gravel Ltd. & Safety Documents
An individual complained that a safety consultant disclosed her personal information to a trucking company in contravention of PIPA. The…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
P2018-01 & F2018-06
|
February 1, 2018 |
Kroll Associates
The applicant made an access request to Kroll Associates for records related to an investigation the organization conducted on behalf…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2017 |
|
P2017-09
|
November 1, 2017 |
CO-OP Taxi
The applicant made three access requests to CO-OP Taxi. CO-OP Taxi did not respond within the time limits set out…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2017 |
|
P2017-08
|
October 27, 2017 |
Bishop & McKenzie LLP
An individual made a complaint that Bishop & McKenzie LLP collected, used and/or disclosed his personal information in contravention of…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2017 |
|
P2017-07
|
October 5, 2017 |
Jester's Gaming Lounge
A former employee of Jester’s Gaming Lounge (operated by the Castledowns Bingo Association) made a complaint alleging that Jester’s Gaming…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2017 |
|
P2017-06
|
August 10, 2017 |
Ascot Investments Inc. O/A Ascot Garden
An individual made a complaint that her personal information was disclosed to tenants, social services, the Canada Revenue Agency and…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2017 |
|
P2017-05
|
June 29, 2017 |
Harcourt Personnel Inc.
An individual made a complaint that Harcourt Personnel Inc. collected, used and/or disclosed his personal information in contravention of PIPA…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2017 |
|
P2017-04
|
June 20, 2017 |
VitalAire Canada Inc.
An individual made a complaint that his former employer, VitalAire Canada Inc., disclosed his personal information to the Workers’ Compensation…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2017 |
|
P2017-03
|
May 3, 2017 |
Acosta Canada Corporation
An individual made a complaint after a laptop was stolen from an employee of Acosta Canada Corporation (Acosta). The personal…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2017 |
|
P2017-02
|
March 14, 2017 |
CLFN Sawmill & Training Centre Ltd.
The applicant made an access request to CLFN Sawmill & Training Centre Ltd. (CLFN) for a copy of his personnel…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2017 |
|
P2017-01
|
February 28, 2017 |
Accessible Accessories Ltd.
An individual made a complaint fellow employees of Accessible Accessories Ltd. sent an email and texts containing her personal information…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2016 |
|
P2016-08
|
December 14, 2016 |
Alberta Assessors' Association
An individual complained that the Alberta Assessors’ Association disclosed her personal information by using a data matching database called “Turnitin”…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2016 |
|
P2016-07
|
November 30, 2016 |
REDI Enterprises Society
An individual complained that REDI Enterprises Society did not have authority to collect information about her criminal conviction. The Adjudicator…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2016 |
|
P2016-06
|
November 16, 2016 |
McLeod Law
An individual complained that McLeod Law through its process server disclosed her information in contravention of PIPA when it posted,…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2016 |
|
P2016-05
|
May 19, 2016 |
G4S Secure Solutions Canada Ltd.
The applicant made an access request for his personnel file and other information concerning him from his former employer, G4S…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2016 |
|
P2016-04
|
April 11, 2016 |
Lundgren & Young Insurance Ltd.
The applicant requested his personal information from Lundgren & Young Insurance Ltd. The Adjudicator found that Lundgren & Young Insurance…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2016 |
|
P2016-03
|
March 17, 2016 |
Alberta Union of Provincial Employees
The applicant made a request for his entire personnel file held by the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE). AUPE…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2016 |
|
P2016-02
|
March 7, 2016 |
Grandin Manor Ltd.
An individual made a complaint that Grandin Manor Ltd.’s surveillance system was not in compliance with PIPA. Grandin Manor Ltd.…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2016 |
|
P2016-01
|
January 11, 2016 |
Gibbs Gage Architects
Gibbs Gage Architects provided the applicant with his personnel file and tax, benefits and compensation files. The applicant requested a…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2015 |
|
P2015-10
|
November 2, 2015 |
Health Sciences Association of Alberta
The applicant requested from the Health Sciences Association of Alberta (HSAA) information relating to an investigation into a complaint the…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2015 |
|
P2015-09
|
September 21, 2015 |
Roulston Chow
An individual made a complaint that two individuals from the law firm Roulston Chow collected his address and that of…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2015 |
|
P2015-08
|
August 20, 2015 |
Watch Me Grow Agency
The applicant requested records from Watch Me Grow Agency containing his personal information and that of his child. Watch Me…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2015 |
|
P2015-07
|
June 10, 2015 |
St. Paul Grazing Reserve Association
An individual made a complaint that the St. Paul Grazing Reserve Association disclosed his personal information without authority to do…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2015 |
|
P2015-06
|
May 15, 2015 |
Syncrude Canada Ltd.
The applicant requested from Syncrude Canada Ltd. (Syncrude) a copy of his full and complete personnel file. Syncrude responded but…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2015 |
|
P2015-05
|
May 15, 2015 |
Fairmont Hotels and Resorts Inc.
The applicant made three access requests to his former employer, Fairmont Hotels and Resorts Inc. (Fairmont) for information in his…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2015 |
|
P2015-04
|
May 8, 2015 |
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 424
An individual made a complaint that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 424 (IBEW) had used or disclosed…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2015 |
|
P2015-03
|
April 30, 2015 |
Primerica Financial Services Ltd.
The applicant made an access request to Primerica Financial Services Ltd. (Primerica) for personal information. The applicant took issue with…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2015 |
|
P2015-02
|
April 16, 2015 |
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta
The applicant made a request to personally examine a signed copy of a decision letter made by the College of…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2015 |
|
P2015-01
|
April 9, 2015 |
College & Association of Registered Nurses of Alberta
The applicant made an access request to the College & Association of Registered Nurses of Alberta (CARNA) for “a copy…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2014 |
|
P2014-07
|
October 1, 2014 |
CDN Power Pac Mechanical / Electrical Inc.
The applicant requested his personal information from CDN Power Pac, including a video. CDN Power Pac did not respond to…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2014 |
|
P2014-06
|
September 10, 2014 |
Crawford & Company (Canada) Ltd.
An individual made a complaint stating that he did not sign the forms as alleged by Crawford & Company (Canada)…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2014 |
|
P2014-05
|
July 16, 2014 |
Canadian Corps of Commissionaires
The applicant requested his employee file from the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires (Commissionaires). Commissionaires identified itself as a non-profit organization…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2014 |
|
P2014-04
|
July 2, 2014 |
TD Insurance
The applicant asked for copies of audio recordings of two conversations between TD Insurance’s representatives and his ex-wife, who had…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2014 |
|
P2014-03
|
May 15, 2014 |
Morpheus Theatre Society and StoryBook Theatre Society
After receiving a marketing email from StoryBook Theatre Society (StoryBook), an individual made a complaint that Morpheus Theatre Society (Morpheus)…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2014 |
|
P2014-02
|
April 29, 2014 |
Consumer Choice Awards
An individual made a complaint regarding the disclosure of his personal information by the Consumer Choice Awards to a named…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2014 |
|
P2014-01
|
March 13, 2014 |
ATCO Electric Ltd. and Canadian Utilities Ltd.
The applicant made an access request to ATCO Electric Ltd. and Canadian Utilities Ltd. for his personnel file, including all…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2013 |
|
P2013-09
|
December 19, 2013 |
Legal Aid Society of Alberta
The applicant asked The Legal Aid Society of Alberta (Legal Aid) for information about its use and disclosure of his…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2013 |
|
P2013-08
|
December 17, 2013 |
Sobeys Group Inc.
An individual made a complaint that her personal information had been improperly collected, used and disclosed by Sobeys Group Inc.…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2013 |
|
P2013-07
|
November 29, 2013 |
Moore's Industrial Services Ltd.
An individual complained that Moore’s Industrial Service Ltd. (MIS) gained access to his personal email account and collected, used and/or…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2013 |
|
P2013-06
|
October 30, 2013 |
Suncor Energy Inc.
The applicant requested from Suncor Energy Inc. (Suncor) his personnel records and all documentation relating to an incident that led…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2013 |
|
P2013-05
|
October 24, 2013 |
Contour Earthmoving Ltd.
The applicant requested from Contour Earthmoving Ltd. her employment file and information about a complaint made about her. Contour Earthmoving…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2013 |
|
P2013-04
|
October 17, 2013 |
TD Insurance
An individual complained that TD Insurance contravened PIPA when it conveyed information about him and his insurance policy to his…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2013 |
|
P2013-03
|
September 13, 2013 |
Project Porchlight
An individual alleged that Project Porchlight contravened PIPA by tracing personal telephone calls that he had made using a device…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2013 |
|
P2013-02
|
May 7, 2013 |
Sangha Operating Group Inc.
An individual made an access request to Sangha Operating Group Inc. (SOG) for access to his employment file in its…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2013 |
|
P2013-01
|
April 18, 2013 |
Professional Drivers Bureau of Canada Inc.
The applicant requested her personal information from the Professional Drivers Bureau of Canada Inc. (PDBC). The applicant also made a…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2012 |
|
P2012-14
|
December 20, 2012 |
Canadian Linen and Uniform Service Co.
The applicant requested his personnel file from Canadian Linen and Uniform Service Co. The inquiry’s issues included the timeliness and…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2012 |
|
P2012-13
|
December 20, 2012 |
Stolo's Pizza & Sports Bar
The applicant requested his personal information from Stolo’s Pizza & Sports Bar. The applicant said pay stubs had not been…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2012 |
|
P2012-12
|
December 14, 2012 |
Fast Life International
An individual made a complaint after Fast Life International sent her email address to an individual she met but who…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2012 |
|
P2012-11
|
November 15, 2012 |
G.M.A. Properties Inc./Alliance Realty Inc.
An individual complained that her personal information was collected, used and disclosed by her landlord, G.M.A. Properties Inc./Alliance Realty Inc.…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2012 |
|
P2012-10
|
October 31, 2012 |
Budget Rent-a-Car of Calgary Ltd.
Three individuals made complaints that Budget Rent-a-Car of Calgary Ltd. (Budget) was photocopying and retaining driver’s licences in contravention of…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2012 |
|
P2012-09
|
October 31, 2012 |
Pro-Western Plastics Ltd.
The applicant requested a review of fees charged and severing decisions made by Pro-Western Plastics Ltd. The Adjudicator found that…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2012 |
|
P2012-08
|
October 15, 2012 |
Alberta New Home Warranty Association
The director of a corporation made a complaint that the Alberta New Home Warranty Association collected and used her personal…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2012 |
|
P2012-07
|
September 21, 2012 |
Lifemark Health Management Inc.
The applicant requested a review of Lifemark Health Management Inc.’s (now owned by Centric Health Corporation) response to her requested…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2012 |
|
P2012-06
|
September 11, 2012 |
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 30
An individual complained that the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 30 (CUPE) contravened PIPA by failing to notify him…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2012 |
|
P2012-05
|
July 31, 2012 |
Peter Choate and Associates Ltd.
Two individuals made complaints that Peter Choate and Associates Ltd. (PCA) had improperly collected, used and disclosed their personal information…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2012 |
|
P2012-04
|
June 22, 2012 |
Talisman Energy Inc.
The applicant requested access to his own personal information from Talisman Energy Inc. The Adjudicator found that Talisman Energy properly…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2012 |
|
P2012-03
|
May 24, 2012 |
Eagles Nest Ranch Association
An individual made a complaint that Eagles Nest Ranch Association (ENRA) contravened PIPA when it required her to provide her…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2012 |
|
P2012-02
|
April 30, 2012 |
Alberta Teachers' Association
An individual made a complaint alleging that the Alberta Teachers’ Association did not make reasonable security arrangements in contravention of…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2012 |
|
P2012-01
|
March 22, 2012 |
Yellow Pages Group Co.
The owner of a photography business complained that Yellow Pages Group Co. (Yellow Pages) had contravened PIPA when it published…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2011 |
|
P2011-06
|
December 7, 2011 |
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
The applicant made a request to Borden Ladner Gervais LLP (BLG) for his personal information in a client file. The…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2011 |
|
P2011-05
|
November 10, 2011 |
Canavista Enterprises Ltd.
An individual made a complaint that his personal information had been improperly collected, used and disclosed by Canavista Enterprises Ltd.…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2011 |
|
P2011-04
|
November 9, 2011 |
Real Estate Council of Alberta
An individual made a complaint that the Real Estate Council of Alberta (RECA) requires applicants for licenses to submit to…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2011 |
|
P2011-03
|
October 26, 2011 |
Real Estate Council of Alberta
An individual complained that the Real Estate Council of Alberta (RECA) contravened PIPA by failing to inform her that a…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2011 |
|
P2011-02
|
September 29, 2011 |
Double L Towing
Two individuals made complaints alleging that Double L Towing told them that they would have an opportunity to view a…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2011 |
|
P2011-01
|
September 15, 2011 |
Albian Sands Energy Inc.
The applicant requested information relating to himself from his former employer, Albian Sands Energy Inc. He requested a review of…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2011 |
|
P2010-22
|
May 30, 2011 |
Great-West Life Assurance Company
An individual complained that the Great-West Life Assurance Company (GWL) collected and used her personal information that had been disclosed…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2011 |
|
P2010-21
|
April 21, 2011 |
Fairways Villas South Homeowners' Association
An individual complained that Fairways Villas South Homeowners’ Association (organization) contravened PIPA by using and/or disclosing her personal information, without…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2011 |
|
P2010-19
|
May 24, 2011 |
Real Estate Council of Alberta
An individual made a complaint alleging that the Real Estate Council of Alberta (RECA) posted a disciplinary decision on its…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2011 |
|
P2010-18
|
January 12, 2011 |
ExxonMobil Canada Ltd.
An individual made a complaint alleging that ExxonMobil Canada Ltd. contravened PIPA by collecting, using and disclosing a document containing…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2010 |
|
P2010-17
|
December 22, 2010 |
Churchill Corporation
The applicant requested all records containing his personal information from The Churchill Corporation, the parent company of his former employer.…
[More]
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).
|
|
PIPA |
2010 |
|
P2010-16
|
December 22, 2010 |
Churchill Corporation
The applicant requested information from The Churchill Corporation, but the organization did not respond for several months. The Adjudicator found…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2010 |
|
P2010-15
|
December 22, 2010 |
Stuart Olson Constructors Inc.
The applicant requested all records containing his personal information from his former employer, Stuart Olson Constructors Inc. (organization). The organization…
[More]
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
|
|
PIPA |
2010 |
|
P2010-14
|
November 29, 2010 |
Imperial Oil Limited
An individual complained that information collected by his employer, Imperial Oil Limited (Imperial Oil), contained in a disciplinary letter was…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2010 |
|
P2010-13
|
November 29, 2010 |
Calgary Co-operative Association Limited
A former employee of the Calgary Co-operative Association Limited (Calgary Co-op) requested access to records containing his personal information. Calgary…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2010 |
|
P2010-12
|
November 30, 2010 |
Desjardins Financial Security
An individual made a complaint that Desjardins Financial Security (Desjardins) had required her to complete the same form as her…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2010 |
|
P2010-11
|
November 24, 2010 |
Clean Harbors Lodging Services
An individual made a complaint alleging that his former employer, Clean Harbors Lodging Services (organization), contravened PIPA by telling other…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2010 |
|
P2010-10
|
December 14, 2010 |
Anthony Clark International Insurance Brokers Ltd.
The applicant made an access request to Anthony Clark International Insurance Brokers Ltd. (organization) to all information related to him.…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2010 |
|
P2010-09
|
November 16, 2010 |
Odyssey Health Services
The applicant asked Odyssey Health Services to correct various errors that he believed to exist in his personal information. Odyssey…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2011 |
JR
|
P2010-08
|
January 5, 2011 |
Staples Canada Inc.
An individual complained that the hard drive containing her family’s personal information had gone missing from her family’s laptop computer…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
PIPA |
2010 |
|
P2010-07
|
November 24, 2010 |
Great-West Life Assurance Company
The applicant requested from the Great-West Life Assurance Company (GWL) all correspondence to and from the Alberta Solicitor General, physicians,…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2010 |
|
P2010-06
|
November 17, 2010 |
Alberta Distillers Inc.
An individual made three access requests to Alberta Distillers Inc. The Adjudicator found that Alberta Distillers did not, in its…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2010 |
|
P2010-05
|
September 27, 2010 |
Whitehorn Village 1 Condominium Corporation
An individual complained that her personal information was disclosed by the condominium’s board to another resident of the condominium and…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2010 |
|
P2010-04
|
September 27, 2010 |
Calgary Co-operative Association Limited
An individual complained that his former employer, Calgary Co-operative Association Limited, disclosed his personal information contrary to PIPA and did…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2010 |
|
P2010-03
|
September 15, 2010 |
Synergen Housing Co-op Ltd.
An individual complained that Synergen Housing Co-op Ltd. (Synergen), a housing cooperative of which he is a member, contravened PIPA…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2010 |
|
P2010-02
|
November 10, 2010 |
Lafarge Canada Inc.
An individual alleged that Lafarge Canada Inc. (Lafarge) used and/or disclosed his personal information in contravention of PIPA when it…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2010 |
|
P2010-01
|
September 29, 2010 |
Avonlea Photography Studio Inc.
An individual made a complaint that Avonlea Photography Studio Inc. had left a cheque for her with her home address…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2010 |
JR
|
P2009-13 & P2009-14
|
June 16, 2010 |
Murphy Industrial Oilfield Inc. and Brooklyn Oilfield Services Inc.
An individual complained that Murphy Industrial Oilfield Inc. and Brooklyn Oilfield Services Inc. (organizations) posted posters of him around town,…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
PIPA |
2010 |
|
P2009-12
|
June 14, 2010 |
Insight Psychological Inc.
An individual complained that her personal information was used or disclosed in contravention of PIPA when Insight Psychological Inc. sent…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2010 |
|
P2009-11
|
March 30, 2010 |
Cardinal Coach Lines Ltd.
An individual made a complaint that Cardinal Coach Lines Ltd. disclosed his personal information in contravention of PIPA when it…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2010 |
|
P2009-10
|
March 24, 2010 |
Calian Ltd.
The applicant made an access request to Calian Ltd. for all personal information about him in the possession of Calian…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2010 |
|
P2009-09
|
February 22, 2010 |
Dr. Mary McCallum (Registered Psychologist)
An individual requested her personal information from her psychologist. The psychologist had earlier provided the applicant’s treatment file, but refused…
[More]
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).
|
|
PIPA |
2010 |
|
P2009-08
|
February 22, 2010 |
College of Alberta Psychologists
An individual made a request to the College of Alberta Psychologists for the response a psychologist had provided to the…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2009 |
|
P2009-06 & P2009-07
|
December 11, 2009 |
Servus Credit Union and Realty Executives Synergy
An individual made a complaint that Servus Credit Union (Servus) had disclosed his personal information to a realtor from Realty…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2010 |
|
P2009-05
|
February 23, 2010 |
Odyssey Health Services
The applicant believed that Odyssey Health Services did not provide him with all information that he had requested from it…
[More]
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).
|
|
PIPA |
2009 |
JR
|
P2009-04
|
November 9, 2009 |
Real Estate Council of Alberta
An individual made a complaint that the Real Estate Council of Alberta (RECA) was collecting personal information about pardoned convictions…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
PIPA |
2009 |
|
P2009-03
|
November 13, 2009 |
Longley Condominium Services Ltd. and Condominium Corporation No. 7910117
An individual made a complaint that Longley Condominium Services Ltd. and Condominium Corporation No. 7910117 (organizations) had disclosed her personal…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2009 |
|
P2009-02
|
September 4, 2009 |
Beattie Homes
Individuals made complaints alleging that a Beattie Homes’ employee or employees phoned the former spouse of one of the complainants…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2009 |
|
P2009-01
|
March 11, 2009 |
Meyers Norris Penny
The applicant requested his bankruptcy file from Myers Norris Penny (MNP). The applicant was invited to attend MNP’s Edmonton office…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2010 |
|
P2008-10
|
September 30, 2010 |
Engel Brubaker
An unnamed police officer brought a complaint under PIPA that the Engel Brubaker (organization) had created a database which it…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2009 |
|
P2008-09
|
April 17, 2009 |
Alberta College and Association of Chiropractors
A chiropractor who had withdrawn from practice complained under PIPA that the Alberta College and Association of Chiropractors had disclosed…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2009 |
JR
|
P2008-08
|
March 30, 2009 |
United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401
A number of persons complained that their personal information had been collected, used and/or disclosed, contrary to PIPA, by members…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
PIPA |
2009 |
|
P2008-07
|
March 31, 2009 |
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3550
A teacher and a secretary with whom she worked were involved in a dispute. The secretary gave a sealed envelope…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2009 |
|
P2008-06
|
February 26, 2009 |
Alberta School Employee Benefit Plan
The applicant made a request for his personal information from the Alberta School Employee Benefit Plan (organization). The organization provided…
[More]
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).
|
|
PIPA |
2008 |
JR
|
P2008-05
|
December 17, 2008 |
College of Alberta Psychologists
The College of Alberta Psychologists raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the Adjudicator on the basis of its allegation…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
PIPA |
2008 |
JR
|
P2008-04
|
August 27, 2008 |
Leon's Furniture Ltd.
An individual made a complaint that Leon’s Furniture Ltd. (organization) required her to supply her driver’s license number and license…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
PIPA |
2008 |
|
P2008-03
|
June 24, 2008 |
Barbara Shepthycki (Registered Psychologist)
A registered psychologist provided the applicant with an estimate for fees for compiling and copying the portions of her files…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2008 |
|
P2008-02
|
September 15, 2008 |
Real Estate Council of Alberta
An individual complained that the Real Estate Council of Alberta required her to provide a copy of her birth certificate…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2008 |
|
P2008-01
|
February 29, 2008 |
Daltec Occupational Health Services Inc.
The applicant made a request to Daltec Occupational Health Services Inc. (organization) for his personal information under PIPA. The organization…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2008 |
|
P2007-16
|
March 20, 2008 |
Home Depot of Canada Inc.
An individual made a complaint that Home Depot of Canada Inc. (Home Depot) had refused to provide a full refund…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that Home Depot of Canada Inc. (Home Depot) had refused to provide a full refund when she did not provide her driver’s licence. The Commissioner found that Home Depot should not have refused service when the individual refused to provide her driver’s licence number. Home Depot had therefore not complied with s. 7(2) of PIPA.
|
|
PIPA |
2008 |
|
P2007-15
|
January 31, 2008 |
Loblaw Companies Limited
An individual complained that the Drugstore Pharmacy at Real Canadian Superstore (Loblaw Companies Limited) collected health information in the form…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2008 |
JR
|
P2007-14
|
March 13, 2008 |
Alberta Teachers' Association
Individuals made a complaint that the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) contravened PIPA when it published their names and places of…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
PIPA |
2008 |
|
P2007-12
|
January 29, 2008 |
Canadian Skin Cancer Foundation
An individual made a complaint that the Canadian Skin Cancer Foundation contravened PIPA by collecting, using and disclosing her personal…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2008 |
|
P2007-11
|
January 29, 2008 |
Barry Lycka Professional Corporation
An individual made a complaint that the Barry Lycka Professional Corporation contravened PIPA by collecting, using and disclosing her personal…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2008 |
|
P2007-10
|
March 31, 2008 |
United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401
The United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401 questioned whether the Adjudicator lost jurisdiction on the basis of the alleged…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2008 |
|
P2007-09
|
January 24, 2008 |
Canadian Skin Cancer Foundation
An individual made a complaint that the Canadian Skin Cancer Foundation contravened PIPA by collecting, using and disclosing her personal…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2008 |
|
P2007-08
|
January 22, 2008 |
Canadian Skin Cancer Foundation
An individual made a complaint about a letter soliciting for fundraising from Dr. Barry Lycka, through the Dr. Barry Lycka…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2008 |
|
P2007-07
|
January 21, 2008 |
Canadian Skin Cancer Foundation
An individual complained that the Canadian Skin Cancer Foundation contravened PIPA by collecting, using and disclosing her personal information for…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2008 |
JR
|
P2007-06
|
January 31, 2008 |
Endermologie Centre Corporation
An individual made a complaint after receiving “solicitations” from the Barry Lycka Professional Corporation, the Canadian Skin Cancer Foundation and…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
PIPA |
2008 |
|
P2007-05
|
February 14, 2008 |
Point Centric Inc.
An individual complained that Point Centric Inc. had disclosed his personal information contrary to PIPA when an employee of Point…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2008 |
|
P2007-04
|
January 16, 2008 |
Douglas Homes Ltd.
The applicants made a request to Douglas Homes Ltd. for access to the reports of trade contractors that did repair…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2007 |
|
P2007-03
|
April 24, 2007 |
Urban Video Inc. (formerly known as International Stereo Ltd.) and Wells Fargo Financial Corporation of Canada
Two individuals brought complaints respect to the collection, use and disclosure of their personal information by International Stereo Ltd. (now…
[More]
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).
|
|
PIPA |
2007 |
|
P2007-02
|
August 13, 2007 |
Barbara Shepthycki (Registered Psychologist)
An applicant made a request to a psychologist for a copy of the all the psychologist’s files relating to a…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2007 |
|
P2006-12
|
March 2, 2007 |
Petra Corp.
The applicant made a request to Petra Corp. for information in its files about him as well as for letters…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2008 |
|
P2006-11
|
February 15, 2008 |
Penny Lane Entertainment Ltd., Penny Lane Entertainment Group and Tantra Nightclub
An individual made a complaint that an employee of Penny Lane Entertainment Group had scanned his driver’s licence information into…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2008 |
|
P2006-10
|
February 14, 2008 |
Bistro Enterprises Ltd.
An individual complained that Bistro Enterprises Ltd. and the administrator of the estate of the deceased shareholder of Bistro (administrator)…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2008 |
|
P2006-09
|
January 31, 2008 |
Iron Mountain Canada Corporation
The applicant made an access request for her personal information, in particular, personal information relating to the termination of her…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2007 |
|
P2006-08
|
March 14, 2007 |
Lindsay Park Sports Society, registered as Talisman Centre (trade name), and operating as the Talisman Centre for Sport and Wellness
A complaint was made against the the Talisman Centre for Sport and Wellness (organization) for placing overt security cameras in…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2008 |
|
P2006-06 & P2006-07
|
January 2, 2008 |
George Byma, Operating as George Byma Real Estate Team and Burnswest Corporation
An individual complained that a former employer had disclosed her personal information to a prospective employer in contravention of PIPA…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2007 |
|
P2006-05
|
November 15, 2007 |
ATB Financial
The applicant requested records relating to her work performance and termination from ATB Financial. The applicant requested review by the Commissioner…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2006 |
|
P2006-04
|
November 15, 2006 |
Law Society of Alberta
The applicant made a number of requests to the Law Society of Alberta for access to information. The applicant also…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2007 |
|
P2006-02
|
January 19, 2007 |
Shell Canada Limited
The applicant requested copies of the documents that Shell Canada Limited had in its possession regarding an investigation, pursuant to…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2007 |
|
P2006-01
|
April 4, 2007 |
Alberta Association of Registered Occupational Therapists
The applicant, an employee of the Alberta Association of Registered Occupational Therapists (organization”) at the time of the complaint/application, complained…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2007 |
JR
|
P2005-06
|
January 18, 2007 |
Canada Safeway Limited
An individual made a complaint that Canada Safeway Limited (organization) disclosed her personal information to her employer in contravention of…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
PIPA |
2009 |
|
P2005-05
|
December 6, 2009 |
Condominium Plan No. 7710418
The applicant requested from the Owners: Condominium Plan No. 7710418 (organization) for a copy of a complaint letter. The organization refused…
[More]
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).
|
|
PIPA |
2007 |
|
P2005-04
|
February 16, 2007 |
Calgary Herald Group Inc.
An individual made a complaint that the Calgary Herald Group Inc. (Calgary Herald) had disclosed the complainant’s personal information when…
[More]
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).
|
|
PIPA |
2006 |
|
P2005-03
|
October 10, 2006 |
Henry Rempel and Mary Anne Rempel
An individual, a tenant in a building owned by Henry Rempel and Mary Anne Rempel (organization), alleged that after he…
[More]
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.
|
|
PIPA |
2006 |
|
P2005-02
|
October 4, 2006 |
Doctor Dave Computer Remedies Incorporated
The Commissioner found that Doctor Dave Computer Remedies Incorporated used and disclosed the complainant’s personal information contrary to PIPA. The…
[More]
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).
|
|
PIPA |
2006 |
|
P2005-01
|
August 11, 2006 |
Doctor Dave Computer Remedies Incorporated
The Commissioner found that Doctor Dave Computer Remedies Incorporated (organization) used and disclosed the complainants’ personal information contrary to PIPA.…
[More]
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).
|
|
AMVIR |
2005 |
|
M2005-01
|
August 4, 2005 |
Registrar of Motor Vehicle Services
The applicant applied under AMVIR for personal driving and motor vehicle information from the Registrar of Motor Vehicle Services. The issue…
[More]
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.
|
|
AMVIR |
2005 |
|
M2004-03
|
June 20, 2005 |
Registrar of Motor Vehicle Services
The applicant applied under AMVIR for personal driving and motor vehicle information from the Registrar of Motor Vehicle Services. The issue…
[More]
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.
|
|
AMVIR |
2005 |
|
M2004-02
|
June 20, 2005 |
Registrar of Motor Vehicle Services
Two applicants sought access to motor vehicle information pursuant to AMVIR. The Registrar’s letters to the applicants did not specify…
[More]
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.
|
|
AMVIR |
2005 |
|
M2004-01
|
March 29, 2005 |
Registrar of Motor Vehicle Services
The applicant applied under AMVIR for personal driving and motor vehicle information from the Registrar of Motor Vehicle Services. The…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2023 |
|
H2023-11
|
November 17, 2023 |
Covenant Health
An Applicant made an access request under the Health Information Act (HIA) to Covenant Health (the Custodian) for all records…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2023 |
|
H2023-10
|
November 1, 2023 |
Dr. Oluwaseun Oyeniran
Under the Health Information Act (the HIA), the Applicant made an access request for his own health information to Dr.…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2023 |
|
H2023-09
|
August 28, 2023 |
Dr. Ramneek Kumar
An individual (the Complainant) made a complaint to this Office under the Health Information Act (HIA) that his Electronic Health Record (Netcare) had…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2023 |
|
H2023-08
|
August 28, 2023 |
Dr. Ramneek Kumar
An individual (the Complainant) made a complaint to this Office under the Health Information Act (HIA) that her Electronic Health Record (Netcare) had…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2023 |
|
H2023-07
|
August 23, 2023 |
Dr. Andrew Mamo
An Applicant made an access request under the Health Information Act (HIA) for access to health information related to health…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2023 |
|
H2023-06
|
August 16, 2023 |
Dr. Gail Bateman
An Applicant made an access request under the Health Information Act (HIA) for access to health information related to health…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2023 |
|
H2023-05
|
August 16, 2023 |
Dr. Brian Issac
An Applicant made an access request under the Health Information Act (HIA) for access to health information related to health…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2023 |
|
H2023-04
|
August 15, 2023 |
Alberta Health Services
The Applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (the Custodian) under the Health Information Act (HIA) for records…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2023 |
|
H2023-03
|
May 2, 2023 |
Dr. Mahmoud Ismael
An individual complained that an affiliate of Dr. Mahmoud Ismael (custodian) accessed her health information through Netcare in contravention of…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2023 |
|
H2023-01
|
January 25, 2023 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant made an access request under HIA to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for her health information related to health…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2022 |
|
H2022-08
|
November 14, 2022 |
Dr. Ateer
An individual made a complaint alleging that two employees (affiliates) of Dr. Ateer (the custodian) accessed and/or disclosed her health…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2022 |
|
H2022-07
|
June 16, 2022 |
Dr. Elizabeth Kelly
The applicant requested Dr. Elizabeth Kelly to correct his health information under HIA. Dr. Kelly refused to correct the information.…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2022 |
|
H2022-06
|
May 12, 2022 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant made two requests to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for his own health information. The applicant alleged that AHS…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2022 |
|
H2022-05
|
March 31, 2022 |
Alberta Health Services
An individual made a complaint that her health information and that of her two minor children in Netcare and other…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2022 |
|
H2022-04
|
March 31, 2022 |
Alberta Health Services
An individual made a complaint that her health information and that of her two minor children in Netcare and other…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2022 |
|
H2022-03
|
March 31, 2022 |
Alberta Health Services
An individual made a complaint that her health information and that of her two minor children in Netcare and other…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2022 |
|
H2022-02
|
February 28, 2022 |
Alberta Health Services
An individual made a correction request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) under HIA. AHS refused to correct the information as…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2022 |
|
H2022-01
|
February 28, 2022 |
Alberta Health Services
An individual complained that Alberta Health Services (AHS) used her health information in contravention of HIA when its affiliate accessed…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2021 |
|
H2021-12
|
November 10, 2021 |
Dr. Colin Lywood
The applicant made a request to Insight Medical Imaging (Insight) for his own health information under HIA. The Adjudicator determined…
[More]
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).
|
|
HIA |
2021 |
|
H2021-11
|
October 13, 2021 |
Dr. Charles B. Metcalfe
The applicant made an access request under HIA to Dr. Charles B. Metcalfe for his complete file. The applicant specified…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2021 |
|
H2021-09
|
September 22, 2021 |
Covenant Health
The applicant made an access request to Covenant Health for her complete file containing health information. The applicant requested a…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2021 |
|
H2021-08
|
August 10, 2021 |
Dr. Ryan Yau
The applicant believed additional records should have been provided to him in response to a request for specific medical records…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2021 |
|
H2021-07
|
July 22, 2021 |
Alberta Health Services
An individual made a complaint that Alberta Health Services (AHS) disclosed her health information to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS)…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
H2021-06
|
July 22, 2021 |
Alberta Health Services
An individual complained about 19 accesses to her health information by 18 affiliates (employees) of Alberta Health Services. The Adjudicator…
[More]
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).
|
|
HIA |
2021 |
|
H2021-05
|
May 14, 2021 |
Dr. John Dushinski
The applicant made an access request to Dr. John Dushinski. Dr. Dushinski did not respond to the applicant within the…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2021 |
|
H2021-04
|
May 14, 2021 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant requested a copy of a letter from Alberta Health Services (AHS) that the applicant believed had been written…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2021 |
|
H2021-03
|
April 8, 2021 |
Dr. Aws Alherbish
An individual made a health information correction request to Dr. Aws Alherbish (custodian). The Adjudicator found that the custodian properly…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2021 |
|
H2021-02
|
February 26, 2021 |
Alberta Health Services
An individual made a complaint that Alberta Health Services (AHS) was not authorized to disclose her health information to her…
[More]
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).
|
|
HIA |
2021 |
|
H2021-01
|
January 29, 2021 |
Alberta Health Services
An individual made a complaint under HIA that their health information had been accessed by their estranged spouse, an Alberta…
[More]
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).
|
|
HIA |
2020 |
JR
|
H2020-05
|
July 24, 2020 |
Alberta Health Services
An individual made a request to Alberta Health Services to delete statements made on his patient chart. Two physicians made…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
HIA |
2020 |
|
H2020-04
|
March 16, 2020 |
Alberta Health Services
An individual made a complaint that his electronic health record (EHR) may have been accessed by Alberta Health Services (AHS)…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2020 |
|
H2020-03
|
March 9, 2020 |
Dr. Klaus D. Gendemann
An individual made a complaint that her former psychiatrist, Dr. Gendemann, accessed her health information on Netcare after he had…
[More]
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).
|
|
HIA |
2020 |
|
H2020-02
|
February 28, 2020 |
Somayeh Pharmacy Ltd.
An individual made a complaint that Somayeh Pharmacy Ltd. did not comply with its duty to protect health information as…
[More]
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).
|
|
HIA |
2020 |
|
H2020-01
|
February 19, 2020 |
Saeed Sattari
An individual made a complaint that Saeed Sattari accessed health information in contravention of HIA. The Adjudicator found on a…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2019 |
|
H2019-03
|
September 25, 2019 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant requested access to his deceased mother’s health information from Alberta Health Services (AHS) in his capacity as the…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2019 |
|
H2019-02
|
August 12, 2019 |
Covenant Health
The applicant made three access requests to Covenant Health for her health records, as well as other records related to…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2018 |
|
H2018-01
|
December 21, 2018 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant requested access to his deceased mother’s health information from Alberta Health Services (AHS) in his capacity as the…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2017 |
|
H2017-01
|
June 28, 2017 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant made a correction request to Alberta Health Services (AHS). He requested chart notes from a particular unit be…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2016 |
JR
|
H2016-06
|
July 29, 2016 |
Alberta Health Services
An individual made a complaint that two physicians gained access to her health information from Netcare in contravention of HIA.…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
H2016-05 & F2016-13
|
April 29, 2016 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant requested that Alberta Health Services (AHS) delete letters of complaint from his files that had been taken by…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2016 |
|
H2016-04
|
April 21, 2016 |
Dr. Adeleye Adebayo
Dr. Adeleye Adebayo did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in HIA. The Adjudicator ordered…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2016 |
|
H2016-03
|
January 27, 2016 |
Covenant Health
An individual made a correction request under HIA to Covenant Health. Covenant Health made one change regarding a scheduled hospital…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2016 |
|
H2016-02
|
January 26, 2016 |
Alberta Health Services
An individual made a complaint that Alberta Health Services (AHS) used the complainant’s personal information without authorization under HIA. AHS…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2016 |
|
H2016-01
|
January 12, 2016 |
Covenant Health
The Adjudicator confirmed Covenant Health’s decision to refuse to make changes to health information as requested by an applicant. However,…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2015 |
|
H2015-06
|
December 21, 2015 |
Dr. Stephen Denson
An individual made a correction request to her doctor. The applicant had made a complaint to the College of Physicians…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2015 |
|
H2015-05
|
December 21, 2015 |
Dr. Jason P. Bayne
An individual made a correction request to her doctor. The applicant did not meet her burden of showing that the…
[More]
An individual made a correction request to her doctor. The applicant did not meet her burden of showing that the information was erroneous.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
H2015-04 & F2015-39
|
December 3, 2015 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant requested from Alberta Health Services (AHS) video surveillance footage taken the year before in an emergency waiting area…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2015 |
|
H2015-03
|
December 3, 2015 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant had requested health records from Alberta Health Services (AHS) regarding her attendance in a mental health program. AHS…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2015 |
|
H2015-02
|
November 30, 2015 |
Dr. Brad Mechor
The applicant requested his entire medical file from a doctor. The Adjudicator found that the doctor conducted an adequate search…
[More]
The applicant requested his entire medical file from a doctor. The Adjudicator found that the doctor conducted an adequate search for records.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
H2015-01 & F2015-24
|
September 1, 2015 |
Alberta Health Services
After receiving a response from Alberta Health Services (AHS) to an access request, the applicant believed that there were other…
[More]
After receiving a response from Alberta Health Services (AHS) to an access request, the applicant believed that there were other responsive records that have not been provided to him. The Adjudicator found that for the most part, AHS performed an adequate search for records that were responsive to the applicant’s request and fulfilled its duty pursuant to both section 10(a) of HIA and section 10(1) of FOIP. The only exception was that it was not clear if AHS searched the dialysis unit for non-medical information.
|
|
HIA |
2014 |
JR
|
H2014-02
|
July 4, 2014 |
Alberta Health Services
An individual made a complaint that a program coordinator employed by Alberta Health Services (AHS) had called up and read…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
HIA |
2013 |
JR
|
H2013-04
|
December 20, 2013 |
Dr. Nagy Youssef
The applicant requested Dr. Nagy Youssef to correct health information in a consultation report. The doctor responded that he would…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
HIA |
2013 |
|
H2013-01
|
March 28, 2013 |
Dr. Mohamed Abdel-Keriem
The applicant requested under HIA from Dr. Mohamed Abdel-Keriem her original patient chart, after the doctor had provided a print…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2011 |
|
H2011-02
|
November 23, 2011 |
Alberta Health Services
An individual made a complaint Alberta Health Services (AHS) disclosed her health information without her consent, in contravention of her…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2011 |
|
H2011-01
|
July 29, 2011 |
Alberta Health Services
An individual made a complaint regarding his employer’s, Alberta Health Services (AHS), collection, use, and disclosure of his health information…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2010 |
JR
|
H2010-03
|
November 30, 2010 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant made a request for his health information to Alberta Health Services (AHS). AHS withheld the names of some…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
HIA |
2010 |
|
H2010-02
|
July 30, 2010 |
Dr. Finola Fogarty
An individual asked Dr. Finola Fogarty to correct or amend her health information under section 13(1) of HIA. The doctor…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2010 |
|
H2010-01
|
July 26, 2010 |
Alberta Health Services
An individual made a complaint that his health information was disclosed by a doctor to RCMP and his father in…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2011 |
|
H2009-02
|
June 7, 2011 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant requested his health records from a health region that has since been subsumed by Alberta Health Services (AHS).…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2009 |
|
H2009-01
|
December 15, 2009 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant made a request under section 13 of HIA to Capital Health, which is now part of Alberta Health…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2008 |
JR
|
H2008-05
|
November 25, 2008 |
Capital Health
The applicant made a request to Capital Health to correct or amend his health information contained in a discharge summary.…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
HIA |
2008 |
|
H2008-04
|
August 6, 2008 |
Capital Health
The applicant made an access request to Capital Health for a copy of a quality review that was completed by…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2008 |
JR
|
H2008-02
|
September 10, 2008 |
Calgary Health Region
The applicant requested that the Calgary Health Region (CHR) correct or amend her health information regarding the general utility of…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
HIA |
2008 |
JR
|
H2008-01
|
September 10, 2008 |
Calgary Health Region
The applicant made a request to the Calgary Health Region (CHR) for two specific records, and for any information relating…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
HIA |
2007 |
|
H2007-06
|
November 12, 2007 |
Calgary Health Region
The applicant alleges that information about herself in her daughter’s hospital record at Alberta Children’s Hospital is her own health…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2008 |
|
H2007-05 & P2007-13
|
March 25, 2008 |
Health and Wellness and Nor-Don Collection Network
An individual complained that Nor-Don Collection Network (Nor-Don) had disclosed his health information to his spouse contrary to HIA during…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2008 |
JR
|
H2007-04
|
January 25, 2008 |
Dr. Barry Lycka
An individual made a complaint about Dr. Barry Lycka after receiving four pieces of correspondence pertaining to soliciting for fundraising…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
HIA |
2008 |
|
H2007-03
|
January 22, 2008 |
Dr. Barry Lycka
An individual made a complaint about a letter sent from Dr. Barry Lycka. The Adjudicator found that the complaint made…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2008 |
|
H2007-02
|
January 31, 2008 |
Drugstore Pharmacy, Real Canadian Superstore
An individual complained that the Drugstore Pharmacy at Real Canadian Superstore collected health information in the form of the photo…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2008 |
JR
|
H2007-01
|
January 21, 2008 |
Dr. Barry Lycka
An individual made a complaint that Dr. Barry Lycka contravened HIA by collecting, using and disclosing her health information for…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
HIA |
2006 |
JR
|
H2006-03
|
September 22, 2006 |
Calgary Health Region
The applicant’s husband made a request to the Calgary Health Region for access to records for specific hospital admissions at…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
HIA |
2006 |
|
H2006-02
|
September 6, 2006 |
Calgary Health Region
The applicant made a request to Calgary Health Region for access to his hospital records at the Peter Lougheed Centre.…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2006 |
|
H2006-01 & F2006-21
|
August 18, 2006 |
Capital Health
The applicant made a request to Capital Health for access to information related to a prescription at the University of…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2006 |
|
H2005-07
|
July 14, 2006 |
Capital Health
An individual made a correction request to Capital Health under HIA, which Capital Health refused to do. The Commissioner found…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2006 |
|
H2005-06
|
July 14, 2006 |
Dr. James W. Osinchuk
The applicant alleged that Dr. Osinchuk improperly refused to correct or amend her health information in contravention of section 13…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2006 |
|
H2005-05
|
March 16, 2006 |
Dr. Nagy Youssef
An individual complained that Dr. Nagy Youssef refused to attach a statement of disagreement to Dr. Youssef’s record about the…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2005 |
|
H2005-04
|
December 21, 2005 |
Calgary Health Region
The applicant made a series of requests to the Calgary Health Region (CHR) for his health records and records relating…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2005 |
|
H2005-03
|
May 24, 2005 |
Capital Health Authority
The applicant complained that the Capital Health Authority had failed to conduct an adequate search for hospital records and breached…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2005 |
|
H2005-02
|
April 22, 2005 |
Acadia Fairview Pharmacy
The applicant complained that Acadia Fairview Pharmacy had improperly estimated the fee for services under section 67(3) of HIA. The…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2006 |
|
H2005-01 & F2005-17
|
June 19, 2006 |
Calgary Health Region
The applicant made an access request to the Calgary Health Region (CHR) for information pertaining to psychological questionnaires in her…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2005 |
|
H2004-05
|
January 14, 2005 |
Dr. Salma B. Murji
An individual complained that Dr. Murji disclosed his health information to the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) in contravention of…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2004 |
|
H2004-04
|
June 29, 2004 |
Dr. Morag E. Goldie
The applicant alleged that Dr. Goldie improperly refused to correct or amend her physician office records in contravention of HIA.…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2006 |
JR
|
H2004-03
|
August 4, 2006 |
Palliser Health Region
The applicant made a request to Palliser Health Region (PHR) for access to her health information at the Medicine Hat…
[More]
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).
|
JR
|
HIA |
2007 |
|
H2004-02
|
March 6, 2007 |
Palliser Health Region
The applicant made multiple requests for access to health information to Palliser Health Region (PHR). The applicant asked for a…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2004 |
|
H2003-03
|
January 28, 2004 |
Mental Health Board
An individual complained that the Mental Health Board (MHB) disclosed her health records/information in contravention of HIA. MHB disclosed the…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2006 |
|
H2003-02
|
December 20, 2006 |
Calgary Health Region
An individual complained that Calgary Health Region (CHR) collected health information in contravention of section 22(3)(a) of HIA. Section 22(3)(a)…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2003 |
|
H2003-01
|
October 6, 2003 |
Capital Health Authority
The applicant made two requests to the Mental Health Board (MHB) for access to portions of her hospital record at…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2003 |
|
H2002-05
|
March 18, 2003 |
Dr. Daniel J. Toliver
An individual complained that his physician, Dr. Daniel J. Toliver, disclosed his health information in contravention of HIA. The physician…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2002 |
|
H2002-04
|
September 6, 2002 |
David Thompson Health Region and Dr. S. Beshai
The applicants made requests to the David Thompson Health Region and to Dr. S. Beshai (the custodians) for access to…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2003 |
JR
|
H2002-03
|
March 19, 2003 |
Alberta Pharmacists and Pharmacies
The Commissioner initiated an investigation under section 84(a) of the Health Information Act (HIA) of this issue: Does HIA permit…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
HIA |
2002 |
|
H2002-02
|
May 2, 2002 |
Calgary Health Region
The applicant made a request to the Calgary Health Region (CHR) for access to correspondence about an internal review conducted…
[More]
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.
|
|
HIA |
2002 |
|
H2002-01
|
June 14, 2002 |
Mental Health Board
The applicant made a request to the Alberta Mental Health Board (AMHB) for access to his entire patient record. The…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-32
|
October 4, 2024 |
Environment and Protected Areas
The Applicant made an access request to Environment and Protected Spaces for the following: A copy of any spreadsheets or…
[More]
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”
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-31
|
October 4, 2024 |
Calgary Police Service
The Applicant made an access to information request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act)…
[More]
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).
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-30
|
September 17, 2024 |
City of Edmonton
The Applicant made an access request dated February 22, 2024 to the City of Edmonton (the Public Body). The Public…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-29
|
September 18, 2024 |
Energy and Minerals
On December 17, 2020, the Applicant made the following access request to Energy and Minerals (the Public Body) under the…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-28
|
August 23, 2024 |
City of Edmonton
On May 13, 2016, an individual (the Applicant) made an access request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of…
[More]
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).
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-27
|
August 15, 2024 |
Energy and Minerals
On February 17, 2022, Energy and Minerals (the Public Body, formerly Energy) received the Applicant’s request for access to: …
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-26
|
July 31, 2024 |
Calgary Police Service
The Applicant requested personal information from the Calgary Police Service (the Public Body) on three occasions. The Public Body did…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-25
|
July 19, 2024 |
Alberta Health Services
An individual made an access request to Alberta Health Services (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-24
|
July 18, 2024 |
Public Safety and Emergency Services
An individual made an access request to Public Safety and Emergency Services (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-23
|
July 17, 2024 |
City of Edmonton
On August 16, 2023, the City of Edmonton received an access request made by the Applicant under the Freedom of…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-22
|
July 17, 2024 |
City of Edmonton
The Applicant made an access request dated September 12, 2023 to the City of Edmonton under the Freedom of Information…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-21
|
July 9, 2024 |
Justice
The Applicant made an access request to Justice (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-20
|
July 4, 2024 |
City of St. Albert
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act), the Applicant made an access to information request…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-19
|
July 2, 2024 |
City of Edmonton
On July 27, 2023, the City of Edmonton (the Public Body) received an access request from an individual (the Applicant)…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-18
|
June 27, 2024 |
Workers' Compensation Board
The Complainant is a police officer and his employer is a municipal police service. The Workers’ Compensation Board (the Public…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-17
|
May 31, 2024 |
Office of the Premier/Alberta Executive Council
An Applicant made a request to Alberta Executive Council (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-16
|
May 29, 2024 |
Office of the Premier/Alberta Executive Council
An Applicant made a request to Alberta Executive Council (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-15
|
April 30, 2024 |
Justice
The Applicant made an access request to Justice (formerly Justice and Solicitor General) (the Public Body) under the Freedom of…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-14
|
April 24, 2024 |
Edmonton Police Service
An Applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (the EPS or the Public Body) under the Freedom…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-13
|
April 11, 2024 |
Edmonton Police Service
An Applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-12
|
March 27, 2024 |
Calgary Police Service
The Applicant made several access requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP Act) to the…
[More]
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).
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-11
|
March 19, 2024 |
St. Albert School Division
An individual (the Applicant) made a request for access to certain information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-10
|
March 14, 2024 |
City of Edmonton
An Applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton (Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-09
|
March 12, 2024 |
Edmonton School Division
The Applicants requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act) to all records…
[More]
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).
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-08
|
March 12, 2024 |
Calgary Heritage Housing
The Applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act) to Calgary…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-07
|
March 5, 2024 |
Alberta Energy Regulator
An Applicant made an access request to the Alberta Energy Regulator (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-06 & H2024-01
|
February 13, 2024 |
Alberta Health Services
The Applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (the Custodian) under the Health Information Act (HIA) for specified…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-05
|
January 29, 2024 |
City of Edmonton
An Applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-04
|
January 25, 2024 |
Workers' Compensation Board
An individual had a claim with the Workers’ Compensation Board (the WCB) under the Workers’ Compensation Act (the “WCA”) relating…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-03
|
January 22, 2024 |
Public Safety and Emergency Services
On January 22, 2018, an individual made an access request on behalf of Alberta Prison Justice Society (formerly Alberta Prisoners…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-02
|
January 15, 2024 |
City of Edmonton
On April 5, 2016, an individual (the Applicant) made an access request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2024 |
|
F2024-01
|
January 11, 2024 |
Alberta Human Rights Commission
The Complainant made a complaint against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 424 (the Union) to the Alberta…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-R-01
|
November 24, 2023 |
Edmonton Police Services
The Alberta Court of Appeal quashed the decision in Order F2020-17 and remitted the matter back to the Information and…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-46
|
December 13, 2023 |
University of Alberta
In 2014, the Applicant made an access to information request (the initial request) under the Freedom of Information and Protection…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-45
|
December 6, 2023 |
University of Calgary
The Applicant made an access request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act) for…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-44
|
November 24, 2023 |
City of Edmonton
An Applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-43
|
November 14, 2023 |
Alberta Health Services
The Applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-42
|
October 24, 2023 |
Service Alberta and Red Tape Reduction
An Applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP Act) to Service Alberta…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-41
|
October 11, 2023 |
Town of Two Hills
An individual made a request to the Town of Two Hills (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and…
[More]
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).
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-40
|
September 21, 2023 |
City of Calgary
The City of Calgary (the Public Body) received several access requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-39
|
September 21, 2023 |
Affordability and Utilities
An individual made a request to Alberta Energy (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-38
|
September 8, 2023 |
Calgary Police Service
An individual (the Applicant) made an access request to the Calgary Police Service (the Public Body). The Public Body provided…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-37
|
August 24, 2023 |
Justice
The Applicant made an access request to Justice (formerly Justice and Solicitor General) (the Public Body) for “all records relating…
[More]
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 1st, 2008 to December 21st, 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 31st, 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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-35
|
August 10, 2023 |
Justice
The Applicant made the following access request to Justice (the Public Body) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of…
[More]
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).
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-34
|
August 9, 2023 |
Alberta Health Services
On March 12, 2018, the Applicant, a former employee of Alberta Health Services (the Public Body) requested records under the…
[More]
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).
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-33
|
July 18, 2023 |
Calgary Police Commission
The Applicant made a request for access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FOIP Act)…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-32
|
July 13, 2023 |
Calgary Police Service
On March 22, 2021, the Calgary Police Service (the Public Body) received an access request under the Freedom of Information…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-31
|
July 11, 2023 |
Calgary Police Service
The Applicant made a request to the Calgary Police Service for access to all of the Applicant’s personal information located…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-30
|
July 11, 2023 |
Calgary Police Service
The Applicant, the Criminal Trial Lawyers’ Association (CTLA) made an access request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-29
|
July 11, 2023 |
Health
On May 27, 2020, the Applicant made lengthy and detailed access requests for records to different public bodies. The access…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-28
|
July 6, 2023 |
Town of Irricana
An individual (the Applicant) made an access request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act)…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-27
|
July 5, 2023 |
City of Calgary
The Applicant made two requests for access to information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-26
|
July 4, 2023 |
Alberta Energy Regulator
An Applicant made five access requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) to the…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-25
|
July 4, 2023 |
Public Safety and Emergency Services
On July 12, 2018, the Applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (now Public Safety and Emergency…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-24
|
June 23, 2023 |
Environment and Protected Areas
On August 31, 2022, an applicant (the Applicant) made an access request to Environment and Protected Areas (the Public Body)…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-23
|
June 5, 2023 |
Alberta Motor Vehicle Industry Council
The Complainant made a complaint under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) that the Alberta…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-22
|
May 25, 2023 |
University of Calgary
The applicant made an access request to the University of Calgary. The applicant requested a review of the University of…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-21
|
May 24, 2023 |
City of Edmonton
The applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton. The applicant requested a review of the City of…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-20
|
May 16, 2023 |
Forestry, Parks and Tourism, Service Alberta and Red Tape Reduction, Children's Services & Public Safety and Emergency Services
An individual made a complaint that several public bodies collected, used and disclosed his personal information in contravention of FOIP…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-19
|
May 11, 2023 |
Village of Edgerton
The applicant made an access request to the Village of Edgerton for his own personal information. The Village of Edgerton…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-18
|
May 11, 2023 |
Public Safety and Emergency Services
The applicant made an access request to Justice, now Public Safety and Emergency Services, for CCTV footage of an incident…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-17
|
April 19, 2023 |
Justice
The applicant made an access request to Justice for copies of written communications between Justice employees about him regarding a…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-16
|
April 17, 2023 |
Energy
An individual made a request to Alberta Energy (Energy) for “all notes, memos, emails, text messages, briefings, etc. regarding transition…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-15
|
April 12, 2023 |
Children’s Services
The applicant made an access request to Children’s Services for records relating to herself and her daughter. Children’s Services initially…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-14
|
April 11, 2023 |
Calgary Police Service
This inquiry relates to information in the possession of the Calgary Police Service (CPS) relating to a specified RCMP file,…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-13
|
March 27, 2023 |
Children’s Services
The applicant made a request to Children’s Services for family services records relating to her. Children’s Services provided responsive records,…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-12
|
March 17, 2023 |
Agriculture and Irrigation
The applicant made an access request to Agriculture and Irrigation. The applicant requested a review of Agriculture and Irrigation’s failure…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-11
|
March 15, 2023 |
Energy
The applicant submitted an access request to Energy. The applicant did not receive a response from Energy within the time limits…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-10 & H2023-02
|
March 15, 2023 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for a 911 call, and all video-audio and handwritten…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-09
|
February 15, 2023 |
Energy
The applicant made an access request to Energy under FOIP. The applicant requested a review of Energy’s failure to respond.…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-08
|
February 13, 2023 |
Edmonton Police Service
Individuals made complaints that the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) disclosed their personal information to members of the media. In particular,…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-07
|
February 9, 2023 |
Environment and Protected Areas
The applicant made an access request under FOIP to Environment and Parks (now Environment and Protected Areas) for records between…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-06
|
January 27, 2023 |
Public Safety and Emergency Services
The applicant submitted an access request for certain information to Public Safety and Emergency Services (formerly Justice and Solicitor General). The…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-05
|
January 27, 2023 |
Public Safety and Emergency Services
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (now Public Safety and Emergency Services) for particular reports…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-04
|
January 25, 2023 |
Public Service Commissioner
The applicant made an access request to the Public Service Commissioner (PSC) for records in the applicant’s personnel file. PSC…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-03
|
January 19, 2023 |
Energy
The applicant made an access to information request to Alberta Energy. Alberta Energy extended time to respond to the access…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-02
|
January 11, 2023 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for information relating to him as a former…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2023 |
|
F2023-01
|
January 4, 2023 |
City of Edmonton
The applicant made two access requests to the City of Edmonton for notes and actions taken by bylaw enforcement officers…
[More]
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).
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-R-01
|
April 20, 2022 |
Edmonton Police Service
On judicial review of Order F2017-58, the Court of Queen’s Bench quashed and remitted the order in part. In this…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-64
|
December 21, 2022 |
City of Calgary
The applicant made an access request to the City of Calgary for a study/report for Hillhurst/Sunnyside, prepared by Coriolis Consulting…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-63
|
December 20, 2022 |
Environment and Protected Areas
The applicant made an access request to Environment and Protected Areas for for all records related to the Saddle Hills…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-62
|
December 19, 2022 |
Environment and Protected Areas
The applicant made an access request to Environment and Protected Areas (formerly Environment and Parks) for briefings to the Minister…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-61
|
December 19, 2022 |
Public Safety and Emergency Services
The applicant made an access request to Public Safety and Emergency Services (formerly Justice and Solicitor General) but did not…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-60
|
December 13, 2022 |
Indigenous Relations
The applicant made an access request to Indigenous Relations. Indigenous Relations failed to respond to the applicant within the time…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-59
|
November 30, 2022 |
Justice
The applicant made an access request to Justice. The applicant requested a review indicating that the time limit for responding to…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-58
|
November 30, 2022 |
Justice
The applicant made an access request to Justice. The applicant requested a review indicating that the time limit for responding to…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-57
|
November 14, 2022 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant made an access request for certain information to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). The applicant indicated that the…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-56
|
November 10, 2022 |
University of Alberta
In Order F2022-22, the Adjudicator ordered the University of Alberta to reconsider its discretion to withhold information responsive to an…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-55
|
November 7, 2022 |
Public Safety and Emergency Services
The applicant made an access request to Public Safety and Emergency Services (PSES; then Justice and Solicitor General) . The…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-54
|
November 7, 2022 |
Alberta Health Services
An individual made a complaint that employees of the Alberta Health Services’ (AHS) 911 centre had accessed her schedule information…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-53
|
November 4, 2022 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant made three access requests to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for records of named CPS officers that relate…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-52
|
October 28, 2022 |
Alberta Human Rights Commission
The applicant made an access request to the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC). AHRC informed the applicant that it was extending…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-51
|
October 13, 2022 |
City of Lethbridge
The applicant made an access request to the City of Lethbridge.The City of Lethbridge did not respond to the applicant…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-50
|
October 13, 2022 |
City of Lethbridge
The applicant made an access request to the City of Lethbridge.The City of Lethbridge did not respond to the applicant…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-49
|
October 4, 2022 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks for “information related to flooding issues at my property and…
[More]
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).
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-48
|
September 28, 2022 |
Health
The applicant made an access request to Health for information related to COVID-19 and public health measures related to COVID-19.…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-47
|
September 28, 2022 |
Health
The applicant made a request to Health for emails sent to and from the email domain @pfizer.com. Health refused to…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-46
|
September 27, 2022 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for records relating to training given to new…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-45
|
September 27, 2022 |
City of Calgary
The applicant made a request to the City of Calgary for access to all information pertaining to himself, specifying the…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-44
|
September 27, 2022 |
Alberta Pensions Services Corporation
The applicant made an access request to Alberta Pensions Services Corporation (APSC) for information sent and received on her file…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-43
|
September 21, 2022 |
Edmonton Police Service
[More]
An individual made a complaint that the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) had collected her personal information and disclosed it to Alberta Justice Crown Prosecutor’s Office without taking adequate steps to protect it from the risk of unauthorized disclosure. The Adjudicator found that EPS had collected the complainant’s personal information in compliance with Part 2 of FOIP. The Adjudicator also found that the information that was disclosed was subject to section 4(1)(k) when it was disclosed. Section 4(1)(k) applies to records relating to prosecutions that are not yet complete. As a result, the Adjudicator found that there was no jurisdiction to address the complaint. However, the Adjudicator noted that the Complainant had raised a serious issue and recommended that the public bodies involved in preparing disclosure for accused persons and protecting witnesses consider addressing those issues. The Commissioner decided not to conduct an inquiry in relation to Alberta Justice’s disclosure of the complainant’s personal information as section 4(1)(k) applied to the information that was disclosed.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-42
|
September 21, 2022 |
City of Calgary
The applicant made an access to information request to the City of Calgary. The City of Calgary transferred part of…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-41
|
September 14, 2022 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond within the time limits…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-40
|
September 8, 2022 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for his personal information contained in the inboxes…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-39
|
August 30, 2022 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for pager, cellphone and internal Government of Alberta…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-38
|
August 30, 2022 |
Town of Penhold
An individual made a complaint that the Town of Penhold had collected his personal information in contravention of FOIP when…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-37
|
August 29, 2022 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks for records relating to rangeland health inventories. As the records…
[More]
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).
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-36
|
August 25, 2022 |
Justice and Solicitor General
An applicant made an access request under FOIP to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for cover letters of an ASIRT…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-35
|
August 19, 2022 |
Edmonton Police Service
An individual made a complaint alleging that the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) collected, used and disclosed her personal information in…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
JR
|
F2022-34
|
August 17, 2022 |
University of Calgary
The applicant made an access to information request to the University of Calgary. The University of Calgary determined that all…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-33
|
July 27, 2022 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for copies of written communications between JSG employees…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-32
|
June 30, 2022 |
City of Edmonton
The applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton. The City of Edmonton extended its time to respond…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-31
|
June 22, 2022 |
City of Edmonton
The applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton for copies of nuisance complaints made about his dog.…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-30
|
June 20, 2022 |
Chinook's Edge School Division
On behalf of a teacher employed by Chinook’s Edge School Division (CESD), the Alberta Teachers’ Association made a complaint that…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-29
|
June 15, 2022 |
Rocky View County
The applicant made an access request to Rocky View County for records relating to residential developments. The Adjudicator considered whether…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-28
|
June 8, 2022 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for information related to his employment and termination of…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-27
|
May 26, 2022 |
Town of Beaverlodge
The applicant made a request to the Town of Beaverlodge for specific records relating to the Beaverlodge Airport. The Town of…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-26
|
May 20, 2022 |
Town of Beaverlodge
An individual made a request to the Town of Beaverlodge for specific records relating to the Beaverlodge Airport. The Town…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-25
|
May 11, 2022 |
Health
The applicant made an access request to Health. Health said that the access request was too vague to meet the…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-24
|
May 3, 2022 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant made an access request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for information related to the applicant’s professional performance…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-23
|
April 27, 2022 |
Village of Longview
An individual made a complaint alleging that the Village of Longview disclosed her personal information in contravention of FOIP when…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-22
|
April 22, 2022 |
University of Alberta
The applicant made an access to information to the University of Alberta. The inquiry considered the University of Alberta’s decisions…
[More]
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).
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-21
|
April 8, 2022 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
JR
|
F2022-20
|
April 6, 2022 |
Energy
The applicants made an access request to Energy about the change to Energy’s coal policy. Energy responded to the applicants,…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-19
|
March 31, 2022 |
Strathcona County
The applicant made an access request to Strathcona County for certain information. The applicant did not receive an email which…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
JR
|
F2022-18
|
March 25, 2022 |
University of Calgary
The applicant made an access request to the University of Calgary. The University of Calgary provided eight emails and attachments…
[More]
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).
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-17
|
March 21, 2022 |
Health
The applicant made an access request to Health. Health did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-16
|
March 15, 2022 |
Canadian Energy Centre Ltd.
The applicant sought copies of records from the Canadian Energy Centre Ltd. (CEC). In response, CEC advised that it was…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-15
|
March 10, 2022 |
Kensington Business Revitalization Zone
The applicant made an access request to the Kensington Business Revitalization Zone (KBRZ). KBRZ did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-14
|
March 1, 2022 |
Health
The applicant made an access request to Health. Health did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-13
|
February 25, 2022 |
Workers' Compensation Board
An individual made a complaint that the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) had provided his personal information to a medical consultant…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-12
|
February 25, 2022 |
Summer Village of South View
The applicant made a request to the Summer Village of South View for records relating to a particular residential property.…
[More]
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).
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-11
|
February 23, 2022 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks. Environment and Parks did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-10
|
February 23, 2022 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks. Environment and Parks did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-09
|
February 23, 2022 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks. Environment and Parks did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-08
|
February 23, 2022 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks. Environment and Parks did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-07
|
February 23, 2022 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks. Environment and Parks did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-06
|
February 18, 2022 |
CapitalCare
The applicant made an access request to CapitalCare. CapitalCare did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-05
|
February 9, 2022 |
Workers' Compensation Board
An individual complained that in 2011 he was contacted by a survey company that asked him about his experience with…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-04
|
February 7, 2022 |
Alberta Energy Regulator
The applicant made an access request to the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) for records relating to his employment. The applicant…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-03
|
February 3, 2022 |
Labour and Immigration
The applicant requested access from Labour and Immigration to her employment standards file. The applicant believed more records existed than…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-02
|
January 25, 2022 |
Energy
The applicant made an access request to Energy. Energy did not respond within the time limits set out in FOIP.…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2022 |
|
F2022-01
|
January 14, 2022 |
Health
The applicant made an access request to Health. Health did not respond within the time limits set out in FOIP.…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-51
|
December 14, 2021 |
Health
The applicant made an access request to Health. Health did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-50
|
December 10, 2021 |
City of Calgary
An individual made a complaint that the City of Calgary failed to take reasonable steps to determine the accuracy of…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-49
|
December 8, 2021 |
Environment and Parks
In Order F2021-21, the Adjudicator directed Environment and Parks to provide additional details to the applicant regarding its search for…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-48
|
December 7, 2021 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-47
|
November 30, 2021 |
Health
The applicant made an access request to Health. Health did not respond within the time limits set out in FOIP.…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-46
|
November 30, 2021 |
Health
The applicant made an access request to Health. Health did not respond within the time limits set out in FOIP.…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
JR
|
F2021-45
|
November 30, 2021 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant sought information from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) about guidelines for creative sentencing under section 234(1) of the…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-44
|
November 18, 2021 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond within the time limits…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-43
|
November 15, 2021 |
Children's Services
The applicant, which consists of the estate of a deceased person and the mother of the deceased person, made an…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-42
|
November 3, 2021 |
Justice and Solicitor General
An applicant requested CCTV footage of an incident that took place at the Calgary Remand Centre. The applicant expressly requested…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-41
|
October 28, 2021 |
Children’s Services
An individual made a complaint that Children’s Services collected her personal information in the course of an investigation regarding someone…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-40
|
October 27, 2021 |
Health
The applicant made an access request to Health. Health did not respond within the time limits set out in FOIP.…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-39
|
October 19, 2021 |
City of Edmonton
An individual made a complaint that the City of Edmonton disclosed his personal information in contravention of FOIP. The complainant…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-38
|
October 7, 2021 |
Edmonton Catholic Separate School Division
In Order F2019-22, the Adjudicator directed Edmonton Catholic Separate School Division (ECSSD) to respond to the access request by searching…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-37
|
October 5, 2021 |
Workers' Compensation Board
An individual made a complaint on her own behalf and that of her minor children that the Workers’ Compensation Board…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-36
|
September 13, 2021 |
Municipality of Crowsnest Pass
The applicant made an access request to the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass. The Municipality of Crowsnest Pass did not respond…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-35
|
September 10, 2021 |
Edmonton Public Service
The applicants requested access to an Edmonton Police Service (EPS) file that had been opened to investigate the death of…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-34
|
September 1, 2021 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made a request for his personal information, and records containing information about his two children and his spouse,…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-33
|
September 1, 2021 |
Edmonton Catholic Separate School Division
The applicant made a request for his personal information from the Edmonton Catholic Separate School Division (ECSSD). The Adjudicator confirmed…
[More]
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)).
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-32
|
August 27, 2021 |
Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo
The applicant made an access request to the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (RMWB). RMWB did not respond to the…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-31
|
August 18, 2021 |
Municipality of Crowsnest Pass
The applicant made an access request to the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass. The applicant requested a review of the time…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-30
|
August 18, 2021 |
Town of Ponoka
The applicant made an access request to the Town of Ponoka. The applicant requested a review of the time taken…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-29
|
August 5, 2021 |
Edmonton Police Service
An individual made a complaint that the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) collected medical information from him without his consent, and…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-28
|
July 30, 2021 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant made a request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for information related to a specified CPS action number.…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-27
|
July 13, 2021 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant made an access request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for all records relating to CPS’ response to…
[More]
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).
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-26
|
June 29, 2021 |
City of Calgary
The applicant requested all records containing information related to him from several parts and employees of the City of Calgary.…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-25
|
June 29, 2021 |
Justice and Solicitor General
An individual complained that an employee of Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) had accessed his personal information in databases to…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-24
|
June 24, 2021 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for records relating to the capture of wild…
[More]
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).
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-23
|
June 21, 2021 |
Rocky View County
The applicant made an access request to Rocky View County for records relating to the Elbow Valley West stormwater management…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-22
|
June 21, 2021 |
City of Spruce Grove
The applicant made an access request to the City of Spruce Grove for records relating to contracts. The City of…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-21
|
June 17, 2021 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant made a request to Environment and Parks for records relating to the capture of wild horses under the…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-20
|
June 2, 2021 |
Brazeau Seniors Foundation
A former employee of Brazeau Seniors Foundation made an access request to the foundation for access to records related to…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-19
|
May 25, 2021 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant made an access request to Calgary Police Service (CPS) relating to a specified RCMP file. CPS provided 65…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-18
|
May 18, 2021 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks for records relating to an employee survey conducted by the…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-17
|
May 11, 2021 |
City of Edmonton
The applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton for a list of properties required for LRT projects.…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-16
|
May 11, 2021 |
City of Edmonton
The applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton for a list of properties required for the Yellowhead…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-15
|
April 28, 2021 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant made an access request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS), including a request for contact information for an…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-14
|
April 23, 2021 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant made an access request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for records related to disposition letters issued by…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-13
|
April 13, 2021 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant made an access request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for records relating to polygraph testing results and…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
JR
|
F2021-12
|
April 6, 2021 |
University of Alberta
The applicant (referred to as the complainant in this order) made an access request to the University of Alberta, and…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-11
|
April 1, 2021 |
City of Edmonton
The applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton for records relating to a decision to locate an…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-10
|
April 1, 2021 |
City of Edmonton
An individual complained about the disclosure of his personal information by the City of Edmonton to a medical expert without…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-09
|
March 31, 2021 |
Indigenous Relations
An individual complained that his employer, Indigenous Relations, disclosed his personal information on two occasions contrary to FOIP. The Adjudicator…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-08
|
March 12, 2021 |
Calgary Police Service
An individual requested an audit log from the Calgary Police Service (CPS) of all times its employees and members had…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-07
|
March 11, 2021 |
Edmonton Police Service
An individual submitted a correction request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). The Adjudicator determined that, for the most part,…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-06
|
March 9, 2021 |
Edmonton Police Service
An individual made a complaint alleging that the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) was using inaccurate and incomplete information about her…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-05
|
March 4, 2021 |
City of Edmonton
An individual complained that two managers with the City of Edmonton had made statements criticizing his work as a project…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-04
|
February 19, 2021 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for certain information. AHS responded but the applicant believed…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-03
|
February 8, 2021 |
Edmonton Police Service
An individual made a request to correct personal information contained within an Edmonton Police Service (EPS) street check report. EPS…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-02
|
February 8, 2021 |
Town of Athabasca
The applicant made an access request under FOIP to the Town of Athabasca for a legal opinion that was given…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2021 |
|
F2021-01
|
January 19, 2021 |
City of Edmonton
The applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton for information related to a property adjacent to her…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-R-01
|
January 7, 2020 |
Alberta Emergency Management Agency
On judicial review of Order F2017-54, the Court of Queen’s Bench held that parts of the order by which the…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-36
|
December 17, 2020 |
Service Alberta
The applicant made an access request to Service Alberta for records relating to the Alberta Real Estate Association or its…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-35
|
November 30, 2020 |
Children's Services
The applicant made an access request to Children’s Services for records containing references made by her to foster parents, including…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-34
|
November 19, 2020 |
Thorhild County
The applicant made an access request to Thorhild County for records relating to email exchanges between Thorhild County officials concerning…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-33
|
November 2, 2020 |
Calgary Board of Education
An individual made a correction request to the Calgary Board of Education (CBE) under FOIP by asking that particular information…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-32
|
October 29, 2020 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for information regarding a complaint she had made to…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-31
|
October 22, 2020 |
University of Calgary
The applicant requested access to survey results from the University of Calgary. The University of Calgary refused access citing section…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-30
|
October 14, 2020 |
Justice and Solicitor General
An individual, who appears as an agent in traffic court, complained that Justice and Solicitor General had used his personal…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-29
|
October 14, 2020 |
Edmonton Police Service
An individual complained that the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) collected inaccurate information about him and used it to decide to…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-28
|
September 23, 2020 |
City of Calgary
The applicant made an access request to the City of Calgary. The City of Calgary responded that its search failed…
[More]
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).
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-27
|
September 8, 2020 |
Justice and Solicitor General
An individual made a complaint that Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) collected, used and disclosed his personal information in contravention…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-26
|
September 1, 2020 |
Calgary Police Service
An individual made a complaint that his employer, the Calgary Police Service (CPS), collected, used and disclosed his personal information…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-25
|
August 31, 2020 |
Calgary Board of Education
The applicant made an access request to his employer, the Calgary Board of Education (CBE), for records relating to him…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-24
|
August 18, 2020 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG provided the applicant with a fee estimate…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-23
|
August 17, 2020 |
Edmonton School Division
The applicant made an access request to the Board of Trustees of Edmonton School Division (ESD) seeking information about her…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-22
|
July 31, 2020 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant made an access request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for records containing information about him. The request…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-21
|
July 24, 2020 |
Workers' Compensation Board
An individual submitted a complaint that the Workers’ Compensation Board had disclosed his personal information in contravention of FOIP when…
[More]
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).
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-20
|
July 21, 2020 |
Capital Region Housing Corporation
An individual made a complaint that the amount of personal information the Capital Region Housing Corporation requested was excessive for…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-19
|
July 21, 2020 |
Energy
The applicant made an access request to Energy for records related to curriculum development involving Inside Education, specially communications between…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-18
|
July 21, 2020 |
Energy
The applicant made an access request to Energy for records related to curriculum development involving Inside Education, specially records related…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
JR
|
F2020-17
|
July 20, 2020 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) seeking records it obtained from an RCMP file.…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-16
|
June 24, 2020 |
City of Calgary
The applicant made an access request to the City of Calgary for specific records relating to his property. The City…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-15
|
June 22, 2020 |
City of Calgary
The applicant made an access request o the City of Calgary for the Calgary Fire Department Workplace Review conducted by…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-14
|
June 4, 2020 |
City of Edmonton
The applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton for records relating to the downtown arena development in…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-13
|
June 2, 2020 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant made an access request for all information held by the Calgary Police Service (CPS) in specified investigation files…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-12
|
May 29, 2020 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for data from the Alberta electronic health record regarding…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-11
|
May 28, 2020 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks for records related to a respectful workplace investigation. The applicant…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-10
|
May 28, 2020 |
Environment and Parks
An individual made a complaint that Environment and Parks imprperly used and disclosed his personal information in the course of…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-09
|
May 21, 2020 |
City of Edmonton
An individual made a complaint that the City of Edmonton contravened FOIP by using and disclosing her personal information in…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-08
|
April 16, 2020 |
Alberta Energy Regulator
In Order F2019-09, the Adjudicator retained jurisdiction to determine the application of section 18(1) to the information relating to certain…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-07
|
April 14, 2020 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant requested that the Commissioner review a fee estimate calculated by the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). The Adjudicator found…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-06
|
April 9, 2020 |
University of Calgary
The applicant requested records from the University of Calgary relating to a named professor. The University of Calgary declined to…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-05
|
April 7, 2020 |
Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo
An individual made a complaint that the former chief administrative officer (CAO) of the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo had…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-04
|
March 5, 2020 |
Health
The applicant made four separate access requests to Health. Each request was for any documentation containing the applicant’s name, held…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-03
|
February 28, 2020 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made a request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for records relating to the 2013 floods and more…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-02
|
February 20, 2020 |
Peace River School Division
The applicant made an access request to Peace River School Division (PRSD) seeking records that would identify the individuals responsible…
[More]
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).
|
|
FOIP |
2020 |
|
F2020-01
|
February 7, 2020 |
Alberta Health Services
An individual made a complaint that Alberta Health Services (AHS) improperly disclosed his personal and health information to the Lethbridge…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
JR
|
F2019-R-01
|
March 31, 2019 |
Health
This order is a reconsideration of Order F2013-47. On judicial review of that order, the Court of Queen’s Bench held…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-42
|
December 19, 2019 |
City of Edmonton
An individual made a complaint that a bylaw officer employed by the City of Edmonton collected and disclosed her personal…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-41
|
November 20, 2019 |
Peace River School Division
An individual made a complaint that Peace River School Division (PRSD) indirectly collected, used and disclosed their personal information contrary…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-40
|
October 25, 2019 |
Calgary Police Service
After receiving information from an access request, an individual submitted a complaint that Calgary Police Service (CPS) that a police…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-39
|
October 25, 2019 |
Grande Prairie Public School District
The applicant made an access request to Grande Prairie Public School District (GPPSD) for her entire human resources file, board…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-38
|
October 21, 2019 |
Municipal District of Opportunity
The applicant made an access request to the Municipal District of Opportunity. The Municipal District of Opportunity did not respond…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-37
|
October 10, 2019 |
Community and Social Services
The applicant made an access request to Community and Social Services (CSS) for his file from EmployAbilities, a nonprofit organization…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-36
|
October 10, 2019 |
Community and Social Services
The applicant made an access request to Community and Social Services (CSS) for their personal information. CSS located 78 records…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-35
|
October 8, 2019 |
Justice and Solicitor General
An individual made a complaint that Justice and Solicitor General had collected, used and disclosed his personal information in contravention…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-34
|
October 4, 2019 |
Thorhild County
The applicant made an access request to Thorhild County for copies of emails between two Thorhild County employees and the…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-33
|
September 24, 2019 |
Labour and Immigration
The applicant made a detailed access request to Labour and Immigration (formerly Jobs, Skills, Training and Labour). The applicant requested…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-32
|
September 11, 2019 |
Municipal Affairs
The applicant made an access request to Municipals Affairs for emails sent by an individual employed by Municipal Affairs to…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-31
|
September 6, 2019 |
ATB Financial
The applicant requested records regarding positions excluded from the bargaining unit from ATB Financial. ATB Financial refused access on the…
[More]
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).
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-30
|
September 4, 2019 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant requested records from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) regarding the RCMP’s authority to enter properties during a flood…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-29
|
August 28, 2019 |
Calgary Police Service
An individual made a complaint that a senior investigator of the Calgary Police Service improperly accessed her personal information by…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
JR
|
F2019-28
|
August 21, 2019 |
Justice and Solicitor General
Two applicants each made one access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). The first applicant’s access request was for…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2019 |
JR
|
F2019-27
|
August 21, 2019 |
Justice and Solicitor General
Two applicants made separate access requests to Justice and Solicitor General. The first applicant made two requests and the second…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2019 |
JR
|
F2019-26
|
August 21, 2019 |
Health
An applicant made two separate access requests to Health. The first access request was for the Contingency Fee Agreement (CFA)…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2019 |
JR
|
F2019-25
|
July 18, 2019 |
Edmonton Public School District
The applicant requested records related to communication between himself and staff of Edmonton Public School District No. 7 (EPSD). EPSD…
[More]
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).
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-24
|
July 16, 2019 |
NorQuest College
The applicant requested records regarding NorQuest College’s respectful workplace policy and a summary report that had been prepared by an…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-23
|
June 25, 2019 |
Workers' Compensation Board
An individual made a complaint that the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) disclosed his personal information in contravention of FOIP when…
[More]
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)).
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-22
|
June 21, 2019 |
Edmonton Catholic School District
The applicant requested records related to all retreats and/or meetings attended by principals of Edmonton Catholic School District No. 7…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-21
|
June 19, 2019 |
County of Two Hills
The applicant made an access request to the County of Two Hills No. 21 for records related to expense claims…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-20
|
June 7, 2019 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
JR
|
F2019-19 & H2019-01
|
May 23, 2019 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for records related to her mother. AHS provided a…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-18
|
May 13, 2019 |
Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo
The applicant requested personal information from the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (RM of Wood Buffalo), including communications with the…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-17
|
May 7, 2019 |
Infrastructure
The applicant requested records from Infrastructure related to a purchase of land by a third party, and records related to…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-16
|
April 11, 2019 |
Health
The applicant made an access request to Health. Health did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-15
|
April 9, 2019 |
Workers' Compensation Board
An individual submitted a complaint that the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) disclosed without authorization details of a previous WCB injury…
[More]
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)).
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-14
|
April 9, 2019 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant requested an in-car digital video system recording for a specified period of time from the Calgary Police Service…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-13
|
April 3, 2019 |
Service Alberta
The applicant made an access request to Service Alberta. Service Alberta did not respond to the applicant within the time…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-12
|
April 2, 2019 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-11
|
March 28, 2019 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-10
|
March 27, 2019 |
Children's Services
The applicant made an access request to Children’s Services regarding a complaint made about him. The applicant requested an inquiry…
[More]
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).
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-09
|
March 21, 2019 |
Alberta Energy Regulator
The applicant made an access request to the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) for an electronic copy of the complete staff…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-08
|
March 19, 2019 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). EPS did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-07
|
March 15, 2019 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant made five access requests to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for information related to an employment issue concerning her.…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-06
|
March 14, 2019 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for all records related to a specific case.…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2019-05
|
March 8, 2018 |
Human Rights Commission & Justice and Solicitor General
An individual made a complaint that the Human Rights Commission (HRC) collected, used or disclosed his personal information in his…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-04
|
March 7, 2019 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). EPS did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-03
|
March 4, 2019 |
Agriculture and Forestry
The applicant made an access request to Agriculture and Forestry. Agriculture and Forestry did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-02
|
February 26, 2019 |
Education
The applicant requested access to a list of Twitter users or accounts that had been blocked for each Twitter account…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2019 |
|
F2019-01
|
January 24, 2019 |
City of Calgary
The applicant made an access request to the City of Calgary. The City of Calgary did not respond to the…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-80
|
December 20, 2018 |
Health
The applicant made an access request to Health. Health did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-79
|
December 20, 2018 |
Workers' Compensation Board
An individual made a complaint that a consultation request (a summary of the complainant’s file) created by the Workers’ Compensation…
[More]
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)).
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-78
|
December 20, 2018 |
Workers' Compensation Board
An individual requested a correction to his personal information in a document related to an ongoing claim with the Workers’…
[More]
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).
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-77
|
December 14, 2018 |
City of Leduc
In response to an access request, the City of Leduc decided it would release information about a request for proposal.…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-76
|
December 14, 2018 |
Peace River School Division
The applicant made an access request to the Peace River School Division (PRSD) for any records or information that was…
[More]
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).
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-75
|
December 13, 2018 |
Workers' Compensation Board
The applicant requested records from the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) related to a claim he made. In Order F2013-54, the…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-74
|
December 10, 2018 |
Edmonton Police Commission
The applicant requested records from the Edmonton Police Commission (EPC) related to a former employee. There were five categories of…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-73
|
December 4, 2018 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). EPS failed to respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-72
|
December 3, 2018 |
Calgary Police Service
An individual made a complaint that Calgary Police Service (CPS) had disseminated his personal information in contravention of FOIP when…
[More]
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).
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-71
|
November 28, 2018 |
Parkland School Division
An individual made a complaint that Parkland School Division (PSD) had collected, used and disclosed her son’s personal information and…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
JR
|
F2018-70
|
November 22, 2018 |
Justice and Solicitor General
Two separate applicants filed access requests with Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) related to the Government of Alberta’s recovery of…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-69
|
November 9, 2018 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS). AHS failed to respond to the applicant within the…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-68
|
October 26, 2018 |
Town of Peace River
The applicant made an access request to the Town of Peace River. The Town of Peace River failed to respond…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-67
|
October 26, 2018 |
Town of Peace River
The applicant made an access request to the Town of Peace River. The Town of Peace River failed to respond…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-66
|
October 26, 2018 |
Town of Peace River
The applicant made an access request to the Town of Peace River. The Town of Peace River failed to respond…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-65
|
October 25, 2018 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG failed to respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-64
|
October 11, 2018 |
Status of Women
The applicant made an access request to Status of Women. Status of Women failed to respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-63
|
October 11, 2018 |
Community and Social Services
The applicant made an access request to Community and Social Services (CSS). CSS failed to respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-62
|
October 9, 2018 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG failed to respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-61
|
October 9, 2018 |
Energy
The applicant made an access request to Energy. Energy failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-60
|
October 5, 2018 |
Edmonton Police Service
An individual made a complaint that Edmonton Police Service (EPS) had improperly disclosed her personal information under FOIP, when her…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-59
|
October 9, 2018 |
University of Alberta
An individual made a complaint that the University of Alberta contravened FOIP when it disclosed his personal information to the…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-58
|
October 2, 2018 |
City of Calgary
The applicant made an access request to the City of Calgary. The City of Calgary failed to respond to the…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-57
|
October 1, 2018 |
Community and Social Services
The applicant made an access request to Community and Social Services (CSS). CSS failed to respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-56
|
October 1, 2018 |
Children's Services
The applicant made an access request to Children’s Services. Children’s Services failed to respond to the applicant within the time…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-55
|
October 1, 2018 |
Labour
The applicant requested a fee waiver from Labour for a request for records relating to an investigation report authored by…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-54
|
September 27, 2018 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made two access requests to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG), and requested a fee waiver under FOIP. JSG…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-53
|
September 26, 2018 |
Workers' Compensation Board
The applicant requested his claim history for a specified time period from the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB). The applicant requested…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-52
|
September 21, 2018 |
Labour
The applicant made a request to Labour for briefing material created for the Deputy Minister of Labour who was transitioning…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-51
|
September 21, 2018 |
Treasury Board and Finance
The applicant requested a copy of the contents of briefing binders for representatives of Treasury Board and Finance (TBF) attending…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-50
|
September 21, 2018 |
Executive Council
The applicant requested a copy of the contents of briefing binders for representatives of Executive Council attending a specified Standing…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-49
|
September 21, 2018 |
Culture and Tourism
The applicant requested a copy of the contents of briefing binders for representatives of Culture and Tourism attending a specified…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-48
|
September 21, 2018 |
Seniors and Housing
The applicant requested a copy of the contents of briefing binders for representatives of Seniors and Housing attending a specified…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-47
|
September 21, 2018 |
Education
The applicant requested a copy of the contents of briefing binders for representatives of Education attending the debate of the…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-46
|
September 21, 2018 |
Executive Council
The applicant requested a copy of the contents of briefing binders for representatives of Executive Council attending the debate of…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-45
|
September 21, 2018 |
Health
The applicant requested a copy of the contents of briefing binders for representatives of Health attending the debate of the…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-44
|
September 20, 2018 |
Health
The applicant made an access request to Health. Health failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-43
|
September 14, 2018 |
Peace River School Division
In Order F2017-40, Peace River School Division’s (PRSD) decisions with respect to an applicant’s correction request were confirmed. The applicant…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-42
|
September 6, 2018 |
Service Alberta
The applicant made an access request to Service Alberta. Service Alberta failed to respond to the applicant within the time…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-41
|
September 6, 2018 |
Health
The applicant made an access request to Health. Health failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-40
|
September 6, 2018 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS). AHS failed to respond to the applicant within the…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
JR
|
F2018-39
|
August 30, 2018 |
Health
An applicant filed two access requests with Health related to the Government of Alberta’s tobacco lawsuit. The External Adjudicator made…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2018 |
JR
|
F2018-38
|
August 30, 2018 |
Justice and Solicitor General
Two separate applicants filed access requests with Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) related to the Government of Alberta’s tobacco lawsuit.…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-37
|
September 5, 2018 |
Alberta Health Services
An individual made a complaint alleging that two nurses employed by Alberta Health Services (AHS) had collected a physician’s note…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
JR
|
F2018-36
|
August 22, 2018 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant requested all records relating to the Edmonton Police Service’s (EPS) YouTube series, “The Squad”. EPS located 1,448 pages…
[More]
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.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-35
|
August 22, 2018 |
Community and Social Services
The applicant made a request to Community and Social Services (CSS), for Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped (AISH) policy…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-34
|
August 14, 2018 |
Service Alberta
The applicant made an access request to Service Alberta. Service Alberta failed to respond to the applicant within the time…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-33
|
August 13, 2018 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks for records concerning the eligibility of groups or individuals to…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-32
|
August 2, 2018 |
Northern Alberta Institute of Technology
The applicant requested access to a third party’s response to the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology’s (NAIT’s) request for quotes.…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-31
|
July 31, 2018 |
City of Lethbridge
In Order F2014-23, the Adjudicator did not confirm the City of Lethbridge’s decisions to sever statements made by an officer…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-30
|
July 18, 2018 |
Seniors and Housing
The applicant made an access request to Seniors and Housing. Seniors and Housing failed to respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-29
|
July 13, 2018 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS). AHS failed to respond to the applicant within the…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-28
|
July 9, 2018 |
University of Alberta
The applicant made an access request to the University of Alberta. The University of Alberta failed to respond to the…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-27
|
July 5, 2018 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant requested records from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) related to the 2013 floods and more specifically information relating…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-26
|
June 28, 2018 |
Service Alberta
The applicant made a request to Service Alberta for specific categories of information, such as advice that it had relied…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-25
|
June 15, 2018 |
Corporate Human Resources
The applicant made an access request to Corporate Human Resources (CHR) for a copy of a services agreement between CHR…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-24
|
June 4, 2018 |
Human Rights Commission
The applicant made an access request to the Human Rights Commission (HRC) for records containing information about a human rights…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-23
|
May 30, 2018 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). EPS failed to respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-22
|
May 24, 2018 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG failed to respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-21
|
May 15, 2018 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant requested from Environment and Parks information concerning the eligibility of groups or individuals to appear at hearings of…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-20
|
May 14, 2018 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant requested from Environment and Parks information concerning the eligibility of groups or individuals to appear at hearings of…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-19
|
May 3, 2018 |
Agriculture and Forestry
The applicant made an access request to Agriculture and Forestry. Agriculture and Forestry failed to respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-18
|
May 15, 2018 |
Labour
The applicant made an access request to Labour for records that documented his dealings with Labour. In Order F2017-65, the…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-17
|
April 30, 2018 |
Culture and Tourism
The applicant made an access request to Culture and Tourism. Culture and Tourism did not inform the Adjudicator whether it…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-16
|
April 12, 2018 |
City of Calgary
The applicant requested information about him in the possession of the City of Calgary’s prosecution branch. The City of Calgary…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
JR
|
F2018-15
|
April 5, 2018 |
University of Calgary
The applicant requested copies of the University of Calgary’s legal bills associated with a judicial review application, an appeal and…
[More]
The applicant requested copies of the University of Calgary's legal bills associated with a judicial review application, an appeal and a leave to appeal action in which he and the University of Calgary were adverse parties. The University of Calgary provided copies of the billings but severed some information citing the section related to solicitor-client privilege. The Adjudicator determined that the affidavit evidence submitted by the University of Calgary did not meet the burden of proving that the information in the statements was privileged. The Adjudicator ordered disclosure of the records.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-14
|
April 4, 2018 |
City of Calgary
The applicant requested copies of two reports created for the City of Calgary by an outside consultant. The records at…
[More]
The applicant requested copies of two reports created for the City of Calgary by an outside consultant. The records at issue consisted of a document described by the City of Calgary as a legal opinion (pages 1-22) and a whistleblower investigative report (pages 23-32). The City of Calgary refused to disclose the reports citing sections related to invasion of third party privacy (section 17 of FOIP), confidential source of law enforcement information (section 20) and privileged information (section 27). The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-13
|
March 27, 2018 |
Workers' Compensation Board
An individual made a complaint that the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) had collected his personal information in contravention of FOIP…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) had collected his personal information in contravention of FOIP when it obtained a court order to access his bank account information and that of his wife from Servus Credit Union as part of an investigation as to whether he had received an overpayment in contravention of the Workers' Compensation Act or the Criminal Code. The Adjudicator found that WCB's collection of the complainant's personal information was authorized by FOIP as his information was collected for the purpose of law enforcement.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-12
|
March 27, 2018 |
Workers' Compensation Board
An individual complained that the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) had collected her personal information in contravention of FOIP when it…
[More]
An individual complained that the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) had collected her personal information in contravention of FOIP when it obtained a court order to access her bank account information from Servus Credit Union as part of an investigation in relation to her husband. The Adjudicator found that the WCB's collection of the complainant's personal information was authorized by FOIP as her the information was collected for the purpose of law enforcement.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-11
|
February 16, 2018 |
Community and Social Services
The applicant made an access request to the Community and Social Services (CSS). CSS failed to respond to the applicant…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the 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.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-10
|
February 16, 2018 |
Health
The applicant made an access request to the Health. Health failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the Health. Health failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Health to respond.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-09
|
February 9, 2018 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant’s sister died suddenly while on a day trip with support workers. The applicant made an access request to…
[More]
The applicant's sister died suddenly while on a day trip with support workers. The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for a copy of the 911 call that was made by a support worker during the trip. AHS provided a copy of the requested 911 call, but severed the cell phone number of a person who had called 911, claiming disclosure is harmful to personal privacy (section 17 of FOIP). The Adjudicator found that she had insufficient information to determine that the cell phone number was personal information. The Adjudicator ordered AHS to reconsider its decision to withhold the cell phone number by taking into account evidence that would enable it to determine whether the cell phone number was likely to be personal information.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-08
|
February 9, 2018 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for records containing information that would assist her…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for records containing information that would assist her to understand the circumstances of her sister's death. JSG severed the name of the sister from the records. The Adjudicator concluded that the name of the applicant's sister was personal information and subject to a presumption that it would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy if the name were disclosed. However, the applicant's sister's name was inferable from the records and disclosure of the name would serve the compassionate purpose of enabling the applicant to understand the circumstances of her death. The Adjudicator ordered the disclosure of the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-07
|
February 9, 2018 |
City of Edmonton
The applicant’s sister died suddenly while on a day trip with her caregivers. Representatives of the fire department came to…
[More]
The applicant’s sister died suddenly while on a day trip with her caregivers. Representatives of the fire department came to the scene to supply emergency medical services. The applicant sought information regarding the circumstances of her sister’s death from the City of Edmonton. The City of Edmonton provided a copy of the requested report but severed the cell phone number of a person who had called 911, claiming disclosure is harmful to personal privacy (section 17 of FOIP). The Adjudicator found that there was insufficient information to determine that the cell phone number was personal information. The Adjudicator ordered the City of Edmonton to reconsider its decision to withhold the cell phone number by taking into account evidence that would enable it to determine whether the cell phone number was personal information.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-05
|
February 1, 2018 |
Calgary Police Service
An individual complained that a detective of the Calgary Police Service (CPS) had accessed his credit information from a credit…
[More]
An individual complained that a detective of the Calgary Police Service (CPS) had accessed his credit information from a credit reporting service in violation of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that this collection of personal information was authorized by FOIP as the collection was made for the purpose of law enforcement. The Adjudicator also found that the collection was expressly authorized by the Consumer Protection Act. The Adjudicator also found that the Calgary Police Service was not required by FOIP to collect the credit information directly from the individual given that it was collected for a law enforcement purpose.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-04
|
January 24, 2018 |
Treasury Board and Finance
The applicant made an access request to Treasury Board and Finance (TBF). TBF failed to respond to the applicant within…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Treasury Board and Finance (TBF). TBF failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. However, TBF responded during the inquiry.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-03
|
January 19, 2018 |
Treasury Board and Finance
The applicant made an access request to Treasury Board and Finance (TBF). TBF failed to respond to the applicant within…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Treasury Board and Finance (TBF). TBF failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered TBF to respond.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-02
|
January 18, 2018 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant made an access request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS). CPS failed to respond to the applicant within…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS). CPS failed to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered CPS to respond.
|
|
FOIP |
2018 |
|
F2018-01
|
January 12, 2018 |
University of Alberta
The applicant requested from the University of Alberta records related to his claim for long term disability benefits. The University…
[More]
The applicant requested from the University of Alberta records related to his claim for long term disability benefits. The University of Alberta withheld some records as non-responsive, and relied on provisions pertaining to unreasonable invasion of a third party's personal privacy (section 17) and solicitor-client privilege (section 27). The University of Alberta provided sufficient affidavit evidence to support its claim of solicitor-client privilege. The Adjudicator found that the University of Alberta properly withheld records as non-responsive, and properly applied the provisions of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-88
|
December 20, 2017 |
Edmonton Police Service
An individual made a complaint that the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) used and disclosed his personal information in contravention of…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) used and disclosed his personal information in contravention of Part 2 of FOIP when it obtained his personal information from the JOIN and EPROS databases and used and disclosed it in addressing a complaint he had made against an EPS member to the Professional Standards Branch under the Police Act. The Adjudicator held that the use and disclosure of the complainant's personal information that was accessed from the JOIN database is not subject to FOIP. (The Adjudicator noted that there was no conclusion reached as to whether all records in the JOIN database are records in a court file, and therefore exempt from FOIP, because it was not necessary to decide that in this case.) Additionally, the Adjudicator found that EPS was compliant with FOIP when it used and disclosed the individual's personal information from the databases.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
JR
|
F2017-87
|
December 18, 2017 |
Edmonton Police Service
An individual made a complaint that the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) had accessed information regarding two criminal investigations in which…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) had accessed information regarding two criminal investigations in which he had been the subject as a youth, in addition to other information in police investigations of which he had been the subject, and disclosed this to his employer. The complainant was terminated from his employment based on these disclosures of non-conviction information. The Adjudicator determined that EPS had not established that it had identified the information it would use or obtained the consent of the complainant to use his personal information to create the police information check and vulnerable sector check. The Adjudicator also found that the disclosure of the complainant's personal information to his employer was not authorized by Part 2 of FOIP.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-86
|
December 15, 2017 |
University of Calgary
The applicant requested from the University of Calgary information regarding the University of Calgary’s budget for the faculty in Qatar…
[More]
The applicant requested from the University of Calgary information regarding the University of Calgary's budget for the faculty in Qatar during certain fiscal years. The University of Calgary withheld the information citing disclosure harmful to intergovernmental affairs on the basis that the information was supplied in confidence by the Government of Qatar. The Adjudicator found that the Government of Qatar had not supplied the information in the records and that even if the records could be said to have been supplied they were not supplied in confidence. The University of Calgary was ordered to disclose the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-85
|
December 15, 2017 |
Keyano College
An individual made a complaint that Keyano College disclosed his personal information improperly. The Adjudicator found that Keyano College contravened…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that Keyano College disclosed his personal information improperly. The Adjudicator found that Keyano College contravened FOIP when it disclosed the complainant's personal information.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
JR
|
F2017-84
|
December 6, 2017 |
University of Calgary
After the Supreme Court of Canada, in Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. University of Calgary, 2016 SCC 53, found…
[More]
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. In interim decision F2017-D-01, the Adjudicator held that the SCC had not already made a final decision about this, and that the Adjudicator was required to make it. The Adjudicator asked the University of Calgary to provide further information to establish whether certain records consisted of legal advice. The University of Calgary did not provide any further information. The Adjudicator ordered the University of Calgary to disclose such records, if any existed, to the applicant.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-83
|
December 1, 2017 |
Workers' Compensation Board
The applicant requested that overpayment information be removed from a file on the basis that the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB)…
[More]
The applicant requested that overpayment information be removed from a file on the basis that the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) had improperly collected and used this information. The Adjudicator confirmed that WCB had met its duties to the individual.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-82
|
November 3, 2017 |
Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo
The applicant requested 2009-10 audit findings on transit operations from the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (RMWB). An audit regarding…
[More]
The applicant requested 2009-10 audit findings on transit operations from the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (RMWB). An audit regarding Diversified Transportation Ltd. was included within the records at issue. RMWB notified Diversified Transportation Ltd. that it was considering disclosing records affecting its business interests. Diversified Transportation Ltd. requested review of the regional municipality's decision to grant access to information to the individual. The individual also requested review of the decision to withhold some information about Diversified Transportation Ltd. The Adjudicator determined that the section pertaining to disclosure harmful to business interests did not apply to the audit. The Adjudicator found there was jurisdiction to address the question of whether the audit was subject to settlement privilege, and determined that the audit was not subject to that privilege. The Adjudicator ordered the RMWB to give the individual access to the audit in its entirety.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-81
|
November 3, 2017 |
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
An individual made a complaint about a vulnerable sector check conducted by the Red Deer RCMP detachment. The complainant alleged…
[More]
An individual made a complaint about a vulnerable sector check conducted by the Red Deer RCMP detachment. The complainant alleged that the collection, use and/or disclosure of certain personal information in the vulnerable sector check was not authorized under FOIP. The Commissioner decided that this matter should proceed directly to inquiry to determine the preliminary issue as to whether the Commissioner has jurisdiction to review the use and/or disclosure of the complainant’s personal information by the Red Deer detachment of the RCMP. The Adjudicator found that the RCMP detachment is not subject to FOIP even when providing policing services to the City of Red Deer.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-80
|
October 27, 2017 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). EPS failed to respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-79
|
October 26, 2017 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant requested from the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) a copy of a disciplinary decision involving a named constable. Prior…
[More]
The applicant requested from the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) a copy of a disciplinary decision involving a named constable. Prior to the inquiry, EPS claimed informer privilege over the information to which it had applied sections related to disclosure harmful to individual or public safety and disclosure harmful to law enforcement. EPS refused to provide that information to the Adjudicator for the inquiry. The inquiry proceeded in two parts. The first part of the inquiry resulted in Order F2015-30. This order concludes the final part of the inquiry, which addresses EPS' application of informer privilege to the name of the detective appearing in the records at issue. The Adjudicator found that informer privilege applies to the name of the detective sought by the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-78
|
October 26, 2017 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-77
|
October 13, 2017 |
Occupational Health and Safety Council
Individuals made complaints that the Occupational Health and Safety Council (OHSC) posted their personal information online as part of OHSC…
[More]
Individuals made complaints that the Occupational Health and Safety Council (OHSC) posted their personal information online as part of OHSC decisions in contravention of FOIP. The Adjudicator held that OHSC has authority to include the full name of complainants, as participants in its process, in its posted decisions. OHSC had already taken steps to have the information made inaccessible to major search engines, but the complainants presented material suggesting the information was still accessible through some such search engine providers. The Adjudicator asked OHSC to take any further steps available to it that it had not already taken relative to major search engine providers.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-76
|
October 13, 2017 |
Executive Council
The applicant made an access request to Executive Council. Executive Council did not respond to the applicant within the time…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Executive Council. Executive Council did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Executive Council to respond.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-75
|
October 13, 2017 |
Executive Council
The applicant made an access request to Executive Council. Executive Council did not respond to the applicant within the time…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Executive Council. Executive Council did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Executive Council to respond.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-74
|
October 13, 2017 |
Executive Council
The applicant made an access request to Executive Council. Executive Council did not respond to the applicant within the time…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Executive Council. Executive Council did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. However, Executive Council responded during the inquiry.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-73
|
September 21, 2017 |
Children's Services
As required by Order F2015-21, Children’s Services conducted a new search for the records the applicant had requested, including responsive…
[More]
As required by Order F2015-21, Children’s Services conducted a new search for the records the applicant had requested, including responsive records in the possession of the Watch Me Grow Agency. The applicant was not satisfied with Children's Services' new response to his access request. The Adjudicator found that Children's Services had conducted an adequate search for responsive records.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-72
|
September 5, 2017 |
Executive Council
The applicant made an access request to Executive Council. Executive Council did not respond to the applicant within the time…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Executive Council. Executive Council did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Executive Council to respond.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-71
|
September 5, 2017 |
Executive Council
The applicant made an access request to Executive Council. Executive Council did not respond to the applicant within the time…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Executive Council. Executive Council did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Executive Council to respond to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-70
|
September 1, 2017 |
Treasury Board and Finance
The applicant made an access request to Treasury Board and Finance (TBF). TBF did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Treasury Board and Finance (TBF). TBF did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered TBF to respond to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-69
|
September 1, 2017 |
Treasury Board and Finance
The applicant made an access request to Treasury Board and Finance (TBF). TBF did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Treasury Board and Finance (TBF). TBF did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered TBF to respond to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-68
|
September 1, 2017 |
Treasury Board and Finance
The applicant made an access request to Treasury Board and Finance (TBF). TBF did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Treasury Board and Finance (TBF). TBF did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered TBF to respond to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-67
|
August 30, 2017 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for records relating to a judicial review application of…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for records relating to a judicial review application of an order issued by the OIPC. AHS responded but withheld some records as not being responsive relying on sections relating to records that FOIP does not apply, disclosure harmful to personal privacy, advice from officials and privileged information. The Adjudicator found that AHS performed an adequate search for records and, with the exception of one line which was responsive, properly applied the exceptions in FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-66
|
August 30, 2017 |
Labour
The applicant made an access request to Labour. Labour did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Labour. Labour did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Labour to respond to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-65
|
August 14, 2017 |
Labour
The applicant made an access request to Labour for records related to Labour’s dealings with him. Labour applied section 24…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Labour for records related to Labour's dealings with him. Labour applied section 24 to some of the records. The Adjudicator concluded that many of the emails contained information which Labour used to make decisions, and on this account they could be withheld as integrally related to the decisions that were made. However, Labour was asked to take into account in exercising its discretion that some of the emails conveyed information about events in which the applicant was involved and of which he would be aware, and therefore, it was not clear what interest recognized in the statute would be served by withholding them. The Adjudicator also made other determinations in this order.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-64
|
July 28, 2017 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks. Environment and Parks did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-63
|
July 28, 2017 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant requested to examine her own occupational health and safety file from Alberta Health Services (AHS). Rather than make…
[More]
The applicant requested to examine her own occupational health and safety file from Alberta Health Services (AHS). Rather than make it available to the applicant to view, as she had requested, AHS provided the applicant with a severed copy of the file. The Adjudicator determined that AHS was authorized to provide a copy of the file to the applicant. If the applicant were permitted to examine the original file, she would necessarily also be permitted to view the information in the file that the head decided to sever from it, because the information to be severed is part of the original file as much as is the information that would not be severed. The Adjudicator also found that there was no benefit in making an order in relation to AHS' compliance with the time limit for responding to an access request under FOIP as it had already provided the records to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-62
|
July 20, 2017 |
City of Calgary
The applicant made an access request to the City of Calgary for information related to the applicant found in a…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the City of Calgary for information related to the applicant found in a named employee's email account. The City of Calgary responded but withheld nine pages of pursuant to sections pertaining to privileged information. The Adjudicator found that privileged information was properly withheld but ordered the City of Calgary to disclose one email and the names, dates, business contact information, and regarding or with reference to "re lines".
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
JR
|
F2017-61
|
July 18, 2017 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicants made separate requests for access to information from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for for all records containing…
[More]
The applicants made separate requests for access to information from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for for all records containing information relating to the requests for proposals and agreements with respect to awarding a contract for external legal services related to the recovery of health care costs associated with tobacco under the Crown's Right of Recovery Act. The External Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-60
|
July 13, 2017 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for a list of personnel, their titles and…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for a list of personnel, their titles and the organizational structure of the Civil Forfeiture Office. In its response, JSG withheld information under two sections of FOIP, and the applicant requested a review of the response. The Adjudicator determined information identifying the Civil Forfeiture Office employees was properly withheld as release of those records could threaten the safety or health of an individual. This includes withholding the names, email addresses and direct phone lines of those employees. The Adjudicator determined that the remaining information at issue could not be withheld under any exception applied by JSG, as disclosure would not threaten the safety or health of an individual, facilitate the commission of an unlawful act, or harm the security of property or a system. The remaining information consisted of the organization structure of the Civil Forfeiture Office, including the number of employees and position titles.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-59
|
July 12, 2017 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made a request for records relating to a complaint that he made to the Minister of Justice and…
[More]
The applicant made a request for records relating to a complaint that he made to the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General which he had also copied to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal of Alberta. Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) responded but withheld some records pursuant to three sections of FOIP, including claims of privileged information. The applicant requested a review of the timeliness of JSG's response, its search, and its use of the exclusions and exemptions applied. The Adjudicator found that JSG did not meet its timelines set out FOIP. However, the Adjudicator determined Alberta Justice and Solicitor General performed an adequate search and properly withheld records in response to the request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
JR
|
F2017-58
|
July 7, 2017 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant requested information relating to an investigation into the findings of misconduct by a judge against a member (Officer…
[More]
The applicant requested information relating to an investigation into the findings of misconduct by a judge against a member (Officer A) of the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). EPS granted access to two records, and denied access to the remaining 514 responsive records under various sections of FOIP, including the provision related to privileged information. The Adjudicator made a number of determinations in this order.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2017 |
JR
|
F2017-57
|
July 7, 2017 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant requested information about an investigation conducted in relation to a member of the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). Other…
[More]
The applicant requested information about an investigation conducted in relation to a member of the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). Other than portions of a disciplinary decision, EPS severed information from more than 1,200 records under various FOIP provisions, including the section pertaining to privileged information. For the purpose of deciding this matter, the Adjudicator issued a notice to produce to EPS for some of the records to which it had claimed solicitor-client privilege. EPS sought a judicial review of the Adjudicator's notice to produce records. The Adjudicator completed the parts of the inquiry for which she had the evidence of the records and issued Order F2013-13. Following the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in relation in Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. University of Calgary, [2016] 2 SCR 555, EPS proposed that the Adjudicator complete the outstanding issues in the inquiry and the Adjudicator rescinded the notice to produce. The Adjudicator determined that the records over which EPS claimed solicitor-client privilege were either not privileged or had not been demonstrated to be privileged.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-56
|
July 7, 2017 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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 to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-55
|
June 29, 2017 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for video surveillance of an incident that occurred…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for video surveillance of an incident that occurred on his unit at the Calgary Remand Centre. JSG located 10 closed circuit televised videos (CCTV), but withheld them in their entirety by applying sections pertaining to disclosure harmful to personal privacy and to public safety. The Adjudicator determined certain videos were properly withheld, but ordered JSG to provide the applicant and his counsel access to view five CCTV recordings at the public body's premises.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
JR
|
F2017-54
|
June 16, 2017 |
Alberta Emergency Management Agency
The applicant made an access request to the Alberta Emergency Management Agency (AEMA) for records containing information relating to the…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the Alberta Emergency Management Agency (AEMA) for records containing information relating to the construction of berms during the flooding in High River in 2013 and records regarding an arbitration that had taken place in relation to the flooding. AEMA responded but withheld information under a number of sections of FOIP. The applicant requested a review of the AEMA's adequacy of search and its severing decisions. The Adjudicator made several determinations, including ordering AEMA to give the applicant access to the records it had severed under provisions of sections relating to solicitor-client privilege and advice from officials in their entirety. The Adjudicator also ordered AEMA to conduct a new search for responsive records or, if it had already done so, to explain the details and results of its search to the applicant.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-53
|
June 16, 2017 |
Alberta Health Services
An individual made a complaint that Alberta Health Services (AHS) used her personal information in contravention of FOIP when employees…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that Alberta Health Services (AHS) used her personal information in contravention of FOIP when employees used information in her personnel file and her occupational health services file. She also complained that AHS failed to adequately protect her personal information. The Adjudicator found that AHS did not contravene the Act when it used the individual's personal information as the information related directly to and was necessary for an operating program or activity of AHS. The Adjudicator also found that AHS adequately protected the individual's personal information.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-52
|
June 14, 2017 |
Labour
The applicant made an access request to Labour. Labour did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Labour. Labour did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Labour to respond to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-51
|
May 31, 2017 |
Alberta Health Services
Part one of the inquiry was completed in Order F2016-03. In this order, the Adjudicator made decisions about information in…
[More]
Part one of the inquiry was completed in Order F2016-03. In this order, the Adjudicator made decisions about information in a number of records that had been reserved for the final part of the inquiry (part two). The Adjudicator held that the names of third parties A, B and D should be redacted wherever they appear in the records at issue. With respect to the associated information, the Adjudicator held that how much of it is disclosed depends on whether or not reimbursement or refund of the claimed expenses has been demonstrated. Where it has, the information to be disclosed consists only of the name of the person claiming the expense, and the date and amount of the expenditure. Where it has not, further details of the expenditure are to be disclosed (with the exception of the associated names of third parties A, B and D).
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-50
|
May 25, 2017 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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 to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-49
|
May 31, 2017 |
Summer Village of West Cove
An individual made a complaint that the Summer Village of West Cove breached FOIP when it reviewed her past expense…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that the Summer Village of West Cove breached FOIP when it reviewed her past expense claims and provided those claims to the RCMP for investigation. The Adjudicator found that the Summer Village of West Cove had the authority to use and disclose the complainant's personal information.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-48
|
May 24, 2017 |
Summer Village of West Cove
An individual made a complaint that the Summer Village of West Cove breached FOIP when it used her name and…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that the Summer Village of West Cove breached FOIP when it used her name and address from a petition and mailed her a letter asking questions about a petition she had submitted. The Adjudicator found that the complainant had consented to the Summer Village of West Cove using her name and address to ask her questions about the petition.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-47
|
May 10, 2017 |
City of Grande Prairie
An individual made a complaint about a City of Grande Prairie bylaw that required owners of tattoo parlours to provide…
[More]
An individual made a complaint about a City of Grande Prairie bylaw that required owners of tattoo parlours to provide a physician's certificate and a criminal record check before a business licence was issued. The complainant had complied with these requirements before, but refused to do so in 2016. The Adjudicator found that FOIP did not apply to the complaint because complaints can only be brought when information is collected. The Adjudicator commented that the City of Grande Prairie's pre-2016 collection of the complainant's personal information was in compliance with the FOIP Act because it was authorized by a bylaw. The Adjudicator also commended the City of Grande Prairie on its review of the requirements of the bylaw regulations.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-46
|
May 9, 2017 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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 to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-45
|
May 4, 2017 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant made an access request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) related to a book entitled The Wolf and…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) related to a book entitled The Wolf and the Sheepdog. The applicant asked for records containing information that would answer the question of whether it had taken any steps regarding the book. The applicant provided his grounds for believing that the book was authored by a member of CPS. CPS refused to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records on the basis that doing so would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party's personal privacy. The Adjudicator ordered CPS to respond to the applicant's request without relying on section 12(2) of FOIP, which allows a public body to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records on the basis that doing so would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party's personal privacy.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-44
|
April 28, 2017 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant requested from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) all records relating to the investigation and prosecution of a complaint…
[More]
The applicant requested from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) all records relating to the investigation and prosecution of a complaint she had made against an individual, which ultimately resulted in his pleading guilty to a criminal offence. JSG located 769 pages of responsive records and several DVDs, but severed much of the information under sections related to records to which FOIP does not apply (section 4), disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17), disclosure harmful to law enforcement (section 20), disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations (section 21) and privileged information (section 27). The Adjudicator dealt with part one of the inquiry in Order F2016-31. Part two of the inquiry resulted in this order in which the Adjudicator made a number of additional determinations.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-43
|
April 28, 2017 |
University of Calgary
An individual made a complaint asserting the University of Calgary failed to comply with provisions of FOIP when correspondence was…
[More]
An individual made a complaint asserting the University of Calgary failed to comply with provisions of FOIP when correspondence was sent by the University of Calgary to incomplete or incorrect addresses. A provision related to accuracy and retention of personal information did not apply. However, the Adjudicator was not convinced the University of Calgary had met its obligations to protect personal information. The University of Calgary was ordered to implement policies establishing management of risk of disclosure of personal information when addressing mail.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-42
|
April 26, 2017 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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 to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-41
|
April 24, 2017 |
Treasury Board and Finance
The applicant made an access request to Treasury Board and Finance (TBF). TBF did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Treasury Board and Finance (TBF). TBF did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. However, TBF responded during the inquiry.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
JR
|
F2017-40
|
April 5, 2017 |
Peace River School Division
The applicant requested that the Peace River School Division correct information in its custody and control, which it declined to…
[More]
The applicant requested that the Peace River School Division correct information in its custody and control, which it declined to do. The Peace River School Division declined to make the correction, and instead attached an annotation to the information. The Adjudicator found that the Peace River School Division properly responded to the applicant's correction.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2017 |
JR
|
F2017-39
|
April 5, 2017 |
Peace River School Division
An individual made a complaint that the Peace River School Division relied on inaccurate or incomplete personal information when deciding…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that the Peace River School Division relied on inaccurate or incomplete personal information when deciding not to hire her for a position, because it determined the complainant's references were not supportive of hiring her for the position she had applied for. The Adjudicator found that the information the Peace River School Division relied on was accurate and complete.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2017 |
JR
|
F2017-38
|
March 29, 2017 |
Mount Royal University
An individual made a complaint that Mount Royal University disclosed her personal information in contravention of FOIP when it provided…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that Mount Royal University disclosed her personal information in contravention of FOIP when it provided a copy of a behavioural contract between herself and the university which set out certain expectations to various employees. The Adjudicator found that it was appropriate for Mount Royal University to disclose the contract to employees so that the terms of the contract could be adhered to, but that it disclosed the contract to department chairs in contravention of FOIP.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-37
|
March 28, 2017 |
Workers' Compensation Board
The applicant made a correction request to the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB). The applicant requested correction to personal information in…
[More]
The applicant made a correction request to the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB). The applicant requested correction to personal information in four records on the basis that the four records indicated that a neurologist had diagnosed dementia, whereas the neurologist had written in a report that the diagnosis is likely probable dementia. WCB altered the four records by obliterating the original information and replacing it with paraphrasing from the neurologist's opinion. The Adjudicator made a number of determinations in relation to the applicant's request to review WCB's response to his correction request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-36
|
April 5, 2017 |
Alberta Health Services
A third party business that provides air ambulance services objected to the disclosure of information that Alberta Health Services (AHS)…
[More]
A third party business that provides air ambulance services objected to the disclosure of information that Alberta Health Services (AHS) intended to release to an applicant in response to an access request. The Adjudicator found that the business failed to meet its burden and prove that the information was supplied in confidence or that it met the harms test articulated in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered AHS to disclose the information at issue to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-35
|
March 21, 2017 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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 to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-34
|
March 17, 2017 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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 to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-33
|
March 16, 2017 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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 to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-32
|
March 16, 2017 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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 to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-31
|
March 16, 2017 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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 to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-30
|
March 9, 2017 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks. Environment and Parks did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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 to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-29
|
March 3, 2017 |
Economic Development and Trade
An individual made two identical requests related to herself and her employment with the Government of Alberta. Both requests were…
[More]
An individual made two identical requests related to herself and her employment with the Government of Alberta. Both requests were ultimately received by Economic Development and Trade as it would have custody or control of the responsive records. The Adjudicator determined that Economic Development and Trade failed to provide evidence that it complied with obligations to assist the applicant and failed to respond within the time limits set out in FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-28
|
March 3, 2017 |
Children's Services
The applicant requested information relating to him and his employment from Human Services, now Children’s Services. The Adjudicator made a…
[More]
The applicant requested information relating to him and his employment from Human Services, now Children's Services. The Adjudicator made a number of determinations on information withheld in the response to the applicant, including that Children's Services did not meet the timeline requirements set out in FOIP. Regarding a claim of solicitor-client privilege, the Adjudicator noted that the final affidavit and additional evidence (chart) provided by Children's Services was a good example of how to support a claim for that privilege without providing the information in the records to the Adjudicator or revealing the legal advice. The Adjudicator remarked that the affidavit and chart would also meet the requirements of the new Privilege Practice Note published by the OIPC as a result of the Supreme Court of Canada decision on the Commissioner's power to compel production of records alleged to be subject to solicitor-client privilege. The Adjudicator also noted that having the relevant dates for the correspondence and the position titles of the correspondents was valuable for supporting the claim of solicitor-client privilege with respect to emails between employees who are not counsel (i.e. determining the likelihood that those employees were discussing legal advice that was provided by counsel).
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-27
|
March 2, 2017 |
City of Edmonton
The applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton. The City of Edmonton did not respond to the…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton. The City of Edmonton did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered the City of Edmonton to respond to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-26
|
February 23, 2017 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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. However, JSG responded during the inquiry.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-25
|
February 14, 2017 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks. Environment and Parks did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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 to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-24
|
February 8, 2017 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks. Environment and Parks did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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 to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-23
|
February 8, 2017 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks. Environment and Parks did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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 to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-22
|
February 8, 2017 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks. Environment and Parks did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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 to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-21
|
February 8, 2017 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks. Environment and Parks did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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 to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-20
|
February 8, 2017 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks. Environment and Parks did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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 to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-19
|
February 8, 2017 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks. Environment and Parks did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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 to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-18
|
February 8, 2017 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks. Environment and Parks did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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 to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-17
|
February 8, 2017 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks. Environment and Parks did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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 to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-16
|
February 8, 2017 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks. Environment and Parks did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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 to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-15
|
February 8, 2017 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks. Environment and Parks did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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 to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2017-14
|
February 8, 2014 |
Elk Island Public Schools
An individual made a complaint alleging that a representative of Elk Island Public Schools disclosed his personal information in contravention…
[More]
An individual made a complaint alleging that a representative of Elk Island Public Schools disclosed his personal information in contravention of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the complainant had not met his burden of proof in convincing the Adjudicator that the information disclosed was his personal information. The Adjudicator found that Elk Island Public Schools had not disclosed the complainant's personal information.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-13
|
January 31, 2017 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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 Adjudication ordered JSG to respond to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-12
|
January 27, 2017 |
Executive Council
The applicant requested from Executive Council all polling paid for by the Government of Alberta. Executive Council extended the time…
[More]
The applicant requested from Executive Council all polling paid for by the Government of Alberta. Executive Council extended the time limit to respond to the access request but failed to meet the extended time limit to respond. During the inquiry, Executive Council notified the applicant and third parties that it had made a decision to grant partial access to the requested records. At the inquiry, Executive Council attributed its failure to meet the time limits due to an influx of access requests, the large volume of records, the the internal and third party consultation requirements, and the extensive review and approval period, to which it subjected the request. The Adjudicator found that Executive Council had failed to comply with its duty to make reasonable efforts to respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator found that this failure was due in part to Executive Council's internal review and consultation process, and noted that duties under FOIP are statutory while internal consultation and review procedures are not.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-11
|
January 27, 2017 |
Service Alberta
The applicant requested from Service Alberta the entire dataset of the Quest database in an open data format. Service Alberta…
[More]
The applicant requested from Service Alberta the entire dataset of the Quest database in an open data format. Service Alberta argued that the applicant had not made an access request under FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the applicant had made an access request and that Service Alberta had failed to meet its duty to respond within the time limit set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Service Alberta to comply with its duty to assist the applicant by consulting with technical experts to determine whether it can create a copy of the data in the Quest database in open data format without the names of individuals, as the applicant had requested.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-10
|
January 27, 2017 |
Service Alberta
The applicant requested information from Service Alberta related to the IMAGIS database. Service Alberta argued that the applicant had not…
[More]
The applicant requested information from Service Alberta related to the IMAGIS database. Service Alberta argued that the applicant had not made an access request under FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the applicant had made an access request and that Service Alberta had failed to meet its duty to respond within the time limit set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator also found that Service Alberta had not taken reasonable steps to clarify the request. The Adjudicator ordered Service Alberta to take steps to determine whether the requested information was a record within the terms of FOIP, and not software, and if so, whether it would be possible to create a record of the kind requested by the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-09
|
January 25, 2017 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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 to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-08
|
January 25, 2017 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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 to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-07
|
January 25, 2017 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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 to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-06
|
January 25, 2017 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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 to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-05
|
January 20, 2017 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond to the applicant within…
[More]
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 to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-04
|
January 19, 2017 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant requested information from Environment and Parks regarding the 2013 flooding in High River. The Adjudicator confirmed that Environment…
[More]
The applicant requested information from Environment and Parks regarding the 2013 flooding in High River. The Adjudicator confirmed that Environment and Parks had met its duty to assist the applicant by conducting an adequate for responsive records, clarifying the kinds of records he was requesting, and answering questions as to the sources of other potentially responsive records. The Adjudicator also confirmed the decision to sever personal information where it was unable to determine that the individuals were acting in a representative capacity.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-03
|
January 18, 2017 |
Calgary Police Service
After obtaining records from the Calgary Police Service (CPS) in response to an access request, the applicant requested a correction.…
[More]
After obtaining records from the Calgary Police Service (CPS) in response to an access request, the applicant requested a correction. CPS refused to correct the information on the basis that the information was not the applicant's personal information. CPS did, however, annotate the requested corrections to the information at issue. The Adjudicator ordered CPS to provide the annotated record to ensure the annotation was visible to the reader of the information.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-02
|
January 13, 2017 |
Transportation
An individual complained that Transportation used her personal information in contravention of FOIP. The complainant provided an application form to…
[More]
An individual complained that Transportation used her personal information in contravention of FOIP. The complainant provided an application form to a Service Alberta registry office in order to obtain a parking placard. An MRI was mistakenly included in the envelope. The registry office conveyed this information to Transportation. Transportation used the information and required the complainant to submit further medical information to determine whether she could continue to hold a valid operator's licence. The Adjudicator found that the purpose of the use was the same as the purpose of the collection of the information by Transportation, which was to verify the medical eligibility of the complainant to drive safely and be entitled to an operator's licence.
|
|
FOIP |
2017 |
|
F2017-01
|
January 12, 2017 |
Alberta Health Services
Alberta Health Services (AHS) received an access request related to air ambulance services. A third party, which is a business…
[More]
Alberta Health Services (AHS) received an access request related to air ambulance services. A third party, which is a business that provides air ambulance services, was advised by AHS that AHS intended to disclose a contract between the third party and AHS. The third party objected to disclosure. AHS severed some information from the contract but determined the remaining information would not cause harm to the third party. The third party asked the OIPC to review AHS' decision. The Adjudicator found that the third party failed to meet its burden and prove that it met the harms test under FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered AHS to disclose the information at issue to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-65
|
December 22, 2016 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for home care contracts. AHS provided notice of the…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for home care contracts. AHS provided notice of the request to the home care providers who were parties to the contracts. One of the third party home care providers objected to the disclosure of the contract. However, AHS decided that it would disclose the contract. The Adjudicator upheld AHS' decision to disclose the information.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
JR
|
F2016-64
|
December 22, 2016 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for home care contracts. AHS provided notice of the…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for home care contracts. AHS provided notice of the request to the home care providers who were parties to the contracts. The Shepherd's Care Foundation, a third party home care provider, objected to the disclosure of the contract. However, AHS decided that it would disclose the contract. The Adjudicator upheld AHS' decision to disclose the information.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-63
|
December 21, 2016 |
Human Services
The applicant made an access request to Human Services for a copy of his Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Human Services for a copy of his Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped (AISH) investigation file. Human Services provided responsive records, withholding some information under several provisions of FOIP. The applicant subsequently requested an inquiry into Human Services’ claim of solicitor-client privilege. The Adjudicator found that Human Services properly withheld the information subject to a claim of solicitor-client privilege.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-62
|
December 12, 2016 |
Alberta Health Services
An individual complained that Alberta Health Services (AHS) used or disclosed her personal information on two occasions in contravention of…
[More]
An individual complained that Alberta Health Services (AHS) used or disclosed her personal information on two occasions in contravention of FOIP. The Adjudicator found AHS used the complainant's personal information in contravention of FOIP when an invoice containing her personal information was given to her by a co-worker. The Adjudicator also found that AHS had breached the Act when the complainant's personal information about her leave/suspension was shared with other employees without authority.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-61
|
December 9, 2016 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant requested a fee waiver related to a request for information from Justice and Solicitor General. The fee waiver…
[More]
The applicant requested a fee waiver related to a request for information from Justice and Solicitor General. The fee waiver was denied and the applicant requested a review. The Adjudicator determined the applicant did not have the ability to pay the entire fee and reduced the amount of the initial fee.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-60
|
December 8, 2016 |
University of Lethbridge
The applicant requested from the University of Lethbridge a specific letter dated June 10, 1993, written by a former employee…
[More]
The applicant requested from the University of Lethbridge a specific letter dated June 10, 1993, written by a former employee of the university whom the applicant named. The University of Lethbridge did not locate a copy of the requested letter. The applicant asked for a review of the University of Lethbridge's response, and the Adjudicator found that the University of Lethbridge had conducted an adequate search for records.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-59
|
December 8, 2016 |
University of Calgary
The applicant made two access requests to the University of Calgary. The University of Calgary acknowledged the requests but did…
[More]
The applicant made two access requests to the University of Calgary. The University of Calgary acknowledged the requests but did not provide a response. The Adjudicator ordered the University of Calgary to respond to the access requests.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-58
|
November 25, 2016 |
City of Calgary
The applicant requested personal information from the City of Calgary. The Adjudicator found that the City of Calgary had demonstrated…
[More]
The applicant requested personal information from the City of Calgary. The Adjudicator found that the City of Calgary had demonstrated its search for responsive records was reasonable. However, the Adjudicator found that the City of Calgary had not met the informational component of the duty to assist, as it had not explained whether it had provided specific records to the applicant that were responsive to her access request. The Adjudicator also found that the City of Calgary had failed to meet its duty to assist the applicant by destroying responsive records, despite being aware that they were the subject of an access request and an inquiry.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-57
|
November 23, 2016 |
Athabasca University
The applicant requested information in his student records from Athabasca University. The university withheld certain records under section 24 of…
[More]
The applicant requested information in his student records from Athabasca University. The university withheld certain records under section 24 of FOIP in its response. The Adjudicator found that the university did not properly withhold certain records, and ordered disclosure of those records.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-56
|
November 2, 2016 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant requested from the Calgary Police Service (CPS) all records relating to a decision of the provincial court of…
[More]
The applicant requested from the Calgary Police Service (CPS) all records relating to a decision of the provincial court of Alberta, which was reported in the Toronto Star in a story entitled, "Police who lie: How officers thwart justice with false testimony". There were a number of circumstances at issue in the inquiry. The Adjudicator determined that CPS responded to the applicant when it denied all allegations, and that the Chief of Police denied there were any responsive communications between him and any officers involved in the court decision. The Adjudicator found that CPS met its duty to assist the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-55
|
October 31, 2016 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant requested copies of any documentation to or from a coordinator of the environmental public health area of Alberta…
[More]
The applicant requested copies of any documentation to or from a coordinator of the environmental public health area of Alberta Health Services (AHS), or any other person, in respect of environmental health, tenant complaints, health inspections or correspondence, messages, or email of any kind related to the applicant's name or to his property. The applicant requested a review of AHS' search for responsive records. The Adjudicator confirmed that AHS' search included all reasonable steps for locating responsive records and that it had met its duty to assist the applicant under FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-54
|
October 26, 2016 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG acknowledged it did not respond to the…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG acknowledged it did not respond to the applicant within the time limit set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered JSG to comply with FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-53
|
October 26, 2016 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG acknowledged it did not respond to the…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG acknowledged it did not respond to the applicant within the time limit set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered JSG to comply with FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-52
|
October 26, 2016 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG acknowledged it did not respond to the…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG acknowledged it did not respond to the applicant within the time limit set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered JSG to comply with FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-51
|
October 31, 2016 |
Town of High River
The applicant requested records from the Town of High River related to the 2013 floods, as well as information regarding…
[More]
The applicant requested records from the Town of High River related to the 2013 floods, as well as information regarding property assessments. The applicant had also sought a fee waiver. The Adjudicator ordered the town to prepare a new fee estimate as some charges for services were not authorized under FOIP or the FOIP Regulation. The Adjudicator also ordered the town to make a new determination as to whether the Municipal Government Act (MGA) applies to the property assessment information. If the town decides that the MGA does not apply, the Adjudicator directed the town to make a new decision in relation to section 17 of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-50
|
October 17, 2016 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). The applicant did not receive a response to…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). The applicant did not receive a response to his request. The Adjudicator found that JSG did not respond to the applicant within the time limit set out in FOIP. Therefore, the Adjudicator ordered JSG to do so.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-49
|
October 17, 2016 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). The applicant did not receive a response to…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). The applicant did not receive a response to his request. The Adjudicator found that JSG did not respond to the applicant within the time limit set out in FOIP. Therefore, the Adjudicator ordered JSG to do so.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-48
|
October 17, 2016 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). The applicant did not receive a response to…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). The applicant did not receive a response to his request. The Adjudicator found that JSG did not respond to the applicant within the time limit set out in FOIP. Therefore, the Adjudicator ordered JSG to do so.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-47
|
October 17, 2016 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). The applicant did not receive a response to…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). The applicant did not receive a response to his request. The Adjudicator found that JSG did not respond to the applicant within the time limit set out in FOIP. Therefore, the Adjudicator ordered JSG to do so.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-46
|
October 17, 2016 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). The applicant did not receive a response to…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). The applicant did not receive a response to his request. The Adjudicator found that JSG did not respond to the applicant within the time limit set out in FOIP. Therefore, the Adjudicator ordered JSG to do so.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-45
|
October 17, 2016 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). The applicant did not receive a response to…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). The applicant did not receive a response to his request. The Adjudicator found that JSG did not respond to the applicant within the time limit set out in FOIP. Therefore, the Adjudicator ordered JSG to do so.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-44
|
October 17, 2016 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). The applicant did not receive a response to…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). The applicant did not receive a response to his request. The Adjudicator found that JSG did not respond to the applicant within the time limit set out in FOIP. Therefore, the Adjudicator ordered JSG to do so.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-43
|
October 17, 2016 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant requested from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) a report, which includes totals for every financial code provided by…
[More]
The applicant requested from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) a report, which includes totals for every financial code provided by month and by fiscal year. JSG responded and confirmed that it had received the request. However, the applicant did not receive a response to his request. The Adjudicator found that JSG did not respond to the applicant within the time limit set out in FOIP. Therefore, the Adjudicator ordered JSG to do so.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-42
|
October 17, 2016 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant requested from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) copies of briefing binders prepared for representatives attending the debate of…
[More]
The applicant requested from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) copies of briefing binders prepared for representatives attending the debate of the budget estimate for the 2014-15 budget. JSG responded and confirmed that it had received the access request and would attempt to process the request in the time allotted by FOIP plus a 30 day extension. However, the applicant did not receive a response to the request. The Adjudicator found that JSG did not respond to the applicant within the time limit set out in section 11. Therefore, the Adjudicator ordered JSG to do so.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-41
|
October 7, 2016 |
Service Alberta
An individual made a complaint that Service Alberta had disclosed her personal information to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) in…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that Service Alberta had disclosed her personal information to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) in contravention of FOIP. The same individual also submitted a request for review of a decision by Service Alberta to withhold personal information that had been requested. The Adjudicator determined that assisting CRA was not a purpose for which Service Alberta was authorized by FOIP to collect personal information. There were four disclosures made by Service Alberta to CRA. The first three disclosures were not authorized by FOIP, but the fourth disclosure, which was made to comply with a court order, was authorized. With regard to the complaint, the Adjudicator ordered Service Alberta to cease collecting, using and disclosing the individual's personal information in contravention of FOIP. In relation to the request for review, the Adjudicator ordered Service Alberta to disclose the requested personal information to which Service Alberta had improperly withheld on the basis that disclosure would be harmful to law enforcement.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-40
|
October 11, 2016 |
Energy
The applicant requested records from Energy related to all audits performed by independent accounting firms, assessing bioenergy emissions. Energy assessed…
[More]
The applicant requested records from Energy related to all audits performed by independent accounting firms, assessing bioenergy emissions. Energy assessed fees of $519 to process the request and denied the fee waiver request submitted by the applicant. The Adjudicator decided that it was appropriate to grant a fee waiver in the public interest as the records would contribute to the public understanding as to whether Energy has corrected the deficiencies noted by the Auditor General in two different reports, and whether the bioenergy program is serving to reduce emissions and whether it is spending public money on this program appropriately. The Adjudicator ordered Energy to refund the fees.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
JR
|
F2016-39
|
October 11, 2016 |
Alberta Energy Regulator
The applicant requested records from the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) relating to broad industry initiatives, which refers to a practice…
[More]
The applicant requested records from the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) relating to broad industry initiatives, which refers to a practice that was discontinued in 2014 by which AER collected money from producers and provided this money to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and the Small Explorers and Producers Association of Canada. The applicant requested a fee waiver but AER refused and required $1,218.50 for processing the request. The Adjudicator ordered AER to waive all fees as the records at issue related to a matter of public interest and that the applicant requested them in order to write an article for the purpose of promoting public debate and awareness regarding the matter.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-38
|
September 21, 2016 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant requested records related to the phasing out of coal power from Environment and Parks. The Adjudicator found that…
[More]
The applicant requested records related to the phasing out of coal power from Environment and Parks. The Adjudicator found that Environment and Parks failed to meet the time limit, but recognized that the public body had eventually responded to the applicant. Therefore, the Adjudicator did not find it necessary to order the public body to do anything further under FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-37
|
September 14, 2016 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant requested records related to cap-and-trade and carbon tax from Environment and Parks. The Adjudicator found that Environment and…
[More]
The applicant requested records related to cap-and-trade and carbon tax from Environment and Parks. The Adjudicator found that Environment and Parks failed to meet the time limit, but recognized that the public body had eventually responded to the applicant. Therefore, the Adjudicator did not find it necessary to order the public body to do anything further under FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-36
|
September 13, 2016 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant requested records related to oil and gas issues from Environment and Parks. The Adjudicator found that Alberta Environment…
[More]
The applicant requested records related to oil and gas issues from Environment and Parks. The Adjudicator found that Alberta Environment and Parks failed to meet the time limit, and ordered the public body to respond to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
JR
|
F2016-35
|
September 14, 2016 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant requested records from the Calgary Police Service (CPS) in relation to the processing of another request he had…
[More]
The applicant requested records from the Calgary Police Service (CPS) in relation to the processing of another request he had submitted. A law firm responded on behalf of CPS. CPS elected not to provide the records for the Adjudicator's review in the inquiry on the basis that it was asserting solicitor-client privilege over the records. The Adjudicator determined that insufficient evidence was provided to understand the solicitor-client relationships, and to understand the subject matter of the advice and circumstances to establish solicitor-client privileged communications. In addition, CPS had applied multiple exceptions to the same information, all of which require a different factual foundation to apply. The Adjudicator ordered the disclosure of most of the records to the applicant.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-34
|
August 31, 2016 |
Calgary Police Service
After obtaining records in an access request from the Calgary Police Service (CPS), the applicant requested a correction to his…
[More]
After obtaining records in an access request from the Calgary Police Service (CPS), the applicant requested a correction to his personal information for a variety of reasons. CPS declined to correct the personal information on the basis that the statements in the record in question were either true or opinions. The Adjudicator determined that the record was not one that could reasonably be corrected by altering the information it contained. CPS was ordered to annotate or link the applicant’s requested correction to the record in such a way that it would be visible to the reader of the record.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-33
|
August 17, 2016 |
Edmonton Police Service
An individual made a complaint that the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) issued a media release about his release from prison.…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) issued a media release about his release from prison. The Adjudicator found that EPS was permitted to disclose the complainant's personal information for this purpose because it had reasonable grounds to believe that the public was in imminent danger or risk of harm.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-32
|
August 11, 2016 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant made a request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for a copy of a disciplinary decision. EPS provided…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for a copy of a disciplinary decision. EPS provided the applicant with the decision; however, it severed the names of the accused/complainant and third party officers and their badge numbers. The Adjudicator found that any need for public scrutiny of EPS’ actions had been met but that the information was publicly available to such an extent that it was a factor that weighed heavily in favour of disclosure. As a result, the Adjudicator ordered that all severed information be disclosed.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-31
|
July 28, 2016 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant requested records from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) related to the investigation and prosecution of a complaint she…
[More]
The applicant requested records from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) related to the investigation and prosecution of a complaint she had made against another individual, which ultimately resulted in his pleading guilty to a criminal offence. This inquiry was divided into two parts. This order concluded the first part of the inquiry. The Adjudicator found that JSG properly claimed some records to be excluded from the scope of FOIP. However, the Adjudicator found that JSG did not meet its burden to show that it had properly claimed solicitor-client privilege over the information in the records at issue. The Adjudicator ordered JSG to review the relevant records at issue and respond to the applicant and the Adjudicator without relying on that privilege. The Adjudicator also made one other determination.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-30
|
July 27, 2016 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks for all communication records related to the climate change strategy.…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Environment and Parks for all communication records related to the climate change strategy. Environment and Parks provided a fee estimate to the applicant and the applicant requested a fee waiver. The applicant also provided the requested deposit. The applicant did not receive a response from Environment and Parks following this payment. The Adjudicator found that Environment and Parks did not respond to the applicant within the time limit. Therefore, the Adjudicator ordered them to do so.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-29
|
July 18, 2016 |
Executive Council
The applicant requested all records relating to the contract extension of Kan-Alta’s lease of the Kananaskis Golf Course, including the…
[More]
The applicant requested all records relating to the contract extension of Kan-Alta's lease of the Kananaskis Golf Course, including the contract itself, from Executive Council (Office of the Premier). Executive Council initially extended the time for responding by 30 days in order to consult with Environment and Parks and Treasury Board and Finance. However, Executive Council did not respond to the applicant and acknowledged that it had not met the time limit for responding. The Adjudicator ordered Executive Council to respond to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-28
|
July 18, 2016 |
Executive Council
The applicant requested records “related to branding of government materials, including usage of colour” from Executive Council (Public Affairs Bureau).…
[More]
The applicant requested records "related to branding of government materials, including usage of colour" from Executive Council (Public Affairs Bureau). The Adjudicator found that the time limits to respond had not been met. The Adjudicator ordered Executive Council to respond to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-27
|
July 15, 2016 |
University of Calgary
In Order F2015-35, the Adjudicator ordered the University of Calgary to provide greater detail regarding its search for responsive records.…
[More]
In Order F2015-35, the Adjudicator ordered the University of Calgary to provide greater detail regarding its search for responsive records. The applicant was not satisfied with the University of Calgary's response to that order. Upon review, the Adjudicator found that the University of Calgary had complied with the order and that it conducted an adequate search for responsive records. In Order F2015-35, the Adjudicator also had found that the University of Calgary properly withheld information pursuant to FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-26
|
July 13, 2016 |
Edmonton Public School District
A female transgender student complained that the Edmonton Public School District (EPSD) disclosed her personal information in contravention of FOIP…
[More]
A female transgender student complained that the Edmonton Public School District (EPSD) disclosed her personal information in contravention of FOIP when teachers displayed or called out her legal name, which is a typically male name. EPSD agreed that it had breached FOIP and had not made proper security arrangements to protect the complainant's personal information. The Adjudicator found that EPSD breached FOIP and failed to make proper security arrangements, but noted that a draft policy created after these breaches occurred addressed the concerns raised by the complainant.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-25
|
July 13, 2016 |
Town of St. Paul
The applicant made a request to the Town of St. Paul for “all records related to expense claims made by…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the Town of St. Paul for "all records related to expense claims made by members of the Town of St. Paul council." The applicant requested a fee waiver, which the Town of St. Paul declined. The Adjudicator determined that if the public were made aware of them, the records would contribute to public understanding of a matter that is of concern to the public, and would contribute to an open, transparent and accountable government. However, the applicant did not provide any indication whether he would disseminate any or all of the information in the records beyond himself, such that the public would benefit from his access request. The Adjudicator determined that 50% of the fees for the applicant’s request should be waived, and ordered the Town of St. Paul to refund the applicant that amount.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-24
|
June 30, 2016 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant made an access request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for records relating to himself and his interaction…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for records relating to himself and his interaction with two named officers. The applicant also requested records relating to prior complaints and disciplinary actions taken against the two officers. CPS provided the applicant with some responsive records, but it refused to confirm or deny the existence of any disciplinary records under section 12 of FOIP. The Adjudicator confirmed that CPS could refuse to confirm or deny the existence of disciplinary records except with regard to disciplinary records that were publicly available.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-23
|
June 29, 2016 |
Human Rights Commission
The applicant requested records relating to his employment from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). The request was processed by both…
[More]
The applicant requested records relating to his employment from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). The request was processed by both JSG and the Human Rights Commission (HRC). HRC corresponded with the applicant but had not provided a response to the request. The Adjudicator ordered HRC to respond to the applicant's access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-22
|
June 29, 2016 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant requested records relating to his employment from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG corresponded with the applicant but…
[More]
The applicant requested records relating to his employment from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG corresponded with the applicant but had not provided a response to the request. The Adjudicator ordered JSG to respond to the applicant's access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-21
|
June 17, 2016 |
Environment and Parks
The applicant requested access to records from Environment and Parks that related to unauthorized drainage of water. The Adjudicator found…
[More]
The applicant requested access to records from Environment and Parks that related to unauthorized drainage of water. The Adjudicator found that Environment and Parks properly withheld most of the information contained in the records. The Adjudicator also found that some of the information could reasonably be severed from certain records in order to provide the applicant with access to the remainder of the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-20
|
May 26, 2016 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant requested a copy of a disciplinary decision relating to a named constable made by the Edmonton Police Service…
[More]
The applicant requested a copy of a disciplinary decision relating to a named constable made by the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). EPS responded to the request but severed under FOIP the name and badge number of the constable, as well as employment and volunteer history. The name and badge number were severed despite EPS responding to the request concerning the named constable and an Edmonton Journal article naming the constable. Considering the name and badge number were inferable, the Adjudicator ordered that information to be released. However, the Adjudicator upheld the decision to sever details about the EPS member's employment and volunteer history.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-19
|
May 26, 2016 |
City of St. Albert
The applicant made a request to the City of St. Albert for records of two councillors related to a news…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the City of St. Albert for records of two councillors related to a news blog, as well as emails to or from a named individual. The City of St. Albert extended the time limit to respond under FOIP then did not respond within that time limit, and indicated to the applicant that it was unable to obtain the requested records from the two councillors. The Adjudicator ordered the City of St. Albert to decide whether it had custody or control over the requested records. The Adjudicator also provided instructions to the City of St. Albert on how to proceed after a decision was made on custody or control.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-18
|
May 20, 2016 |
Human Services
The applicant requested her personal information as well as the personal information of her two children related to an investigation…
[More]
The applicant requested her personal information as well as the personal information of her two children related to an investigation by Human Services. Human Services responded but withheld information pursuant to sections 4, 17, 21, 24, and 27 of FOIP. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-17
|
May 18, 2016 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG acknowledged that it failed to meet the…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG acknowledged that it failed to meet the time limit for responding to an access request. The Adjudicator ordered JSG to respond to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-16
|
May 17, 2016 |
City of Calgary
The applicant requested records from the City of Calgary relating to the designation of the green space behind her property…
[More]
The applicant requested records from the City of Calgary relating to the designation of the green space behind her property as an off leash area. The Adjudicator made a number of determinations on records initially withheld by the City of Calgary based on sections 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), 24 (advice from officials) and 27 (privileged information) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-15
|
May 17, 2016 |
Edmonton Catholic Separate School District
The applicant requested general information from the Edmonton Catholic Separate School District (ECSSD) relating to meetings between trustees or the…
[More]
The applicant requested general information from the Edmonton Catholic Separate School District (ECSSD) relating to meetings between trustees or the superintendent and two named individuals. ECSSD initially attempted to work with the applicant to narrow the request but the applicant refused to narrow his request. ECSSD did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered ECSSD to do so.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-14
|
May 17, 2016 |
Edmonton Catholic Separate School District
The applicant requested general information from the Edmonton Catholic Separate School District (ECSSD) relating to meetings between trustees or the…
[More]
The applicant requested general information from the Edmonton Catholic Separate School District (ECSSD) relating to meetings between trustees or the superintendent and two named individuals. ECSSD initially attempted to work with the applicant to narrow the request but the applicant refused to narrow his request. ECSSD did not respond to the applicant within the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered ECSSD to do so.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-12
|
April 15, 2016 |
Justice and Solicitor General
Justice and Solicitor General acknowledged that it failed to meet the time limit for responding to an access request. The…
[More]
Justice and Solicitor General acknowledged that it failed to meet the time limit for responding to an access request. The Adjudicator ordered the public body to respond to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-11
|
April 12, 2016 |
Justice and Solicitor General
Justice and Solicitor General acknowledged that it failed to meet the time limit for responding to an access request. The…
[More]
Justice and Solicitor General acknowledged that it failed to meet the time limit for responding to an access request. The Adjudicator ordered the public body to respond to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-10
|
April 6, 2016 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for copies of video surveillance from the Calgary…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for copies of video surveillance from the Calgary Remand Centre. The Adjudicator found that releasing the video footage would harm the security of a property or system, and upheld JSG's decision to withhold the responsive video.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-09
|
April 6, 2016 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant made an access to the City of Calgary, but it transferred parts of the request to the Calgary…
[More]
The applicant made an access to the City of Calgary, but it transferred parts of the request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS). CPS attempted to clarify the applicant's request and provided him with records it located. The Adjudicator found that CPS met its duty to assist the applicant and conducted an adequate search for responsive records as required by FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-08
|
March 11, 2016 |
Environment and Parks
Environment and Parks acknowledged that it failed to meet the time limit for responding to an access request. The Adjudicator…
[More]
Environment and Parks acknowledged that it failed to meet the time limit for responding to an access request. The Adjudicator ordered the public body to respond to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-07
|
March 9, 2016 |
Justice and Solicitor General
Justice and Solicitor General acknowledged that it failed to meet the time limit for responding to an access request. The…
[More]
Justice and Solicitor General acknowledged that it failed to meet the time limit for responding to an access request. The Adjudicator ordered the public body to respond to the access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-06
|
March 1, 2016 |
Justice and Solicitor General
Justice and Solicitor General acknowledged that it failed to meet the time limit for responding to an access request. The…
[More]
Justice and Solicitor General acknowledged that it failed to meet the time limit for responding to an access request. The Adjudicator ordered the public body to respond to the access request for records related to a named individual.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-05
|
March 1, 2016 |
Justice and Solicitor General
Justice and Solicitor General acknowledged that it failed to meet the time limit for responding to an access request. The…
[More]
Justice and Solicitor General acknowledged that it failed to meet the time limit for responding to an access request. The Adjudicator ordered the public body to respond to the access request for emails relating to a named individual.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-04
|
February 29, 2016 |
Justice and Solicitor General
Justice and Solicitor General was ordered to respond to the applicant as it had not responded within the time limits…
[More]
Justice and Solicitor General was ordered to respond to the applicant as it had not responded within the time limits set out in the FOIP Act.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-03
|
January 29, 2016 |
Alberta Health Services
Order F2015-10 was issued on April 20, 2015. Following discussions with the parties, Alberta Health Services (AHS) provided a second…
[More]
Order F2015-10 was issued on April 20, 2015. Following discussions with the parties, Alberta Health Services (AHS) provided a second proposed release package. The third party raised some objections, and the Adjudicator issued specific instructions with respect to some of these matters, and asked the parties to provide any further evidence they regarded as relevant to particular items. AHS provided a letter explaining how it had, in its view, complied with these instructions. Further, during the Adjudicator's review of the records at issue, the Adjudicator noted that the records included information of third parties that had not been notified by AHS. With respect to that information, a second part of the inquiry was required.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-02
|
January 26, 2016 |
Executive Council
The applicant made three access requests to Executive Council for records related to a residential space being planned for the…
[More]
The applicant made three access requests to Executive Council for records related to a residential space being planned for the top floor of the Federal Building in Edmonton. The Adjudicator found that Executive Council failed to meet its duty when it did not search the protocol office for responsive records. The Adjudicator also found that Executive Council ought to search deleted email if it had not already done so. Further, Executive Council failed to meet its duty by not providing the applicant with details about where it had searched for responsive records. Finally, Executive Council did not meet its duty when the applicant was not advised that responsive records could be found in the custody or control of another public body.
|
|
FOIP |
2016 |
|
F2016-01
|
January 14, 2016 |
Bow Valley College
An individual complained that Bow Valley College used or disclosed his personal information in contravention of FOIP when an employee…
[More]
An individual complained that Bow Valley College used or disclosed his personal information in contravention of FOIP when an employee emailed a number of Bow Valley College employees to advise them of an ongoing conflict between the complainant and another student. The Adjudicator found that the information collected by Bow Valley College was necessary for an activity and was used for a reason that was consistent with why the information was collected.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-42
|
December 23, 2015 |
Human Services
An individual complained that his personal information had been collected by Human Services from the JOIN database regarding an offence…
[More]
An individual complained that his personal information had been collected by Human Services from the JOIN database regarding an offence that took place when he was a youth and historical allegations about him that did not result in convictions. The individual also complained that Human Services disclosed the information it had collected to a member of the Edmonton Police Service and the human resources department. The Adjudicator found that Alberta Human Services contravened FOIP when it collected, used and disclosed the complainant's personal information from the JOIN database.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-41
|
December 18, 2015 |
Calgary Police Service
An individual made a privacy complaint that the Calgary Police Service (CPS) collected fingerprints in contravention of FOIP. The complainant’s…
[More]
An individual made a privacy complaint that the Calgary Police Service (CPS) collected fingerprints in contravention of FOIP. The complainant's hockey association required a police information check (PIC) to enable him to volunteer as a coach. In the course of the PIC, the complainant's gender and birthdate matched those of a pardoned sex offender. In order to complete a vulnerable sector verification (VSV), administered by the RCMP, CPS argued it required the fingerprints. The Commissioner determined that there was no other way for CPS to complete the PIC and the associated requirement in the circumstances for a VSV. Therefore, CPS was permitted to collect the complainant's fingerprints.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-40
|
December 3, 2015 |
Out-of-Country Health Services Committee
The applicant made a request to the Out-of-Country Health Services Committee for a decision it made regarding a third party.…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the Out-of-Country Health Services Committee for a decision it made regarding a third party. In Order F2013-45, the Adjudicator ordered the committee to respond to a similar request without relying on section 12(2) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the Out-of-Country Health Services Committee properly withheld the information under section 17 of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-38
|
December 3, 2015 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant requested information in a file held by Alberta Justice and Solicitor General at the crown prosecutor’s office in…
[More]
The applicant requested information in a file held by Alberta Justice and Solicitor General at the crown prosecutor's office in Medicine Hat. The applicant believed that not all records were provided in response to the request but the Adjudicator found that Alberta Justice and Solicitor General had performed an adequate search for records.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-37
|
December 3, 2015 |
Alberta College of Art and Design
The applicant requested access from the Alberta College of Art and Design (ACAD) to a certain video recording that had…
[More]
The applicant requested access from the Alberta College of Art and Design (ACAD) to a certain video recording that had been aired on national television. The Adjudicator found that the ACAD initially failed in its duty to assist the applicant. Once the request was clarified, the college conducted an adequate search for the video, and also found it did not have custody or control of the requested video under FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
JR
|
F2015-36
|
December 3, 2015 |
Peace River School Division
The applicant requested all information the Peace River School Division had gathered in relation to a bullying complaint she had…
[More]
The applicant requested all information the Peace River School Division had gathered in relation to a bullying complaint she had made. She also requested records containing information provided by individuals who had provided references for her. The Adjudicator found that the school division conducted a reasonable search for responsive records, and had responded openly, accurately and completely as required under FOIP.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-35
|
December 3, 2015 |
University of Calgary
The applicant had requested records from the University of Calgary related to an offer of employment. The Adjudicator ordered the…
[More]
The applicant had requested records from the University of Calgary related to an offer of employment. The Adjudicator ordered the University of Calgary to explain its search for records in greater detail.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-34
|
November 26, 2015 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General for emails that referenced him during a certain time…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General for emails that referenced him during a certain time period. The Adjudicator found that all records except for one were properly withheld under FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-33
|
November 4, 2015 |
Out-of-Country Health Services Appeal Panel
The applicant made a request to the Out-of-Country Health Services Appeal Panel for a decision it made regarding a third…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the Out-of-Country Health Services Appeal Panel for a decision it made regarding a third party. The panel said it could not locate any responsive records, and the Adjudicator determined that the panel performed an adequate search for records.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-32
|
November 2, 2015 |
Lakeshore Regional Police Service
The applicant made an access request to the Lakeshore Regional Police Service (LRPS) for personal information. LRPS withheld information under…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the Lakeshore Regional Police Service (LRPS) for personal information. LRPS withheld information under sections 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, and 27 of FOIP. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-31
|
October 21, 2015 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant sought access to specified records about himself from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). The Adjudicator found that JSG…
[More]
The applicant sought access to specified records about himself from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). The Adjudicator found that JSG had not properly withheld records on the basis of solicitor-client privilege or on the basis of settlement negotiation privilege (section 27 of FOIP).
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-30
|
October 16, 2015 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant requested a copy of an Edmonton Police Service (EPS) disciplinary decision involving a named constable. The Adjudicator ordered…
[More]
The applicant requested a copy of an Edmonton Police Service (EPS) disciplinary decision involving a named constable. The Adjudicator ordered one of the names withheld by EPS in the decision to be disclosed.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-29
|
September 30, 2015 |
Jobs, Skills, Training and Labour
The applicant made an access request for records from Jobs, Skills, Training and Labour that documented its dealings with the…
[More]
The applicant made an access request for records from Jobs, Skills, Training and Labour that documented its dealings with the applicant over a specified time period. Jobs, Skills, Training and Labour supplied some records, but withheld others, citing sections 4(1)(a), 17, 24 and 27 of FOIP, and saying that some records it had located, or parts of them, were unresponsive. The Adjudicator made a number of determinations in this order.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-28
|
September 30, 2015 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant sought information from the Calgary Police Service (CPS) regarding a book entitled “The Wolf and the Sheepdog”. CPS…
[More]
The applicant sought information from the Calgary Police Service (CPS) regarding a book entitled “The Wolf and the Sheepdog”. CPS refused to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records, on the basis that doing so would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy under section 12(2)(b) of FOIP. The Adjudicator determined that CPS did not properly apply section 12(2)(b) when refusing to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-27
|
September 25, 2015 |
Justice and Solicitor General
An individual made a complaint that Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) collected, used or disclosed his personal information in contravention…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) collected, used or disclosed his personal information in contravention of FOIP when it searched a database while he was employed by JSG. The Adjudicator found JSG did not have the authority to use the complainant's personal information from the database because the information was used in a way that was not consistent with the purpose for which it was collected.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-26
|
September 16, 2015 |
Calgary Police Service
An individual made a complaint alleging that Calgary Police Service collected her personal information and that of her children in…
[More]
An individual made a complaint alleging that Calgary Police Service collected her personal information and that of her children in contravention of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the personal information was collected for the purposes of law enforcement and was therefore permitted under FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-25
|
September 14, 2015 |
City of Calgary
The applicant made a request to the City of Calgary for her personnel files. The City of Calgary severed information from…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the City of Calgary for her personnel files. The City of Calgary severed information from these records on the basis of sections 16 (disclosure harmful to business interests), 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), 24 (advice from officials), and 25 (disclosure harmful to economic and other interests of a public body) of FOIP. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order, including finding that the City of Calgary had not established that its search for responsive records was adequate.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-23
|
September 1, 2015 |
Alberta Health Services
In response to an access request, Alberta Health Services (AHS) withheld some information contained in a briefing note under section…
[More]
In response to an access request, Alberta Health Services (AHS) withheld some information contained in a briefing note under section 24 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that AHS improperly withheld information in a briefing note because the information was provided to senior leadership for information only and not in order to take an action.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-22
|
August 31, 2015 |
City of Calgary
The applicant made a request to the City of Calgary for documentation related to a legal opinion about a private…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the City of Calgary for documentation related to a legal opinion about a private sector organization's legal classification. The City of Calgary withheld records on the basis of solicitor-client privilege under FOIP (section 27). The City of Calgary also withheld an email attachment, which had been provided to it by private sector organization under section 16 of FOIP (disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party). The Adjudicator ordered the City of Calgary to disclose emails and an attachment from the private sector organization. However, it was found that the city had properly withheld most records related to the request on the basis of solicitor-client privilege.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-21
|
August 25, 2015 |
Northwest Alberta Child and Family Services Authority
The Northwest Alberta Child and Family Services Authority was found to be in control of records under FOIP through a…
[More]
The Northwest Alberta Child and Family Services Authority was found to be in control of records under FOIP through a contract with the Watch Me Grow Agency. As a result, the family services authority was ordered to conduct a new search for records related to the "placement, care and termination" of the applicant's son in the agency.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-20
|
July 29, 2015 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The Adjudicator upheld Justice and Solicitor General’s decision to sever information under FOIP about an identifiable individual. The applicant requested…
[More]
The Adjudicator upheld Justice and Solicitor General's decision to sever information under FOIP about an identifiable individual. The applicant requested copies of all violations issued on a specified unit at Lethbridge Correctional Centre.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-19
|
June 23, 2015 |
Health
The applicant made an access request to Health for records relating to her application and interview for a position with…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Health for records relating to her application and interview for a position with Health. Health provided some records, withholding information under sections 17, 19, 24 and 26 of FOIP. The Applicant objected to Health's application of section 19 to withhold information in the records. The Adjudicator determined that while the information at issue fell within the definition of evaluation or opinion, the information was not provided in confidence.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-18
|
June 10, 2015 |
Justice and Solicitor General
An individual made a complaint that his information was improperly disclosed by Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). The Adjudicator found…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that his information was improperly disclosed by Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). The Adjudicator found that an email contained information about the complainant's agricultural operation and not about him as an individual, and that FOIP does not govern the collection or disclosure of that information.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-17
|
June 10, 2015 |
County of St. Paul
An individual made a complaint that his information was improperly disclosed by the County of St. Paul No. 19. The…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that his information was improperly disclosed by the County of St. Paul No. 19. The Adjudicator found that an email contained information about the complainant's agricultural operation and not about him as an individual, and that FOIP does not govern the collection or disclosure of that information.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-16
|
June 4, 2015 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The Commissioner decided that parts of an access request made to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) were offensive and deemed…
[More]
The Commissioner decided that parts of an access request made to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) were offensive and deemed those parts to be an abuse of the FOIP office's process. JSG was, however, ordered to process the parts that did genuinely constitute a request for information.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-15
|
May 22, 2015 |
Energy
The applicant made an access request to Energy for studies, reports or documents comparing Alberta’s royalty rates and regime for…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Energy for studies, reports or documents comparing Alberta's royalty rates and regime for non-renewable energy resources costs to royalty rates and regimes in other jurisdictions. Energy decided to give the applicant access to the requested records but a third party organization requested a review of that decision, arguing that disclosure of the records containing its information would be harmful to its business interests under section 16(1) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that section 16(1) applied to the numerical information in graphs or charts in the records at issue, as the information was a trade secret as defined in FOIP, was supplied in confidence, and could result in a harm enumerated in section 16(1)(c) if disclosed. However, the Adjudicator found that the organization’s name could not be withheld under section 16 as it did not fall into any of the categories of information in section 16(1)(a).
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-14
|
May 13, 2015 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for all records relating to complaints mentioned in…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for all records relating to complaints mentioned in a disciplinary decision. EPS found over 3000 responsive records but withheld them all pursuant to section 17 of FOIP. EPS also applied sections 4, 20, 21, 24 and 27 of the Act to the records at issue in the alternative. The Adjudicator found that EPS properly applied section 17 of the Act to the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-13
|
April 30, 2015 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant made an access request for records that related to her employment with Alberta Health Services (AHS). The applicant…
[More]
The applicant made an access request for records that related to her employment with Alberta Health Services (AHS). The applicant believed that AHS had not met its duty to assist her. The Adjudicator considered this issue as well as whether records were destroyed contrary to section 35 of FOIP and whether AHS complied with the request within the time limits outlined in the Act (section 11). The Adjudicator found that AHS had met its duty to assist the applicant. The Adjudicator also found that the records that were destroyed did not contain personal information and therefore did not engage section 35 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that AHS had not complied with section 11 of the Act.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-12
|
April 30, 2015 |
Service Alberta
The applicant requested from Service Alberta the cost of developing a baby names app. Service Alberta located invoices containing the…
[More]
The applicant requested from Service Alberta the cost of developing a baby names app. Service Alberta located invoices containing the amounts Service Alberta had been charged by two third party vendors. Service Alberta severed as nonresponsive information about costs appearing in the invoices that related to the app, but were shared with other projects. Service Alberta also severed information about the third parties’ rates, at the request of the third parties. The Adjudicator determined that the information Service Alberta had severed as nonresponsive was responsive. The Adjudicator also found that section 16 did not apply to the information regarding the rates appearing in the records. The Adjudicator ordered disclosure of the records in their entirety.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-11
|
April 28, 2015 |
Alberta Health Services
In Order F2014-38 / Decision F2014-D-02 the Adjudicator decided that Alberta Health Services (AHS) should be given the opportunity to…
[More]
In Order F2014-38 / Decision F2014-D-02 the Adjudicator decided that Alberta Health Services (AHS) should be given the opportunity to gather evidence or persuasive authority to support its application of solicitor-client privilege to the records. The Adjudicator did so because it was unclear on the face of the records whether they contained or reflected communications between a solicitor and a client. AHS submitted an affidavit from the lawyer who created the records to establish that the information in the records had been obtained or exchanged with the client. The Adjudicator confirmed that the records were the subject of solicitor-client privilege, and had properly been withheld under section 27(1)(a) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-10
|
April 20, 2015 |
Alberta Health Services
Five applicants made access requests to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for records relating to the expense claims filed by a…
[More]
Five applicants made access requests to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for records relating to the expense claims filed by a person who had been the CEO of the Calgary Health Region. AHS located responsive records, and severed some personal information from them, and notified the former CEO that it was proposing to disclose most of the records. The former CEO objected to the disclosure on the basis that the records were inaccurate or unreliable within the terms of section 17(5)(g) of FOIP, and could unfairly damage his reputation within the terms of section 17(5)(h). The Adjudicator found that the expense claims were for the most part not personal information but rather recorded an aspect of the former CEO’s fulfillment of his job responsibilities.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-09
|
April 14, 2015 |
Human Rights Commission
The applicant made an access request to the Human Rights Commission (HRC) for complaint files. HRC stated that it was…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the Human Rights Commission (HRC) for complaint files. HRC stated that it was granting partial access and was withholding information under sections 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), 24 (advice from officials), 27 (privileged information) and 29 (information that is or will be available to the public) of FOIP. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
JR
|
F2015-08
|
March 31, 2015 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant made a request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for access to money spent on lawyers – both…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for access to money spent on lawyers - both in-house counsel and lawyers other than in-house counsel. CPS denied access to the information on the basis that the information was subject to solicitor-client privilege. CPS stated at the inquiry that responsive records do not exist, but acknowledged that if it were found that solicitor-client privilege did not attach to the information requested by the applicant, it had a duty under section 10(2) of FOIP to create responsive records. The Adjudicator determined that it was necessary for CPS to respond to the applicant’s access request, either by creating records, or by producing severed records that would enable the applicant to determine the amounts specified in its access request.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-07
|
March 27, 2015 |
City of Calgary
The applicant made a request to the City of Calgary for “all records related to Livery Transport Service, Black Top…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the City of Calgary for “all records related to Livery Transport Service, Black Top Taxi and [a named individual]”. The City of Calgary informed the applicant that it located 147 pages of records but that most of those records would be withheld under sections 17 and 27 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that much of the information withheld by the City of Calgary under section 17 was not information about an individual but was information about an organization. The Adjudicator also found that some information was personal information as defined in the Act, but was not personal information to which section 17 could be applied. The Adjudicator ordered the City of Calgary to disclose this information to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-06
|
March 27, 2015 |
Transportation
The applicant asked Transportation for a copy of her driver fitness and monitoring file. Transportation eventually disclosed most of the…
[More]
The applicant asked Transportation for a copy of her driver fitness and monitoring file. Transportation eventually disclosed most of the 13 records it located. However, it withheld the letter that had raised concerns regarding the applicant’s ability to safely operate a motor vehicle, citing section 17(1) (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the record was properly withheld pursuant to section 17(1) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-05
|
March 12, 2015 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant requested records regarding an incident in which both he and the Edmonton Police Service’s (EPS) Canine Unit had…
[More]
The applicant requested records regarding an incident in which both he and the Edmonton Police Service’s (EPS) Canine Unit had been involved. EPS located responsive records but withheld a record entitled the “Canine Unit Report In Contemplation of Litigation” (ICOL) under section 27(1)(a) (privileged information). The Adjudicator found that the record was subject to solicitor-client privilege.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-04
|
March 11, 2015 |
Medicine Hat Police Commission
The applicant requested all emails the Medicine Hat Police Commission (MHPC) received, and all letters from the Chief of Police…
[More]
The applicant requested all emails the Medicine Hat Police Commission (MHPC) received, and all letters from the Chief of Police about the applicant. MHPC conducted a search for responsive records but was unable to locate any. The Adjudicator found that MHPC had met its duties to the applicant under FOIP in relation to the response it had provided.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-03
|
January 30, 2015 |
City of Cold Lake
The applicant made an access request to the City of Cold Lake for the request for proposal/tenders, contracts, statutory declarations,…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the City of Cold Lake for the request for proposal/tenders, contracts, statutory declarations, specifications for gravel, and receipts relating to Knelsen Sand and Gravel Ltd. and the Cold Lake Highway 28 twinning project. The third party business objected to the City of Cold Lake's decision to release the records by arguing that disclosure of the unit prices and hourly labour rates in the contract documents would be harmful to its business interests under section 16(1) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that section 16(1) did not apply to the unit prices and hourly labour rates in the contract documents, as this information was not supplied in confidence within the terms of section 16(1)(b).
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-02
|
January 29, 2015 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made a request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for records containing information about an incident in which…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for records containing information about an incident in which he had been involved at the Edmonton Remand Centre. JSG located four CCTV recordings and paper records. It denied access to information in paper records about other inmates of the Edmonton Remand Centre, and withheld CCTV recordings of the incident on the basis that these contained the personal information of other inmates. The Adjudicator ordered JSG to give access to the CCTV recording by allowing the applicant and/or his legal counsel to examine the record at JSG's premises, as doing so would ensure that the personal information was safeguarded from use or disclosure for any other purpose.
|
|
FOIP |
2015 |
|
F2015-01
|
January 26, 2015 |
Human Services
An individual made a complaint that Human Services disclosed his personal information in contravention of Part 2 of FOIP when…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that Human Services disclosed his personal information in contravention of Part 2 of FOIP when it disclosed his personal information to an organization and RCMP. Human Services said it disclosed the information in order to determine the complainant's relationship status for his eligibility for Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped (AISH) benefits. The Adjudicator agreed that Human Services had authority to disclose the complainant’s personal information for the purpose of determining the complainant’s ongoing eligibility for AISH benefits.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-R-01
|
February 28, 2014 |
Edmonton Police Commission
The applicant asked the Edmonton Police Commission (EPC) for information relating to its communications with the Edmonton Police Service, in…
[More]
The applicant asked the Edmonton Police Commission (EPC) for information relating to its communications with the Edmonton Police Service, in turn relating to complaints made against police members under the Police Act that had been dismissed for certain reasons. In a new response, following a decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench that required EPC to notify certain individuals and for the OIPC to then reconsider the matter, EPC withheld some of the requested information under sections 17, 24 and 27, and later section 20, of FOIP. EPC also considered some of the information that it had located to be non-responsive to the access request. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
JR
|
F2014-52
|
December 31, 2014 |
Health
One Applicant made two separate requests for access to information from Health for any and all agreements (and related information)…
[More]
One Applicant made two separate requests for access to information from Health for any and all agreements (and related information) between the Alberta government and lawyers retained with respect to lawsuits or prosecutions against tobacco manufacturers for the recovery of health care costs. The External Adjudicator ordered Health to comply with its duty under FOIP, pursuant to sections 56(3) and 72(3)(a) of FOIP, to produce and to make available for examination the original or a copy of the records at issue to the External Adjudicator, pursuant to section 56(2) of FOIP.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2014 |
JR
|
F2014-51
|
December 31, 2014 |
Justice and Solicitor General
This inquiry related to three separate requests from two separate applicants for access to information from Justice and Solicitor General…
[More]
This inquiry related to three separate requests from two separate applicants for access to information from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for any and all requests for news releases and agreements (and all related information) between the Alberta government and lawyers retained with respect to lawsuits or prosecutions against tobacco manufacturers for the recovery of health care costs. The External Adjudicator ordered JSG to comply with its duty under FOIP, pursuant to sections 56(3) and 72(3)(a) of FOIP, to produce and to make available for examination the original or a copy of the records at issue to the External Adjudicator, pursuant to section 56(2) of FOIP.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2014 |
JR
|
F2014-50
|
December 31, 2014 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicants made separate requests for access to information from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for any and all requests…
[More]
The applicants made separate requests for access to information from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for any and all requests for proposals, agreements, contingency contracts (and all related information) between the Alberta government and lawyers retained with respect to lawsuits or prosecutions against tobacco manufacturers for the recovery of health care costs. The External Adjudicator ordered JSG to comply with its duty under FOIP, pursuant to sections 56(3) and 72(3)(a), to produce and to make available for examination the original or a copy of the records at issue to the External Adjudicator, pursuant to s. 56(2) of FOIP.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-49
|
November 21, 2014 |
Workers' Compensation Board
The applicant made an access request to the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) for a list of organizations that pay a…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) for a list of organizations that pay a surcharge (a premium higher than the relevant industry standard), and a list of organizations that pay a poor performance surcharge. WCB located responsive records but withheld all information in the records under sections 16, 21, 24 and 25 of FOIP. The Adjudicator determined that none of the exceptions cited by WCB apply to the information in the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-48
|
November 13, 2014 |
Treasury Board and Finance
The applicant made an access request to Treasury Board and Finance (TBF) for access to “all records related to accidents…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Treasury Board and Finance (TBF) for access to “all records related to accidents and or damage to vehicles owned by the Government of Alberta which were assigned to Ministers, Deputy Ministers and Assistant Deputy Ministers” within a 5-year timeframe. TBF created a summary of all accidents and/or damage, including the name of the individual driving the vehicle at the time of the incident, the actual or estimated dollar amount of related costs, and a summary of the incident. TBF consulted with the individuals named in the records, and released all the names of the drivers except the name of one individual who did not consent to having his or her name disclosed. The Adjudicator found that section 17 applied to the information in the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-47
|
November 12, 2014 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made a request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for personal information. JSG responded but severed information under…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for personal information. JSG responded but severed information under sections 4(1)(g) (question that is to be used on a test), 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), and 26 (testing procedures, tests and audits) of FOIP. During the inquiry, JSG provided the applicant with the information initially withheld under section 17. The Adjudicator found that JSG properly applied section 4(1)(g) to questions on exams, and section 26 to the answers provided by the applicant on the exams. However, the Adjudicator concluded that JSG unduly narrowed the scope of the applicant’s request and therefore did not conduct an adequate search for records.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-46
|
November 6, 2014 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made a request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for all information relating to him within all Alberta…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for all information relating to him within all Alberta court record-keeping systems, as well as emails about him in the inboxes of certain Government of Alberta employees. After a telephone conversation with the applicant during which the request was apparently narrowed, JSG located 22 pages of responsive records but withheld all but one record under section 4 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that JSG properly applied section 4(1)(a) to the records at issue.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-45
|
October 31, 2014 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for all records in relation to his involvement…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for all records in relation to his involvement with EPS. EPS located responsive records, but withheld information under sections 4 and 17 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that section 4(1)(a) applied to some of the withheld information, as the information consisted of records of a judge or justice of the peace. The Adjudicator determined that EPS properly applied section 17 to the information in the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-44
|
October 31, 2014 |
City of St. Albert
The applicant made an access request to the City of St. Albert for a copy of the winning vendor’s response…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the City of St. Albert for a copy of the winning vendor’s response to a request for proposals the City of St. Albert had issued. The City of St. Albert provided some information to the applicant, but applied sections 16 (disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party) and 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of FOIP to withhold the remaining information. The Adjudicator determined that section 16 did not apply to the information severed by the City of St. Albert. The Adjudicator decided that, with the exception of cell phone numbers and identification numbers, the information to which the City of St. Albert had applied section 17 lacked a personal dimension. The Adjudicator ordered disclosure of the records except for the cell phone numbers and identification numbers.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-43
|
October 24, 2014 |
Calgary Board of Education
The applicant made five access requests to the Calgary Board of Education (CBE). The first access request was for his…
[More]
The applicant made five access requests to the Calgary Board of Education (CBE). The first access request was for his personal information while the other four requests were for records containing information about the processing of his access requests. Order F2009-39 waived the fees. In responding to the request, CBE located responsive records and provided them to the applicant with information severed under sections 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), 20 (disclosure harmful to law enforcement) and 27 (privileged information) of FOIP. The Adjudicator confirmed the decisions of CBE to withhold information under section 17 and 27, and did not need to consider section 20. However, the Adjudicator ordered CBE to search backup tapes for responsive records unless it was able to determine through other means that responsive records not yet produced were not located on the backup tapes.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-42
|
October 23, 2014 |
Calgary Police Service
An individual made a complaint that the Calgary Police Service (CPS) had disclosed his personal information in contravention of FOIP…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that the Calgary Police Service (CPS) had disclosed his personal information in contravention of FOIP when a police officer revealed information about the terms of a recognizance, a certificate of analyst, and a notice of intention to his parents. The Adjudicator determined that the recognizance was a record of a justice of the peace within the terms of section 4(1)(a) of FOIP and that information disclosed from this record is exempt from the application of FOIP. The Adjudicator also determined that the certificate of analyst and the notice of intention were exempt from FOIP within the terms of section 4(1)(k), as the records related to a prosecution that had not yet been completed at the time of the disclosure.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-41
|
October 21, 2014 |
Bow Valley College
The applicant made a request to Bow Valley College (BVC) for access to personal information. BVC informed the applicant that…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Bow Valley College (BVC) for access to personal information. BVC informed the applicant that it was extending the time for responding to his access request by 30 days. In responding to the applicant, BVC severed some information under section 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of FOIP. The Adjudicator determined that BVC had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records. The Adjudicator also determined that BVC had complied with the time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator confirmed BVC’s decision to sever personal information.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-40
|
October 20, 2014 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for personal information. AHS extended the time limit for…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for personal information. AHS extended the time limit for responding to the access request. When it responded, AHS applied section 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) to withhold some information about its employees from the applicant. The Adjudicator found that AHS had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records and had complied with section 14 of FOIP when it extended the time for responding to the applicant. The Adjudicator found that the information that was severed from the records was information about AHS employees acting in their personal capacities and was properly withheld under section 17.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-39
|
October 20, 2014 |
Alberta Energy Regulator
The applicant requested records from the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) relating to residency audits conducted on individuals or companies believed…
[More]
The applicant requested records from the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) relating to residency audits conducted on individuals or companies believed to be located in British Columbia or records related to the scheduling of meetings with representatives of British Columbia to discuss residency requirements. AER searched for and produced responsive records. In answer to the applicant’s question as to how many residency audits AER had conducted, AER’s FOIP Coordinator first answered “three” and subsequently corrected this answer and explained there were “five”. The applicant said AER’s response was not open, accurate, or complete as required by FOIP. The Adjudicator determined that AER had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records and had responded openly, accurately, and completely, as required by section 10 of FOIP (duty to assist an applicant).
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-38
|
October 6, 2014 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant requested information regarding her employment history from Alberta Health Services (AHS). AHS responded to the applicant but severed some…
[More]
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) of FOIP. The Adjudicator determined that it was necessary for AHS to conduct a new search for responsive records, and determined that it was necessary for AHS to reconsider its decision to withhold information under section 27(1)(b) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-37
|
October 2, 2014 |
Workers' Compensation Board
An individual made a complaint after she had been surreptitiously videotaped by an investigator with the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB).…
[More]
An individual made a complaint after she had been surreptitiously videotaped by an investigator with the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB). The Complainant had been accompanying her mother in a store when she was videotaped. The purpose of the videotaping was to capture images of the mother as a WCB claimant rather than the complainant. The complainant states that WCB collected her personal information in contravention of Part 2 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that WCB had authority to collect the complainant’s personal information.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-36
|
September 3, 2014 |
Health
The applicant made an access request to Health for access to “all policies, past and present, in regards to the…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Health for access to “all policies, past and present, in regards to the closing of health facilities.” Health provided eight pages of records to the applicant, and withheld 44 pages in their entirety under section 24(1). The Adjudicator determined that the records withheld by Health under section 24(1) were not responsive to the applicant’s request.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
JR
|
F2014-35
|
August 29, 2014 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant made a request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for access to the audited financial returns of nursing home…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for access to the audited financial returns of nursing home operators. AHS provided notice to the nursing homes as third parties under section 30 of FOIP regarding the request. AHS decided to sever some information under section 16 (disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party) but to disclose other information. Two nursing home operators objected to AHS’ decision to disclose information from their audited returns and requested review by the Commissioner. Subsequently, AHS decided that the nursing home operators were public bodies under FOIP and that section 16 could not apply. It decided to apply section 25 (disclosure harmful to economic and other interests of a public body) to withhold the information to which it had previously applied section 16. After the inquiry commenced, it became apparent that there were other nursing home operators affected by the applicant’s access request and were invited to participate in the inquiry. The Adjudicator found that AHS and the third parties had failed to establish that interference to their negotiating positions was reasonably likely to result from disclosure of the information in the audited returns under either section 16 or section 25.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-34
|
August 29, 2014 |
Town of Sylvan Lake
The applicants made an access request to the Town of Sylvan Lake for records containing details regarding the purchase of…
[More]
The applicants made an access request to the Town of Sylvan Lake for records containing details regarding the purchase of specific parcels of land. The Town of Sylvan Lake provided some information, but applied section 25 (disclosure harmful to economic interests) of FOIP to withhold from the applicants copies of a sale agreement and right of entry and land purchase agreement. It applied section 25(1)(c)(iii) to withhold the information on the basis that its negotiations would be harmed if the information in the agreements were disclosed. The Adjudicator found that the Town of Sylvan Lake failed to establish that its negotiations would be harmed by disclosure of the agreements.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-33
|
August 14, 2014 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant made a request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for access to the contents of his cell phone,…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for access to the contents of his cell phone, which included a video of the death of his former girlfriend for whose murder the applicant was convicted and sentenced to prison. CPS provided copies of most of the information found on the cell phone to the applicant, but withheld all information about the murder victim, including the video. The Adjudicator noted that the records at issue appeared to be “information in a court file” within the terms of section 4(1)(a). However, as the issue had not been raised by CPS, the Adjudicator did not make a decision in that regard. The Adjudicator found that it would be an unreasonable invasion of the murder victim’s personal privacy within the terms of FOIP to disclose the personal information of the murder victim to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-32
|
August 8, 2014 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for information related to him from the Red…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for information related to him from the Red Deer Crown Prosecution office, including emails from listed email addresses. JSG states that this request was later narrowed to include only information related to a particular traffic violation. JSG responded that responsive records were excluded from FOIP under section 4(1)(k) (incomplete prosecution), and that the applicant could make a new access request once the related prosecution had been completed. The Adjudicator accepted JSG’s evidence that the applicant’s request was properly narrowed, and agreed that, at the time of the applicant’s request, the responsive records were excluded from the scope of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-31
|
August 7, 2014 |
Human Services
The applicant made a request to Human Services (the Public Body) for documents regarding a named individual that the applicant…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Human Services (the Public Body) for documents regarding a named individual that the applicant believed was a recipient of benefits from the Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped (AISH) program. The applicant sought the information in order to use it in a legal proceeding involving the sibling of the named third party. Human Services refused to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records, on the basis that doing so would be an unreasonable invasion of the third party’s personal privacy under section 12(2)(b) of FOIP. The Adjudicator upheld Human Services' decision.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-30
|
July 24, 2014 |
Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers' Compensation
The applicant made an access request to the Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers’ Compensation (Appeals Commission) for statistics regarding the…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers' Compensation (Appeals Commission) for statistics regarding the number of appeals conducted by the Appeals Commission addressing a specific policy and how many of those appeals were granted. The Appeals Commission responded that there were no records that were responsive to the applicant’s request. The Appeals Commission argued that while it maintains a database that records its decisions, the decisions are not recorded to the level of detail that would be required to respond to the applicant’s request. It also argued that creating a record from its electronic database would unreasonably interfere with its operations. The Adjudicator found the Appeals Commission fulfilled its duty to assist the applicant, but that it did not satisfy its burden to show that it did not have to create a record under section 10(2) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-29
|
July 14, 2014 |
City of Calgary
The applicant made a request to the City of Calgary for a specified report. The City of Calgary disclosed some…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the City of Calgary for a specified report. The City of Calgary disclosed some records to the applicant and withheld other records in their entirety under sections 23 (local public body confidences), 24 (advice from officials), 25 (disclosure harmful to economic and other interests of a public body) and 27 (privileged information) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found the City of Calgary properly applied sections 25 and 27, but ordered it to make a new decision regarding the application of sections 23(1)(b), 24(1)(a) and 24(1)(b) using the guidance provided in the order.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-28
|
July 14, 2014 |
Health
An individual complained that Health contravened FOIP when his supervisor told the executive team the reason for his absence. The…
[More]
An individual complained that Health contravened FOIP when his supervisor told the executive team the reason for his absence. The complainant also stated in his complaint that he believes the email had been forwarded beyond the original distribution list. Health stated the email was sent for the purpose of managing and administering personnel, under section 40(1)(x) of FOIP; however, it conceded that it was not authorized to disclose the nature of the complainant’s leave. The Adjudicator found that Health had disclosed more personal information than was necessary to meet its stated purpose, and had contravened section 40(4) of the Act.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-27
|
July 3, 2014 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant requested from the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) information about an investigation where an EPS police officer allegedly raped…
[More]
The applicant requested from the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) information about an investigation where an EPS police officer allegedly raped another police officer from an RCMP detachment. EPS relied on section 12(2) of FOIP and stated that it would neither confirm nor deny the existence of responsive records on the basis that it would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy to do so. The Adjudicator found that the applicant’s allegations were unsubstantiated and confirmed the decision of EPS to rely on section 12(2) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-26
|
June 25, 2014 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant made a request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for records relating to her and an AHS investigation into…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for records relating to her and an AHS investigation into alleged harassing phone calls the applicant had received. AHS responded to the request by providing partial access to records, but withheld information in the records under sections 17 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s privacy), 19 (confidential evaluations), 24 (advice from officials), and 27 (legal privilege) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that, for the most part, AHS had conducted an adequate search for records. The Adjudicator found that AHS properly applied section 17 to withhold personal information of third parties in the records. The Adjudicator determined that AHS properly applied section 27 to some of the information in the records, but that AHS did not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that other information was subject to solicitor-client privilege as had been claimed.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-25
|
June 24, 2014 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made requests to Justice and Attorney General and Solicitor General and Public Security (now Justice and Solicitor General…
[More]
The applicant made requests to Justice and Attorney General and Solicitor General and Public Security (now Justice and Solicitor General or JSG) for studies or documents related to the impact of the federal omnibus crime legislation (also known as Bill C-10) on the respective public body. The applicant received responses, with JSG withholding some pages in their entirety and some in part under sections 4(1)(q), 17, 21(1), 24(1)(a) and (b), and 27(1)(a), (b) and (c) of FOIP. The Adjudicator made decisions relating to JSG's application of sections 17, 21 and 24. At the time of issuing the order, however, the Adjudicator was not in a position to decide the issue of whether JSG had properly applied sections 24 or 27 of FOIP to the records withheld under section 27.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-24
|
June 13, 2014 |
County of Thorhild
The applicant made a request for access to the County of Thorhild No. 7 for copies of cheques relating to…
[More]
The applicant made a request for access to the County of Thorhild No. 7 for copies of cheques relating to the termination of the former county manager. The County of Thorhild identified a deposit slip as responsive but withheld this record in its entirety. The County of Thorhild did not tell the applicant that the record it had identified as responsive was not a cheque, and it did not clarify whether there was other information in its custody or control that would satisfy the access request. The Adjudicator determined that the County of Thorhild did not meet its duty to assist the applicant at the time it responded to her access request, as it did not take measures to clarify an access request that could be interpreted in more than one way. However, the County of Thorhild disclosed the former county manager's severance amount in the inquiry submissions and, therefore, met its duty to assist the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-23
|
June 12, 2014 |
City of Lethbridge
The applicant made a request to the City of Lethbridge for access to information regarding an investigation that had been…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the City of Lethbridge for access to information regarding an investigation that had been conducted by the City of Lethbridge as a result of a complaint he had made, including the report of the investigator’s findings. The City of Lethbridge located responsive records but some severed information under section 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) and section 24 (advice from officials) of FOIP. The Adjudicator determined that not all the information the City of Lethbridge had severed was information that could be withheld under section 17. The Adjudicator also ordered the City of Lethbridge to reconsider its decision to withhold the information from the applicant under section 24(1).
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-22
|
May 30, 2014 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant requested all information obtained or created by the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for the investigation into her daughter’s…
[More]
The applicant requested all information obtained or created by the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for the investigation into her daughter’s death, as well as information on a Crown prosecutor’s recommendation that charges not be laid in relation to her daughter’s death. CPS provided records of its investigation, but applied section 27(1)(b) (information prepared for the purpose of providing legal services) of FOIP to withhold a copy of a memorandum that had been sent to it by the Assistant Chief Crown Prosecutor, detailing the Crown’s prosecutor’s recommendation that charges not be laid. CPS had consulted with Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) on disclosing the memorandum but JSG refused consent. The Adjudicator found that section 27(1)(b) applied to the memorandum. However, JSG was found to have not demonstrated that it appropriately exercised its discretion when it decided to withhold the memorandum.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-21
|
May 30, 2014 |
Human Services
An individual complained that a service provider contracted by Human Services collected, used and disclosed his personal information in contravention…
[More]
An individual complained that a service provider contracted by Human Services collected, used and disclosed his personal information in contravention of FOIP when arranging referrals for assessments and rehabilitation services to assist him in relation to a medical condition. The Adjudicator accordingly concluded that Human Services had collected, used or disclosed the complainant’s personal information in compliance with FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-20 & H2014-01
|
April 30, 2014 |
Health
After narrowing the request after a fee estimate of $1,701, the applicant made an access request to Health for non-personally-identifying…
[More]
After narrowing the request after a fee estimate of $1,701, the applicant made an access request to Health for non-personally-identifying parts of group coverage commencement and termination notices (single-page documents relating to individual employees) for a specific account number. Health provided the applicant with access to part of a single record, which it says was the only record it located that was responsive to his request. The applicant said had not performed an adequate search for responsive records. The Adjudicator found that AHW had met its duty to assist the applicant and had performed an adequate search for records responsive to the Applicant’s narrowed request.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-19
|
April 29, 2014 |
Health
After receiving a response to an access request, an individual made a complaint that Health had altered her performance contract…
[More]
After receiving a response to an access request, an individual made a complaint that Health had altered her performance contract to omit signatures and positive comments. The Adjudicator determined that there was no evidence that the complainant’s performance evaluation had been altered by anyone in Health, and that Health had not failed to make reasonable security arrangements against such risks as unauthorized access, collection, use, disclosure or destruction. However, the Adjudicator determined that Health failed to perform its duty to assist under section 10(1) of FOIP in responding to the complainant's access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-18
|
April 29, 2014 |
Health
The applicant asked Health for records relating to her interview for a different position, including questions, answers and scoring, and…
[More]
The applicant asked Health for records relating to her interview for a different position, including questions, answers and scoring, and a second request for information in the applicant’s human resources file. The inquiry focused on Health's response to the second request. In response to the second request, Health provided partial access to records, but relied on sections 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), 19 (confidential evaluations), 20 (harm to law enforcement), 24 (advice from officials) and 27 (privileged information) of FOIP to withhold information in the records. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-17
|
April 15, 2014 |
Health
The applicant asked Health for records relating to two third parties. Health refused to confirm or deny the existence of…
[More]
The applicant asked Health for records relating to two third parties. Health refused to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records, on the basis that doing so would be an unreasonable invasion of the third parties’ personal privacy under section 12(2)(b) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that disclosing the existence of responsive records, should they exist, would not be an unreasonable invasion of the third parties’ personal privacy, and ordered Health to respond to the access request without relying on section 12(2)(b).
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-16
|
April 4, 2014 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant made a request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for copies of records relating to an incident that…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for copies of records relating to an incident that occurred in Edmonton in 1983. EPS denied the applicant’s request in reliance on section 17 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that section 17 of FOIP applied to most, but not all, of the responsive information that EPS had not released.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-15
|
February 28, 2014 |
City of Calgary
The applicant made an access request to the City of Calgary for a DVD recording of her pre-employment polygraph interview…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the City of Calgary for a DVD recording of her pre-employment polygraph interview with a third party service provider that conducted the interview. The City of Calgary decided to give the applicant access to the DVD, but the third party service provider argued that disclosure of the recording would be harmful to its business interests under section 16(1) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that section 16(1) applied to the DVD recording and required the City of Calgary to refuse the applicant access to it.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-14
|
February 21, 2014 |
Alberta Health Services
An individual complained that her former manager at Alberta Health Services (AHS) contravened FOIP when the manager sent an email…
[More]
An individual complained that her former manager at Alberta Health Services (AHS) contravened FOIP when the manager sent an email to all the staff in a particular program area of AHS informing them that the individual had taken a job with a new employer, and detailed the name and city of the new employer. AHS argued that the disclosure of the complainant’s information in the email was authorized under sections 40(1)(h) (disclosure necessary for the performance of the duties of a public body employee), 40(1)(x) (disclosure for the purpose of managing or administering personnel of the Government of Alberta or the public body) and 40(1)(bb.1) (disclosure of business contact information). The Adjudicator found that section 40(1)(h) authorized the disclosure of some of the information in the email, and section 40(1)(x) authorized the disclosure of the remaining information.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-13
|
February 21, 2014 |
Calgary Board of Education
The applicant requested her personal information from the Calgary Board of Education (CBE). In response, CBE severed information from the…
[More]
The applicant requested her personal information from the Calgary Board of Education (CBE). In response, CBE severed information from the records under sections 24 (advice from officials) and 27 (privileged information) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that with the exception of the names of employees, their business contact information, the subject lines and dates and times of an email, CBE had properly applied section 24 in order to withhold information. The Adjudicator a;sp found that the information to which CBE had applied section 27 was subject to solicitor-client privilege.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-12
|
February 21, 2014 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made a request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for access to investigation records relating to the loss…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for access to investigation records relating to the loss of his personal effects from his cell while he was incarcerated in the Edmonton Remand Centre. JSG provided responsive records, but withheld a video and a photograph from the applicant under sections 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) and 20 (disclosure harmful to law enforcement) of FOIP. Once the new Edmonton Remand Centre was built, JSG reconsidered its decision to apply section 20, as disclosing video of the former Edmonton Remand Centre was unlikely to compromise security at the new Edmonton Remand Centre. The Adjudicator confirmed the decision of JSG to sever the features of the inmates under section 17 of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-11
|
February 14, 2014 |
Town of Ponoka
The applicant made a request to the Town of Ponoka for records relating to a local improvement tax in the…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the Town of Ponoka for records relating to a local improvement tax in the town. The applicant requested review the Town of Ponoka’s search for responsive records and requested a waiver of fees charged under section 93 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the Town of Ponoka had conducted an adequate search for records. The Adjudicator upheld some of the fees charged by the Town of Ponoka, but ordered it to refund part of the fees relating to photocopying costs, the time taken to prepare the records, and costs associated with obtaining records from the contractor.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-10
|
February 12, 2014 |
Town of Taber
The applicant made an access request to the Town of Taber for correspondence referring either to himself or his wife,…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the Town of Taber for correspondence referring either to himself or his wife, and for a list of all non-personal utility accounts which have been temporarily suspended or discontinued, and copies of all correspondence relating to the authorization or approval of funding support of the Arts Council to assist it in paying all or a portion of its utility bills. The Town of Taber located the records responsive to the first part of the access request and created a record responsive to the second part of the access request. It was unable to locate any records responsive to the third part of the access request. The Town of Taber severed some information from the records it did locate on the basis that it was non-responsive or the personal information of a third party (section 17 of FOIP). The Adjudicator confirmed the Town of Taber conducted a reasonable search for responsive records, did not provide an adequate explanation regarding the search it conducted and in part properly severed personal information of a third party.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-09
|
January 30, 2014 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant made a request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for copies of any documentation to or from a coordinator…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for copies of any documentation to or from a coordinator of the environmental public health area of AHS, or any other person, in respect of environmental health, tenant complaints, health inspections or correspondence, messages, or email of any kind, related to the applicant’s name or to his property. The applicant was dissatisfied with the search conducted by AHS. The Adjudicator found that AHS had not demonstrated that it conducted an adequate search for responsive records.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-08
|
January 30, 2014 |
City of Red Deer
The Applicant made two access requests to the City of Red Deer for all personal information held by Red Deer…
[More]
The Applicant made two access requests to the City of Red Deer for all personal information held by Red Deer transit, including security video, and for personal information from specified incidents, including security video. The City of Red Deer conducted a search for records and identified responsive records. The City of Red Deer severed some information from the records under section 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) and removed nonresponsive information. The Adjudicator confirmed the City of Red Deer’s decision to sever personally identifying information under section 17, with the exception of the names of employees acting in a representative capacity.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-07
|
January 30, 2014 |
Bow Valley College
An individual made a complaint that Bow Valley College (BVC) had disclosed his personal information in contravention of FOIP. The…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that Bow Valley College (BVC) had disclosed his personal information in contravention of FOIP. The complainant also requested a review of BVC’s decision to sever personal information from records it had located when it responded to an access request he had made. The Adjudicator found that the complainant did not establish that BVC had used or disclosed his personal information. The Adjudicator also determined that BVC was required by section 17 of FOIP (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) to withhold information from the complainant.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-06
|
January 30, 2014 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made a request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for access to an Alberta Serious Incident Response Team…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for access to an Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) report that reviewed a member of a police service who had been involved in a sexual relationship with an informant, was then suspended and subsequently committed suicide. The applicant also requested records that would contain information revealing whether the police member it named had taken part in any prosecutions and whether Crown prosecutors had alerted accused persons in such cases of the police member’s relationship with the informant. JSG stated that if the records existed, confirming their existence would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy within the terms of section 17 of FOIP. JSG also noted that if the records existed, they would contain information subject to sections 18 and 20 of FOIP. For both reasons, JSG declined to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records under section 12(2) of FOIP. The Adjudicator confirmed JSG’s decision to apply section 12(2)(b) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-05
|
January 29, 2014 |
County of Vermilion River
The applicant made a request to the County of Vermilion River #24 for information regarding the County of Vermilion River’s…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the County of Vermilion River #24 for information regarding the County of Vermilion River’s procedural policies, a copy of a particular council motion, and several items relating to a drainage project. The County of Vermilion River provided a fee estimate of $2,773.25 which was subsequently reduced to $1,464.75 after the applicant decided to withdraw his request for some records and agreed to “purchase” other records. The applicant requested that the County of Vermilion River waive the fees, on the basis of public interest, but the County of Vermilion River refused to do so. 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 determined that for the most part, the County of Vermilion River’s calculations for the fee estimate were reasonable.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-04
|
January 22, 2014 |
City of Calgary
The applicant made an access request to the City of Calgary and it transferred parts of the access request to…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the City of Calgary and it transferred parts of the access request to another public body. The applicant requested a review of that decision as well as a review of the adequacy of the City of Calgary’s search for responsive records and its general duty to assist him. The Adjudicator found that the City of Calgary had met its duty to assist the applicant under section 10(1) of FOIP, including its obligation to conduct an adequate search for records. The Adjudicator also found that the City of Calgary had properly transferred parts of the applicant’s access request under section 15 of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-03
|
January 21, 2014 |
Energy
The applicant requested records Energy relating to the creation of the Critical Transmission Review Committee (CTRC) and its mandate. The…
[More]
The applicant requested records Energy relating to the creation of the Critical Transmission Review Committee (CTRC) and its mandate. The applicant also made a request for records relating to the drafting of the CTRC’s report entitled, “Powering Our Economy”. Energy required the applicant to pay fees for the records, and the applicant asked to be excused from paying the fees on the basis that the records related to a matter of public interest. Energy denied the request for a fee waiver. The Adjudicator decided that the records relate to a matter of a public interest and reduced the fees to zero.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-02
|
January 17, 2014 |
Medicine Hat Police Service
This inquiry was requested by the applicant to address the Medicine Hat Police Service’s (MHPS) decision to withhold information in…
[More]
This inquiry was requested by the applicant to address the Medicine Hat Police Service’s (MHPS) decision to withhold information in records provided in response to one request, and the decision to deny the applicant’s request for a fee waiver with respect to a second request. The first request was for access to records relating to an incident involving the applicant and another individual. MHPS located responsive records, but withheld information under section 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), section 20 (disclosure harmful to law enforcement) and section 27(1)(c) (information in correspondence between a lawyer and another person) of FOIP. MHPS also determined that some records were not subject to the Act by application of section 4(1)(a). The second request was held in abeyance in order to allow MHPS time to review the applicant’s request and determine whether further fees will be charged. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.
|
|
FOIP |
2014 |
|
F2014-01
|
January 14, 2014 |
City of Camrose
The applicant asked the City of Camrose for access to a full copy of a complaint letter regarding a business…
[More]
The applicant asked the City of Camrose for access to a full copy of a complaint letter regarding a business run by the applicant. The City of Camrose provided a copy of the complaint letter but severed names and contact information of the complainants under section 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of FOIP. The Adjudicator determined that a small amount of the withheld information was not personal information of third parties that could be withheld under section 17 and ordered City of Camrose to disclose that information.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-55
|
December 24, 2013 |
Workers' Compensation Board
An individual made a complaint that the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) collected, used and disclosed her personal information in contravention…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) collected, used and disclosed her personal information in contravention of Part 2 of FOIP when it relied on the opinion of medical consultants in making a determination regarding her claim. The Adjudicator agreed with WCB that it had authority to collect, use, and disclose the complainant’s personal information, including the collection, use and disclosure by the medical consultants.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-54
|
December 24, 2013 |
Workers' Compensation Board
The applicant made an access request to the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) for records relating to him and his WCB…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) for records relating to him and his WCB claim. WCB provided a fee estimate of $955. The applicant requested a fee waiver on grounds that the records relate to a matter of public interest (section 93(4)(b)) and on the grounds that the applicant could not afford the fees (section 93(4)(a)). WCB declined the fee waiver. The Adjudicator determined that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence for a fee waiver under section 93.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
JR
|
F2013-53
|
December 24, 2013 |
City of Edmonton
The applicant made a request to the City of Edmonton for access to all records relating to herself or her…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the City of Edmonton for access to all records relating to herself or her property. The City of Edmonton informed the applicant that her request under FOIP was for general information, not personal information, and was therefore subject to a $25 initial fee. The Adjudicator found that the City of Edmonton did not meet the timelines required under the Act, and that it did not meet its duty to assist the applicant because it failed to properly define her request. The Adjudicator determined that the applicant’s request was a request for personal information and is therefore not subject to the $25 initial fee. The Adjudicator also found that the City of Edmonton did not consider all of the relevant factors in withholding information in the responsive records under section 17 of FOIP.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2013 |
JR
|
F2013-52
|
December 19, 2013 |
Workers' Compensation Board
An individual made a complaint that the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) had collected and used information regarding an injury unrelated…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) had collected and used information regarding an injury unrelated to his claim and disclosed it to his employer in contravention of Part 2 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that WCB contravened Part 2 of FOIP when it provided the complainant’s claim file to his employer for its use in a hearing before the WCB Appeals Commission.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-51
|
December 13, 2013 |
Human Rights and Citizenship Commission
The applicant made an access request to the Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (HRCC) for records containing information about a…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (HRCC) for records containing information about a human rights complaint she had made against the University of Calgary. HRCC provided responsive records, but severed information under sections 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), 18 (disclosure harmful to individual or public safety), 20 (disclosure harmful to law enforcement), and 27 (privileged information) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that sections 18, 20, and 27 had not been shown to apply to the information that had been withheld. The Adjudicator ordered HRCC to make new decisions regarding section 17.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
JR
|
F2013-50 & H2013-03
|
November 26, 2013 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for a copy of all records containing information relating…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for a copy of all records containing information relating to her arising from a complaint she had made about Covenant Health’s decision to impose visitation restrictions on her. AHS disclosed some information to the applicant, but withheld other information from the Applicant under section 11 of HIA, and sections 17 and 24 of FOIP. The applicant also made a privacy complaint about the disclosure of her personal information. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order, including that HIA did not apply.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-49
|
November 21, 2013 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG declared the request abandoned under section 8 of…
[More]
The applicant made an access request Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG declared the request abandoned under section 8 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the applicant had provided information to JSG in order to process the request, and that JSG therefore improperly declared the access request abandoned.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-48
|
November 18, 2013 |
University of Calgary
The applicant made a request to the University of Calgary (U of C) for correspondence from a professor about the…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the University of Calgary (U of C) for correspondence from a professor about the applicant’s doctoral thesis, and letters or emails from the professor and the Faculty of Graduate Studies regarding the Applicant’s thesis, and the professor’s comments regarding the applicant’s thesis. The professor objected to the U of C's decision to disclose the records to the applicant. The Adjudicator confirmed the U of C's decision to disclose the records, as sections 16 and 17 of FOIP did not apply.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
JR
|
F2013-47
|
November 8, 2013 |
Health
The applicant requested from Health a copy of the agreement between Health and Alberta Blue Cross (ABC) under which ABC…
[More]
The applicant requested from Health a copy of the agreement between Health and Alberta Blue Cross (ABC) under which ABC administers the provincial drugs plan. Health produced the agreement but severed some information under sections 16 (disclosure harmful to business interests) and 25 (disclosure harmful to economic and other interests) of FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Health to disclose the agreement in its entirety.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-46
|
October 31, 2013 |
Out-of-Country Health Services Committee
The applicant requested records from the Out-of-Country Health Services Committee about a decision she believes it made. The health services…
[More]
The applicant requested records from the Out-of-Country Health Services Committee about a decision she believes it made. The health services committee refused to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records pursuant to section 12(2) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the personal privacy of the third party would not be unreasonably invaded if the health services committee were required to respond to the request without relying on section 12(2)(b).
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-45
|
October 31, 2013 |
Out-of-Country Health Services Committee
The applicant requested records from the Out-of-Country Health Services Committee about a decision she believes it made. The health services…
[More]
The applicant requested records from the Out-of-Country Health Services Committee about a decision she believes it made. The health services committee refused to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records pursuant to section 12(2) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the personal privacy of the third party would not be unreasonably invaded if the health services committee were required to respond to the request without relying on section 12(2)(b).
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-44
|
October 31, 2013 |
Justice and Solicitor General
In response to an access request, Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) requested additional information from the applicant. The applicant requested…
[More]
In response to an access request, Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) requested additional information from the applicant. The applicant requested a review before JSG had responded. The Adjudicator found that JSG met its section 10 duty to assist under FOIP. Though JSG declined to process the request, this was because the applicant had not provided the information the JSG had requested from her that was necessary for it to process the request.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-43
|
October 30, 2013 |
Education
The applicant made an access request to Education for communications between staff, the minister and a named individual. Education provided…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Education for communications between staff, the minister and a named individual. Education provided a fee estimate of $792.50 for the records. The applicant requested a fee waiver for inability to pay and because the request is in the public interest under section 93 of FOIP. Education refused the fee waiver. The Adjudicator found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to find that the fees for the records should be waived in the public interest. However, for reasons of fairness, the Adjudicator waived the fees as the Minister of Education denounced the applicant publicly which the Adjudicator said could create a "chilling effect".
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-42
|
October 24, 2013 |
Calgary Roman Catholic Separate School District
The applicant made an access request to Calgary Roman Catholic Separate School District No. 1 (CRCSSD) for all records relating…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Calgary Roman Catholic Separate School District No. 1 (CRCSSD) for all records relating to him. CRCSSD responded but withheld some records pursuant to section 27(1)(a) (privilege) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that CRCSSD met its duty to perform an adequate search pursuant to section 10(1) of FOIP. The Adjudicator also found that CRCSSD properly applied section 27(1)(a) of the Act to the records at issue.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-41
|
October 24, 2013 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made a request for everything contained in his student file from a college run by Justice and Solicitor…
[More]
The applicant made a request for everything contained in his student file from a college run by Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG responded but severed information as non-responsive and pursuant to sections 4(1)(g) (question that is to be used on a test), 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), and 26 (testing procedures, tests and audits) of FOIP. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-40
|
October 24, 2013 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for records relating to a written reprimand that…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for records relating to a written reprimand that was issued to him while he was attending a program run by JSG. The Adjudicator found that JSG performed an adequate search for responsive records and, therefore, satisfied its obligations under section 10 of FOIP. The Adjudicator further found that JSG properly severed personal information of third parties from the responsive records pursuant to section 17 of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-39
|
October 24, 2013 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant requested records from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) relating to a complaint he had made to JSG. JSG…
[More]
The applicant requested records from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) relating to a complaint he had made to JSG. JSG responded but severed records pursuant to sections 17 and 26 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that JSG had met its obligations under section 10 of FOIP, but had improperly applied sections 17 and 26 of the Act to the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-38
|
October 11, 2013 |
F2013-38
An individual complained that Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) used or disclosed his personal information in contravention of FOIP when…
[More]
An individual complained that Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) used or disclosed his personal information in contravention of FOIP when a JSG employee sent his name and examination mark to two other JSG employees. The complainant also alleged JSG did not make adequate security arrangements when it emailed the information. The Adjudicator found that JSG had used and disclosed the complainant’s personal information for a purpose that was consistent with the purpose for which it was collected and, therefore, complied with sections 39 and 40 of FOIP. JSG had also made reasonable security arrangements in accordance with section 38 of the Act.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-37
|
October 8, 2013 |
Environment and Sustainable Resource Development
A third party requested a review of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development’s (ESRD) decision to release records to an applicant…
[More]
A third party requested a review of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development's (ESRD) decision to release records to an applicant that the third party had objected to. The third party argued the records were subject to sections 16, 20 and 27 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that sections 16, 20, and 27 did not apply and confirmed ESRD's decision.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-36
|
October 3, 2013 |
Calgary Roman Catholic Separate School District
The applicant made a request for access to the Calgary Roman Catholic Separate School District #1 (CRCSSD) for personal information.…
[More]
The applicant made a request for access to the Calgary Roman Catholic Separate School District #1 (CRCSSD) for personal information. CRCSSD located records containing responsive information but withheld the identification number of another employee and the name of a trade union from the records under section 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of FOIP. The Adjudicator confirmed the decision of CRCSSD to withhold the information it had severed under section 17, and noted that the information was non-responsive in any event.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-35
|
October 3, 2013 |
Evergreen Regional Waste Management Services Commission
The applicant requested from Evergreen Regional Waste Management Services Commission video footage and reports relating to an inspection of a…
[More]
The applicant requested from Evergreen Regional Waste Management Services Commission video footage and reports relating to an inspection of a landfill. The commission advised the applicant that it could obtain certain responsive records from its contractor for a cost of $550, which the applicant was asked to pay. The Adjudicator found that the commission performed an adequate search for responsive records but either failed to respond to the applicant’s access request as required by FOIP or failed to meet its duty under section 10 of the Act to assist the applicant. The Adjudicator also found that the commission properly exercised its discretion to refuse the applicant’s request for a fee waiver.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-34
|
October 2, 2013 |
University of Alberta
The applicant made a request to the University of Alberta (U of A) for information relating to a former student…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the University of Alberta (U of A) for information relating to a former student of his who had complained about him. The U of A responded but severed information pursuant to sections 17 and 24 of FOIP and removed information from some of the records that was not responsive to the request. The Adjudicator found that the U of A properly severed some, but not all, information pursuant to section 17 of FOIP. The Adjudicator also found that the U of A properly applied section 24(1)(b) of FOIP to the records and properly withheld limited information that was not responsive to the applicant’s request.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-32 & F2013-33
|
October 2, 2013 |
City of Edmonton
On judicial review, Orders F2009-19 and F2009-20 were quashed and remitted and reconsidered in this order. In this order, the…
[More]
On judicial review, Orders F2009-19 and F2009-20 were quashed and remitted and reconsidered in this order. In this order, the Adjudicator found that building plans were not personal information and the City of Edmonton had not contravened Part 2 of FOIP when it disclosed the complainant’s building plans to her neighbor. The Adjudicator also found that the Subdivision Development Appeal Board (SDAB) was a public body and that the City of Edmonton was not required to search for records in SDAB’s custody and control in order to satisfy the City of Edmonton’s duty under section 10(1) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-31
|
October 2, 2013 |
Central Alberta Child and Family Services Authority
An individual complained that the Central Alberta Child and Family Services Authority (Region 4) collected, used, and disclosed her personal…
[More]
An individual complained that the Central Alberta Child and Family Services Authority (Region 4) collected, used, and disclosed her personal information in contravention of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the purpose for which the family services authority collected the complainant’s personal information was to manage employees, and that the use of disclosure was of the complainant's personal information were consistent with this purpose under FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-30
|
September 26, 2013 |
University of Calgary
The applicant made an access request to the University of Calgary (U of C) for his percentile ranking within his…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the University of Calgary (U of C) for his percentile ranking within his class at the business school. The U of C said that the requested record did not exist and could not be created. The Adjudicator found that the U of C was able to create the requested record under section 10(2), based on evidence showing that the U of C had a practice of determining the top 10% of students.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-29
|
September 20, 2013 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant asked Edmonton Police Service (EPS) to correct the status of the police investigation by classifying it as “closed”,…
[More]
The applicant asked Edmonton Police Service (EPS) to correct the status of the police investigation by classifying it as “closed”, and to correct the nature of his involvement in that investigation. The Adjudicator found that EPS properly refused to correct the information, as it consisted of opinions that a public body must not correct under section 36(2) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-28
|
September 13, 2013 |
Lethbridge College
The applicant made an access request to Lethbridge College for anonymous surveys completed by team members of the women’s volleyball…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Lethbridge College for anonymous surveys completed by team members of the women’s volleyball team about coaching staff, and related documentation. Lethbridge College located responsive records, but withheld them under sections 17, (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), 18, (disclosure harmful to individual or public safety) and 24(1)(b) (consultations and deliberations). The Adjudicator disagreed with most of Lethbridge College's decisions, and ordered it to disclose the information in the records to the applicant, with the exception of a name, email address and comment that would enable identification.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-27
|
September 11, 2013 |
Justice and Solicitor General
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for information on the winning vendors on a…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for information on the winning vendors on a request for proposal. JSG provided a fee estimate of $384.25. The Adjudicator found that in most instances, JSG did not justify its use of the maximum fees allowable to calculate its fee estimate and did not properly calculate the fees. JSG was ordered to recalculate the estimated fees.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-26
|
August 28, 2013 |
East Central Alberta Child and Family Services Authority (Region 5)
An individual complained that the East Central Alberta Child and Family Services Authority (Region 5) disclosed her personal information as…
[More]
An individual complained that the East Central Alberta Child and Family Services Authority (Region 5) disclosed her personal information as well as that of her current spouse and their child to her former husband contrary to FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the family services authority had the authority to disclose the information pursuant to section 126(1)(b) of the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act and section 40(1)(f) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-25
|
August 28, 2013 |
Edmonton and Area Child and Family Services Authority
An individual complained that Edmonton and Area Child and Family Services Authority (Region 6) disclosed her personal information to her…
[More]
An individual complained that Edmonton and Area Child and Family Services Authority (Region 6) disclosed her personal information to her former husband. The Adjudicator found that the family services authority did not disclose the complainant’s personal information to her former husband as she alleged.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
JR
|
F2013-24 & H2013-02
|
August 16, 2013 |
Covenant Health
The applicant made an access request for her personal information from Covenant Health so that she could learn the reasons…
[More]
The applicant made an access request for her personal information from Covenant Health so that she could learn the reasons for being banned from its premises and having restrictions imposed on her visiting privileges. The Adjudicator determined that HIA did not apply to the information withheld by Covenant Health as it was not health information. The Adjudicator found that section 17 of FOIP was improperly applied as the personal information was necessary for a fair determination of the applicant’s rights and most of the personal information was about an individual acting in a representative capacity. The Adjudicator upheld most of Covenant Health's decisions under section 24 of FOIP. Covenant Health was ordered to conduct a new search for records.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-23
|
August 9, 2013 |
City of Lethbridge
The applicant asked the City of Lethbridge for documents regarding information about certain investments and minutes of in camera meetings.…
[More]
The applicant asked the City of Lethbridge for documents regarding information about certain investments and minutes of in camera meetings. The City of Lethbridge gave the Applicant access to most of the requested information, but withheld portions of the meeting minutes under section 23 (local public body confidences) and section 24 (advice). The Adjudicator upheld most decisions made by the City of Lethbridge to withhold information in the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-22
|
July 18, 2013 |
Southwest Alberta Child and Family Services Authority
An individual made a complaint that the Southwest Alberta Child and Family Services Authority (Region 1) disclosed her personal information…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that the Southwest Alberta Child and Family Services Authority (Region 1) disclosed her personal information at a meeting preliminary to a guardianship hearing, in contravention of Part 2 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the affidavit containing the complainant's personal information had been filed with the Provincial Court of Alberta prior to it having been copied and provided to other individuals. Therefore, the information in the affidavit is excluded from the scope of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-21
|
June 28, 2013 |
Edmonton and Area Child and Family Services Authority
Three individuals, a mother and her two daughters, made a complaint that the Edmonton and Area Child and Family Services…
[More]
Three individuals, a mother and her two daughters, made a complaint that the Edmonton and Area Child and Family Services Authority disclosed their personal information to the younger daughter’s father in contravention of FOIP when it provided copies of two records to him. The Adjudicator determined that the family services authority was authorized under FOIP to disclose the findings of the investigation regarding the allegations of abuse, as the disclosure had been made for the same purpose for which the personal information had been collected. However, the Adjudicator found that the family services authority was not authorized to disclose all the personal information in the assessment report about the older daughter or the mother.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-20
|
June 28, 2013 |
Workers' Compensation Board
The applicant made an access request to the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) for statistics regarding the number of appeals conducted…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) for statistics regarding the number of appeals conducted by a dispute resolution body addressing a specific policy and correspondence about the provision of services at Millard Health. WCB said it did not have statistics and it withheld all of the correspondence under sections 17, 24 and 27 of FOIP. The Adjudicator confirmed WCB's decision that it did not have to create a record of statistics for the applicant and found most of the correspondence was not responsive to the applicant's request.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-19
|
June 7, 2013 |
Human Services
The applicant asked Human Services for information about children who have died while in the care of the province. Human…
[More]
The applicant asked Human Services for information about children who have died while in the care of the province. Human Services provided access to some of the requested information, but withheld other information under section 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) and section 24 (advice). The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order, and ordered the release of some of the withheld information. Human Services was also ordered to reconsider its discretion with respect to information withheld under section 24.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-18
|
June 14, 2013 |
Covenant Health
The applicant requested an incident report and records from Covenant Health containing information relating to her being banned from a…
[More]
The applicant requested an incident report and records from Covenant Health containing information relating to her being banned from a hospital. As no formal decision had been made to ban the applicant, Covenant Health argued that no responsive records existed and that it had met its duty to assist her. The Adjudicator determined that Covenant Health had not taken steps to clarify the ambiguous portions of the access request, and had adopted an overly restrictive interpretation of the applicant’s access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-17
|
May 31, 2013 |
City of Calgary
The Applicant requested records from the City of Calgary relating to specified retaining walls. The City of Calgary withheld information…
[More]
The Applicant requested records from the City of Calgary relating to specified retaining walls. The City of Calgary withheld information on the basis of sections 16 (disclosure harmful to third party business interests), 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), 24 (advice from officials), and 27 (privileged information) of FOIP. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-16
|
May 13, 2013 |
Health
The applicant asked Health for water well information consisting of water chemistry and microbiological data. In Order F2012-14, the Adjudicator…
[More]
The applicant asked Health for water well information consisting of water chemistry and microbiological data. In Order F2012-14, the Adjudicator found that neither section 16(1) nor section 17(1) of FOIP applied to the information. Subsequent to the release of Order F2012-14, Health admitted that there was additional information responsive to the applicant’s access and the Adjudicator ordered Health to disclose the additional responsive information. The Adjudicator also ordered Health, where possible, to provide the responsive information to the applicant electronically, rather than in the form of paper copies.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-15
|
May 7, 2013 |
Health
The applicant requested access to documents regarding a complaint he had made to Health. Health released records responsive to the…
[More]
The applicant requested access to documents regarding a complaint he had made to Health. Health released records responsive to the applicant’s request, but it refused to confirm or deny the existence of any additional records regarding the complaint pursuant to section 12(2)(a) of FOIP. The Adjudicator did not accept Health’s application of section 12(2) to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records, and ordered Health to respond to the applicant without relying on this provision.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-14
|
April 22, 2013 |
Energy Resources Conservation Board
Three individuals made complaints that the Energy Resources Conservation Board used and disclosed their personal information in contravention of FOIP…
[More]
Three individuals made complaints that the Energy Resources Conservation Board used and disclosed their personal information in contravention of FOIP when it issued a decision in relation to well license review proceedings initiated by them (from which they had withdrawn), it included personal information that was inaccurate or incomplete. The Adjudicator found that the ERCB’s use and disclosure of the Complainants’ personal information had been in compliance with FOIP, with the exception of its disclosure of the complainants’ personal medical information contained in a notice to persons present in the hearing room. The Adjudicator decided that section 35 of FOIP (ensuring accuracy of information) generally had no application to quasi-judicial proceedings.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
JR
|
F2013-13
|
April 15, 2013 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant made a request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for access to information about an investigation into events…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for access to information about an investigation into events involving a police officer that took place on Whyte Avenue in front of police and civilian witnesses and led to criminal charges against the police officer and a disciplinary hearing. EPS provided portions of the disciplinary decision but withheld information under sections 4, 17, 20, 24 and 27. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order. EPS applied for judicial review of the Adjudicator's notice to produce some records to which EPS claimed solicitor-client privilege applied.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2013 |
JR
|
F2013-12
|
April 15, 2013 |
Calgary Police Service
An individual made a complaint that the Calgary Police Service (CPS) had disclosed her personal information in contravention of FOIP…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that the Calgary Police Service (CPS) had disclosed her personal information in contravention of FOIP when a police officer had provided a collision report in its entirety to a driver with whom she had been involved in a collision. The Adjudicator found that the disclosure of some of the information was authorized by section 11(2.1)(a) of the Traffic Safety Act. However, the Adjudicator found that by providing the entire collision report, the police officer had disclosed more of the complainant’s personal information than was necessary for meeting CPS' stated purpose in disclosing the complainant’s personal information.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2013 |
JR
|
F2013-11
|
April 12, 2013 |
Workers' Compensation Board
An individual made a complaint that the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) had disclosed his personal information to a workers’ compensation…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) had disclosed his personal information to a workers’ compensation representative on the Appeals Commission who was not his representative. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-10
|
April 10, 2013 |
Pembina Hills Regional Division
The applicant asked Pembina Hills Regional Division No. 7 (PHRD) for information relating to a former superintendent’s employment, leaves of…
[More]
The applicant asked Pembina Hills Regional Division No. 7 (PHRD) for information relating to a former superintendent’s employment, leaves of absence, the termination of his employment, any investigations of him and any complaints about him. PHRD assessed fees of approximately $4,000 in order to process the request. The applicant requested a fee waiver on the basis of public interest, but PHRD refused to grant one. The Adjudicator found that the applicant was entitled to a partial fee waiver, on the basis that 50% of the records requested by him related to a matter of public interest under section 93(4) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-09
|
March 13, 2013 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant requested a copy of his personal information in the possession of the Calgary Police Service (CPS). CPS responded…
[More]
The applicant requested a copy of his personal information in the possession of the Calgary Police Service (CPS). CPS responded to the applicant’s request but severed information from the responsive records pursuant to sections 17 and 20(1) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that CPS properly applied section 17 of FOIP to much of the information it severed, with the exception of licence plate numbers, information about a corrections officer acting in his official capacity and some information about a dispute the applicant was having with his neighbour. With regard to some of the information, the Adjudicator found that CPS did not properly weigh the section 17(5) factors and CPS was ordered to reconsider its severing decisions.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-08
|
March 13, 2013 |
Calgary and Area Child and Family Services Authority
The applicant made an access request to Calgary and Area Child and Family Services Authority for information that the family…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Calgary and Area Child and Family Services Authority for information that the family services authority had regarding an investigation it conducted involving the applicant and his wife. The family services authority responded but severed information pursuant to sections 17 and 27 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found, with the exception of information that was provided by the Applicant, the family services authority properly applied section 17 of FOIP. The Adjudicator also stated that section 27 of FOIP applied to information that would reveal the identity of the individual who reported a child in need pursuant to section 126.1 of the Child, Youth, and Family Enhancement Act..
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-07
|
March 1, 2013 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant requested information about an employee whose employment was terminated by Alberta Health Services. AHS responded to the request…
[More]
The applicant requested information about an employee whose employment was terminated by Alberta Health Services. AHS responded to the request by creating a list of 45 employees terminated in a particular month. AHS refused access to this record under section 17 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found the record was not responsive to the request, and ordered AHS to respond again to the applicant’s request by taking into account the context of the request.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-06
|
February 15, 2013 |
Service Alberta
An individual made a complaint that an employee of Sentinel Registry Ltd. (Sentinel Registry) had disclosed the complainant’s address in…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that an employee of Sentinel Registry Ltd. (Sentinel Registry) had disclosed the complainant’s address in contravention of PIPA. In preliminary decision F2012-D-02, P2012-D-01 & M2012-D-01, the Adjudicator determined that FOIP applied to the complaint. The Adjudicator determined that the complainant’s personal information had been disclosed by a registry employee without authorization. The Adjudicator also found that Service Alberta had not taken adequate measures to monitor the manner in which Sentinel Registry employees accessed personal information from the MOVES database.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-05
|
February 12, 2013 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant requested from the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) all records relating to her deceased son. The Public Body disclosed…
[More]
The applicant requested from the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) all records relating to her deceased son. The Public Body disclosed most of the file relating to the son’s death, with some information severed, and withheld some of the criminal file pursuant to section 17 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that section 4(1)(a) applied to five pages of the records at issue and were excluded from FOIP. The Adjudicator also found that EPS did not properly apply section 17 to some parts of the withheld information.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-04
|
January 31, 2013 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant asked the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) to correct references in its electronic records management system indicating that he…
[More]
The applicant asked the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) to correct references in its electronic records management system indicating that he was a “suspect chargeable” and that he had been involved in an occurrence type identified as assault with a weapon or assault causing bodily harm. The Adjudicator found that EPS properly refused to correct the information, as it constituted an opinion that a public body must not correct under section 36(2) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-03
|
January 31, 2013 |
Leduc County
The applicant asked Leduc County for copies of any complaints made by others about her, and various other information. Leduc…
[More]
The applicant asked Leduc County for copies of any complaints made by others about her, and various other information. Leduc County withheld some of the requested information under sections 17(1), 19(2) and 27(1)(c)(iii) of FOIP. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-02
|
January 29, 2013 |
Grande Yellowhead Public School Division
Individuals made a complaint that the Grande Yellowhead Public School Division No. 77 (GYPSD) disclosed their personal information to the…
[More]
Individuals made a complaint that the Grande Yellowhead Public School Division No. 77 (GYPSD) disclosed their personal information to the Alberta Teachers' Association in contravention of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that an implied undertaking not to use information disclosed through a pre-trial discovery process applied to much of the information at issue. The Adjudicator also found that if the information at issue was disclosed to the ATA by the GYPSD, it was permitted to do so pursuant to section 40(1)(b) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2013 |
|
F2013-01
|
January 11, 2013 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant made an ongoing request the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for copies of disciplinary decisions beginning from the time…
[More]
The applicant made an ongoing request the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for copies of disciplinary decisions beginning from the time that EPS stopped posting the decisions on its website. EPS responded to the applicant, severing a large portion of the requested records in accordance with section 17 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that in its decision as to whether to withhold or disclose the records responsive to the request, EPS had not taken into account all the factors that are relevant to the question, most notably the factor that the disciplinary decisions in this inquiry were read aloud, publicly, at the conclusion of the hearings.
|
|
FOIP |
2012 |
|
F2012-28
|
November 30, 2012 |
Edmonton Police Service
An individual made a complaint that his name and licence plate number had been used to run queries on police…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that his name and licence plate number had been used to run queries on police information systems by various members of the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). The complainant alleged that for some of the queries that had been conducted, EPS had lacked the authorization required by section 39 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the queries in relation to the complainant had been shown to be authorized for all but one occasion.
|
|
FOIP |
2012 |
|
F2012-27
|
November 29, 2012 |
Holy Family Catholic Regional Division
An individual complained that the Holy Family Catholic Regional Division No. 37 (HFCRD) disclosed his personal information in contravention of…
[More]
An individual complained that the Holy Family Catholic Regional Division No. 37 (HFCRD) disclosed his personal information in contravention of FOIP when a lawyer revealed information to the complainant's lawyer about a matter before the OIPC. The Adjudicator concluded that HFCRD did not contravene FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2012 |
|
F2012-26
|
November 22, 2012 |
University of Calgary
The applicant asked the University of Calgary (U of C) for access to a response to a letter that she…
[More]
The applicant asked the University of Calgary (U of C) for access to a response to a letter that she had sent to it, which response she believed to be in existence but had not received. She then requested a review of the adequacy of the U of C’s search for the response. The Adjudicator concluded that the U of C had conducted an adequate search for the response, and moreover, had located it and provided it to the applicant. The U of C also provided a responsive record but severed information under section 17 of FOIP. The Adjudicator upheld most of the U of C's decisions to withhold information under section 17.
|
|
FOIP |
2012 |
|
F2012-25 & H2012-02
|
October 25, 2012 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant requested access from Alberta Health Services (AHS) to records containing information about a paternity test she and her…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Alberta Health Services (AHS) to records containing information about a paternity test she and her former husband had undergone in relation to her daughter. She also requested access to the DNA samples themselves. AHS decided that HIA applied to the access request, and it denied the request on the basis that the paternity test contained the health information of two individuals other than the applicant. The Adjudicator decided that the HIA did not apply on the basis that a paternity test is not a health service. The Adjudicator found that it would not be an unreasonable invasion of the former husband’s personal privacy to disclose the information in the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2012 |
|
F2012-24
|
October 15, 2012 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicants made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for a police file concerning the investigation into…
[More]
The applicants made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for a police file concerning the investigation into the death of their daughter. EPS responded by providing a report that summarized the investigation, but withheld the greatest part of the file, relying on section 17 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) and section 21(1)(b) (information supplied by a government) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that EPS had not taken some important factors into consideration in making its decision to withhold the records. The first was that the applicants needed as much information as possible, on a compassionate basis, to enable them to deal with their daughter’s death.
|
|
FOIP |
2012 |
|
F2012-23
|
September 28, 2012 |
Corporate Human Resources
An individual complained that Corporate Human Resources (CHR) had improperly collected from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) her personal information…
[More]
An individual complained that Corporate Human Resources (CHR) had improperly collected from Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) her personal information contained in three letters, and had improperly provided a third party business with this personal information. The Adjudicator found that CHR's collection of the complainant's personal information was authorized by FOIP. However, the disclosure of the complainant's personal information to the third party contravened FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2012 |
|
F2012-22
|
September 28, 2012 |
Justice and Solicitor General
An individual complained that Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) had improperly disclosed to Corporate Human Resources (CHR) her personal information…
[More]
An individual complained that Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) had improperly disclosed to Corporate Human Resources (CHR) her personal information contained in three letters. The Adjudicator found that JSG had the authority to disclose the complainant’s personal information under section 40(1)(x) of FOIP, on the basis that the disclosure was for the purpose of managing or administering personnel.
|
|
FOIP |
2012 |
|
F2012-21
|
September 21, 2012 |
High Prairie School Division
The applicant asked High Prairie School Division No. 48 (HPSD) for his daughter’s school counseling record. HPSD withheld some information…
[More]
The applicant asked High Prairie School Division No. 48 (HPSD) for his daughter’s school counseling record. HPSD withheld some information under section 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) and section 27 (privileged information) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the daughter supplied information in confidence and confirmed HPSD's decision to withhold that information from the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2012 |
|
F2012-20
|
July 31, 2012 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant requested records about an incident, including a copy of a video, from the Calgary Police Service (CPS). CPS…
[More]
The applicant requested records about an incident, including a copy of a video, from the Calgary Police Service (CPS). CPS denied access to the video under section 17 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the personal information had been supplied to CPS by the applicant and that CPS had already disclosed the contents of the video in the paper records it had supplied to the applicant, and that these contained greater detail than that provided by the video itself. The Adjudicator decided that these factors outweighed the presumption that it would be an unreasonable invasion of the third party’s personal privacy to disclose the video.
|
|
FOIP |
2012 |
|
F2012-19
|
July 31, 2012 |
Environment
The applicant made an access request to Environment for a specified files. Environment responded that there were no records that…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Environment for a specified files. Environment responded that there were no records that were responsive to the applicant’s request. The Applicant sent a follow-up letter on September 15, 2010. The applicant argued that Environment ought to have had responsive records. The Adjudicator found that Environment had conducted an adequate search for records pursuant to the applicant’s initial access request, but that it had not responded to the applicant openly, accurately and completely, as required under section 10(1) of FOIP, with respect to his follow-up letter.
|
|
FOIP |
2012 |
|
F2012-18
|
July 23, 2012 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant requested from Calgary Police Service (CPS) a copy of a file relating to an investigation into allegations of…
[More]
The applicant requested from Calgary Police Service (CPS) a copy of a file relating to an investigation into allegations of wrongdoing by her deceased son. CPS responded to the applicant’s request, initially, by providing the applicant with portions of a related file, and eventually by providing the applicant with portions of the file requested, but withheld some information under section 17 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the applicant was not the personal representative of her deceased son, and that information was properly withheld under section 17.
|
|
FOIP |
2012 |
|
F2012-17
|
July 16, 2012 |
Treasury Board and Finance
The applicant made a request to Treasury Board and Finance (TBF) for records regarding a pension plan. A third party,…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Treasury Board and Finance (TBF) for records regarding a pension plan. A third party, the pension plan administrator, objected to the disclosure of the records to the applicant. TBF withheld information from the records under sections 16, (information harmful to business interests), 17, (information harmful to personal privacy), and 24 (advice from officials) of FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered TBF to disclose the information it had withheld, except for the personal information the Adjudicator identified in the record.
|
|
FOIP |
2012 |
|
F2012-16
|
July 11, 2012 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant requested a fee waiver for records relating to staffing shortfalls or deficiencies at the South Calgary Hospital. The…
[More]
The applicant requested a fee waiver for records relating to staffing shortfalls or deficiencies at the South Calgary Hospital. The fee waiver was denied by Alberta Health Services (AHS) under FOIP. The applicant argued that the fees should be waived in the public interest under section 93(4)(b) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to find that the fees for the records should be waived in the public interest. However, the Adjudicator found that the evidence provided by AHS did not justify the number of hours charged for locating and retrieving the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2012 |
|
F2012-15
|
June 30, 2012 |
Transportation
The applicant requested information from Transportation related to certain highway maintenance contracts between Transportation and a named highway maintenance contractor. The…
[More]
The applicant requested information from Transportation related to certain highway maintenance contracts between Transportation and a named highway maintenance contractor. The applicant argued that Transportation had missed its deadline to provide the responsive records. The applicant also requested a review of the Transportation’s decision to withhold information under sections 16, 24, 25 and 27 of FOIP. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.
|
|
FOIP |
2012 |
|
F2012-14
|
June 29, 2012 |
Health
The applicant asked Health for water well information from 1986 to the present, which consisted of water chemistry and microbiological…
[More]
The applicant asked Health for water well information from 1986 to the present, which consisted of water chemistry and microbiological data. Health withheld the requested information under section 17(1) of FOIP, on the basis that its disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of third parties. While not actually applying section 16(1), Health also raised the possibility that the requested information fell within the exception to disclosure set out in that section, on the basis that disclosure of the information might harm the business interests of third parties. The Adjudicator found that Health did not properly apply exceptions to access the information.
|
|
FOIP |
2012 |
|
F2012-13
|
June 22, 2012 |
University of Calgary
The applicant requested records located in the sexual harassment office of the University of Calgary (U of C) concerning a…
[More]
The applicant requested records located in the sexual harassment office of the University of Calgary (U of C) concerning a third party. The U of C informed the applicant that it had identified responsive records in the sexual harassment office regarding a complaint made about him but that it was withholding these records under sections 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) and 18 (disclosure harmful to individual or public safety) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the U of C had met its duties to the applicant under section 12 (contents of a response) and that disclosure of the information in the records at issue would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of the third party.
|
|
FOIP |
2012 |
|
F2012-12
|
May 15, 2012 |
Human Services
The applicant made an access request to Human Services for copies of all documents and correspondence pertaining to him. The…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Human Services for copies of all documents and correspondence pertaining to him. The applicant had been terminated from his employment with Human Services. The Adjudicator found that Human Services properly applied most exceptions to access information.
|
|
FOIP |
2012 |
|
F2012-11
|
May 14, 2012 |
County of Thorhild
The applicant requested a copy of the County of Thorhild’s cheque register report for the year 2010. She also requested…
[More]
The applicant requested a copy of the County of Thorhild’s cheque register report for the year 2010. She also requested copies of two cheques issued to two individuals as refunds of their utility deposits. The County of Thorhild provided the cheque register report, but severed the names of individuals and the amounts refunded to them on the basis of section 17 (information harmful to personal privacy) of FOIP. The County of Thorhild withheld the cheques and their accompanying vouchers in their entirety. The Adjudicator confirmed the decision of the County of Thorhild to withhold the names, signatures, addresses, the vendor identification numbers, and the utility and bank account numbers of third parties from the records. The Adjudicator ordered the County of Thorhild to disclose the remaining information, including the amounts refunded, to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2012 |
|
F2012-10
|
April 30, 2012 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant made a request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for her personal information. AHS located records responsive to the…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for her personal information. AHS located records responsive to the request, but withheld some of these records under section 24 (advice from officials) and section 27 (privileged information) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that AHS did not properly apply all of the exceptions.
|
|
FOIP |
2012 |
JR
|
F2012-09
|
April 30, 2012 |
Alberta Treasury Branches
The applicant made a request to Alberta Treasury Branches (ATB) for access to records containing information about the number of…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Alberta Treasury Branches (ATB) for access to records containing information about the number of ATB employees excluded from the bargaining unit, the number of classifications excluded from the bargaining unit, policies regarding classification, and job descriptions of excluded positions. The Adjudicator found that there were two categories of records relating to ATB that are subject to FOIP: records in the custody or control of ATB that are not in the custody or control of a treasury branch, and records in the control of a treasury branch that document a non-arm’s length transaction as defined by FOIP. As the Adjudicator determined that ATB had not yet addressed the question of whether records in the former category might exist, the Adjudicator ordered ATB to search for such records.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2012 |
|
F2012-08
|
April 27, 2012 |
Service Alberta
The applicants requested records relating to a prosecution that Service Alberta had undertaken in relation to them. Service Alberta granted…
[More]
The applicants requested records relating to a prosecution that Service Alberta had undertaken in relation to them. Service Alberta granted access to records but withheld information under sections 17 (information harmful to personal privacy), 24 (advice from officials), and 27 (privileged information) of FOIP. It also indicated that it considered some records to be exempt from the application of FOIP under sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(l)(ii), or on the basis that they were not responsive to the applicants’ access request. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.
|
|
FOIP |
2012 |
|
F2012-07
|
April 20, 2012 |
Calgary Police Service
An individual made a complaint stating that the Calgary Police Service (CPS) collected, used, and disclosed her personal information in…
[More]
An individual made a complaint stating that the Calgary Police Service (CPS) collected, used, and disclosed her personal information in contravention of Part 2 of FOIP, including when it accessed her personal email account using login credentials contained within a personal email on her work account. The Adjudicator noted that even were the use of the complainant’s personal information for the purpose of the workplace investigation, a public body may only use personal information to the extent necessary to carry out its purposes in a reasonable manner; logging in to the complainant’s personal web-based email account was exceptionally invasive, and patently unreasonable in the circumstances. Subsequent uses of the information collected were also unauthorized.
|
|
FOIP |
2012 |
|
F2012-06
|
March 30, 2012 |
Alberta Innovates
The applicant made a request to Alberta Innovates – Technology Futures for access to records relating to investigations regarding the…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Alberta Innovates - Technology Futures for access to records relating to investigations regarding the causes of methane contamination in water wells in specific locations. Alberta Innovates applied sections 17 (information harmful to personal privacy), 16 (information harmful to business interests), 24 (advice from officials) and 25 (disclosure harmful to economic and other interests of a public body) to withhold information from the records. Alberta Innovates also required the applicant to pay $4,125 in fees for processing the access request. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order, including ordering a complete refund of fees.
|
|
FOIP |
2012 |
|
F2012-05
|
February 10, 2012 |
Workers' Compensation Board
An individual made a complaint alleging that the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) collected, used and disclosed her personal information in…
[More]
An individual made a complaint alleging that the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) collected, used and disclosed her personal information in contravention of Part 2 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that WCB was in compliance with FOIP when it collected, used and disclosed the complainant's personal information.
|
|
FOIP |
2012 |
|
F2012-04 & H2012-01
|
January 26, 2012 |
Out-of-Country Health Services Committee
The applicant asked for copies of the minutes of meetings of the Out-of-Country Health Services Committee (OOCHSC). OOCHSC withheld some…
[More]
The applicant asked for copies of the minutes of meetings of the Out-of-Country Health Services Committee (OOCHSC). OOCHSC withheld some of the information in reliance on provisions of FOIP and HIA. The information at issue consisted of the nature of out-of-country health services requested by individuals who had asked OOCHSC for funding, their provisional diagnoses, whether funding was approved or denied, and the name of the treating hospital or treatment centre, and its geographic location, where funding was approved. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order, including finding that HIA did not apply to the information at issue.
|
|
FOIP |
2012 |
|
F2012-03
|
January 20, 2012 |
Energy Resources Conservation Board
The applicant requested from the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) “a complete copy of the General Well Data File (“GWDF”)…
[More]
The applicant requested from the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) “a complete copy of the General Well Data File (“GWDF”) as described on page 30 of the 2010 Catalogue of Publications, Maps and Services.” The applicant also requested monthly updates to the file on an ongoing basis. ERCB offers the information as a publication for purchase for $66,491, with optional monthly, quarterly, or annual updates for an additional fee. The Adjudicator determined that the requested information was available for purchase by the public, and ERCB properly exercised its discretion to withhold the information
|
|
FOIP |
2012 |
|
F2012-02
|
January 16, 2012 |
Medicine Hat Police Service
An individual made a complaint alleging that the Medicine Hat Police Service (MHPS) disclosed his personal information to his family…
[More]
An individual made a complaint alleging that the Medicine Hat Police Service (MHPS) disclosed his personal information to his family members in contravention of FOIP. The Adjudicator determined that the complainant did not provide sufficient evidence to conclude MHPS disclosed the complainant's personal information.
|
|
FOIP |
2012 |
JR
|
F2012-01
|
January 12, 2012 |
Holy Family Catholic Regional Division
An individual complained that the Holy Family Catholic Regional Division No. 37 (HFCRD) disclosed his personal information in contravention of…
[More]
An individual complained that the Holy Family Catholic Regional Division No. 37 (HFCRD) disclosed his personal information in contravention of FOIP. HFCRD conceded that it had disclosed the complainant’s personal information to RCMP by alerting it to a meeting that HFCRD was having with the complainant, who it felt was a disgruntled employee, and providing his name and age. The Adjudicator found that HFCRD disclosed the complainant's personal information in accordance with section 40(1)(ee) of FOIP, and did so only to the extent necessary to enable HFCRD to carry out that purpose in accordance with section 40(4).
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2011-R-01
|
June 10, 2011 |
University of Alberta
On judicial review of Order F2009-05, the Court ordered the Adjudicator to consider the factors set out in section 10(2)…
[More]
On judicial review of Order F2009-05, the Court ordered the Adjudicator to consider the factors set out in section 10(2) (duty to create a record from an electronic record) prior to ordering the University of Alberta (U of A) to include backup records in its search. After the U of A conducted a new search for records, the Adjudicator found that section 10(2) does not apply in situations where a public body is searching for a record in order to produce a copy of a record. The Adjudicator noted that the duty to conduct a search for responsive records is a function of section 10(1) of FOIP, while reproducing a copy of a record is the function of section 13 of FOIP. The Adjudicator reviewed the new search conducted by the U of A and found that it had conducted a thorough and reasonable search for responsive records.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2011-20
|
December 22, 2011 |
Seniors
The applicant made a request to Seniors for information relating to complaints at adult residential care facilities, group homes, and…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Seniors for information relating to complaints at adult residential care facilities, group homes, and other licensed facilities for the developmentally disabled. Seniors provided the applicant with a spreadsheet from its database that contained the names of agencies and facilities, categorizations of complaints, the date, and the outcome of the complaint. Seniors referred the applicant to summaries posted on its website for the descriptions of the complaints. The Adjudicator ordered Seniors to conduct a new search for responsive records and to provide a new response to the applicant. The Adjudicator also ordered Seniors to decide whether it had a duty under section 10(2) to create a record for the applicant from its electronic records. The Adjudicator ordered Seniors to disclose the information it had withheld under section 20.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2011-19
|
December 15, 2011 |
Calgary Police Service
An individual made a complaint that the Calgary Police Service (CPS) had used and disclosed his personal information contrary to…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that the Calgary Police Service (CPS) had used and disclosed his personal information contrary to FOIP when a member disclosed to the complainant’s former spouse that he had a Saskatchewan driver’s licence. The Adjudicator found that information regarding the status of the complainant’s driver’s licence was information affecting the former spouse’s children and that the Family Law Act therefore authorized disclosure of the information to her.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2011-18
|
November 29, 2011 |
Health and Wellness
The applicant asked Health and Wellness for records created and compiled by Health and Wellness when processing an earlier access…
[More]
The applicant asked Health and Wellness for records created and compiled by Health and Wellness when processing an earlier access request made by him. Health and Wellness withheld some of the information under sections 16(1), 24(1)(a), 24(1)(b), 27(1) and 27(2) of FOIP. The Adjudicator upheld most decisions made by Health and Wellness in withholding information.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2011-17
|
November 10, 2011 |
University of Calgary
The applicant asked the University of Calgary (U of C) to correct errors that she believed to exist in her…
[More]
The applicant asked the University of Calgary (U of C) to correct errors that she believed to exist in her personal information. The Adjudicator found that the U of C did not have to consider making any corrections in response to the applicant’s correction request, as the information that she wanted to have corrected was not in the custody or under the control of the U of C, as required by section 36(1) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2011-16
|
November 14, 2011 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant asked Alberta Health Services (AHS) for information relating to redevelopment of the Alberta Hospital Edmonton site or buildings.…
[More]
The applicant asked Alberta Health Services (AHS) for information relating to redevelopment of the Alberta Hospital Edmonton site or buildings. AHS responded that its search failed to retrieve any records relating to the subject of the request. The Adjudicator found that AHS did not meet its duty to assist the applicant under section 10(1) of FOIP, as it did not conduct an adequate search for responsive records.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2011-15
|
November 14, 2011 |
County of Thorhild
The applicant made a request for access to bank statements from the County of Thorhild No. 7. The County of…
[More]
The applicant made a request for access to bank statements from the County of Thorhild No. 7. The County of Thorhild estimated the costs of responding to the applicant’s access request to be $182.00. The Adjudicator made findings, and ordered the County of Thorhild to recalculate the fees by estimating the actual time it was likely to take to process the request and to use rates reflective of its actual costs in its estimate.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2011-14
|
November 8, 2011 |
Energy
An individual, who is a commissioner for oaths, made a complaint that Energy had disclosed her personal information in contravention…
[More]
An individual, who is a commissioner for oaths, made a complaint that Energy had disclosed her personal information in contravention of Part 2 of FOIP when it posted a document containing her name and signature on the internet. The Adjudicator confirmed that Energy had not contravened Part 2 of FOIP when it posted the document on the internet.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2011-13
|
October 26, 2011 |
City of Edmonton
An individual complained that the City of Edmonton collected, used and disclosed his personal information without the requisite authority under…
[More]
An individual complained that the City of Edmonton collected, used and disclosed his personal information without the requisite authority under Part 2 of FOIP alleging that an employee collected and reported irrelevant, incomplete, biased information about the complainant and his wife. The Commissioner found that the City of Edmonton had authority to collect, use and disclose the complainant’s personal information, and had authority to collect it indirectly, for the purposes of law enforcement.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2011-12
|
September 27, 2011 |
Sustainable Resource Development
The applicant asked Sustainable Resource Development for information pertaining to himself, his company and certain gravel leases. Sustainable Resource Development…
[More]
The applicant asked Sustainable Resource Development for information pertaining to himself, his company and certain gravel leases. Sustainable Resource Development withheld some information in a briefing note under section 24 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that Sustainable Resource Development properly applied section 24 to the information in the briefing note, as the information could reasonably be expected to reveal advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses or policy options developed by or for Sustainable Resource Development under section 24(1)(a), as well as consultations or deliberations involving officers or employees of Sustainable Resource Development under section 24(1)(b).
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2011-11
|
October 28, 2011 |
Sustainable Resource Development
An applicant requested access to records relating to a Sustainable Resource Development’s request for quote. Sustainable Resource Development provided notice…
[More]
An applicant requested access to records relating to a Sustainable Resource Development’s request for quote. Sustainable Resource Development provided notice to a third party that it was considering disclosing the quote it submitted. The third party objected to disclosure of the specific aircraft models it had proposed using in its quote because this information would reveal that it had access to these kinds of aircraft and the use to which it was able to put them. The Adjudicator found that the information regarding the specific aircraft models the third party proposed to use and the way it uses them met the definition of a “trade secret” as defined in FOIP or, alternatively, was commercial information for the purposes of section 16(1)(a).
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2011-10
|
September 23, 2011 |
Solicitor General and Public Security
The applicant asked Solicitor General and Public Security for records relating to allegations of sexual assault on female prisoners who…
[More]
The applicant asked Solicitor General and Public Security for records relating to allegations of sexual assault on female prisoners who were in the custody of a sheriff, a third party, employed by it. Solicitor General and Public Security refused to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records, on the basis that disclosing the existence of the information would be an unreasonable invasion of the third party’s personal privacy under section 12(2)(b) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that disclosing the existence of responsive records, if they existed, would be an unreasonable invasion of the third party’s personal privacy, as the records would relate to law enforcement and employment history.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2011-09
|
August 29, 2011 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant made a request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for records relating to an “orchestrated political campaign to…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for records relating to an “orchestrated political campaign to try to bring public pressure on justices of the peace in relation to judicial interim release (bail) hearings.” The Adjudicator found records were properly excluded under section 4(1)(a) of FOIP, and that EPS properly applied sections 17, 20(4) and 21(1)(b) of FOIP to information in the responsive records.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2011-08
|
July 21, 2011 |
Medicine Hat Police Service
An individual complained that the Medicine Hat Police Service (MHPS) disclosed more personal information to Solicitor General than he had…
[More]
An individual complained that the Medicine Hat Police Service (MHPS) disclosed more personal information to Solicitor General than he had consented to in the disclosure form, and that the disclosure was in contravention of Part 2 of FOIP. The complainant also said that MHPS failed to make a reasonable effort to ensure that the information it used to make a decision about the complainant was accurate and complete. The Adjudicator determined that MHPS had authority to disclose the complainant’s personal information. The Adjudicator also found that MHPS did not have a duty under FOIP to ensure the information disclosed to Solicitor General was accurate and complete.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2011-07
|
July 5, 2011 |
University of Calgary
An individual complained that during the course of her sick leave, the University of Calgary (U of C) collected, used…
[More]
An individual complained that during the course of her sick leave, the University of Calgary (U of C) collected, used and disclosed her personal information in contravention of Part 2 of FOIP. The Adjudicator determined that for the most part, the collection, use and disclosure of the complainant’s personal information was authorized under the Act.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2011-06
|
June 2, 2011 |
Workers' Compensation Board
An individual complained that the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) used and disclosed his personal information to his treating physicians, date…
[More]
An individual complained that the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) used and disclosed his personal information to his treating physicians, date of accident employers, and various past, present, and potential employers contrary to FOIP. The Adjudicator upheld WCB's use and disclosure of the complainant's personal information, except the disclosure to his treating physician.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2011-05
|
June 6, 2011 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant made a request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for access to notes, reports, and other records relating…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for access to notes, reports, and other records relating to a police investigation into a complaint he had made. CPS located responsive records, but severed the information of third parties contained in the records under section 17(1) of FOIP. The Adjudicator confirmed the decision of CPS to withhold the personal information of third parties from the records at issue
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2011-04
|
May 25, 2011 |
Natural Resources Conservation Board
The applicant requested a letter and the attachments from the Natural Resources Conservation Board. The Natural Resources Conservation Board responded…
[More]
The applicant requested a letter and the attachments from the Natural Resources Conservation Board. The Natural Resources Conservation Board responded to the applicant, providing a severed copy of the letter and withholding the attachments pursuant to sections 16 and 17 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that, with the exception of the last attachment to the letter, the Natural Resources Conservation Board had properly applied section 16(2) of the Act to the severed information.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2011-03
|
May 13, 2011 |
Finance and Enterprise
Finance and Enterprise received an access request and it decided to disclose some of the records. Third parties made a…
[More]
Finance and Enterprise received an access request and it decided to disclose some of the records. Third parties made a request for review under section 65(2) of FOIP with respect only to the Finance and Enterprise’s decision to disclose approximately 20 pages of the records. Finance and Enterprise effectively ceased processing the request at that time, taking the position that it was not to respond to any part of the request until the Commissioner’s office had completed the request for review. The Commissioner found that this was not the correct procedure to be followed, and ordered Finance and Enterprise to respond to the applicant with respect to all the responsive records other than those that were the subject of the request for review under section 65(2) of the Act.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2011-02
|
July 28, 2011 |
Town of Ponoka
The applicant requested access to records containing information about the costs associated with a sanitary sewer line and water main…
[More]
The applicant requested access to records containing information about the costs associated with a sanitary sewer line and water main upgrade from the Town of Ponoka. The Town of Ponoka located responsive records, but withheld information regarding fees and services, citing section 16 of FOIP (disclosure harmful to business interests). The Adjudicator found that as the information withheld by the Town of Ponoka was negotiated between the Town of Ponoka and the organizations that submitted the records, it was not “supplied” or supplied in confidence for the purposes of section 16.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2011-01
|
June 13, 2011 |
Children and Youth Services
The applicant requested information about his birth mother from Children and Youth Services. Children and Youth Services provided information in…
[More]
The applicant requested information about his birth mother from Children and Youth Services. Children and Youth Services provided information in the records regarding the applicant’s grandparents, on the basis that they had been deceased for more than 25 years, but refused to provide information regarding his birth mother on the basis that she had not been dead for 25 years and that it would be an unreasonable invasion of her personal privacy to disclose the information. Children and Youth Services withheld the information about the applicant’s mother under section 17(1) of FOIP (information harmful to personal privacy). In the circumstances of the case, the Adjudicator determined that it would not be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy to disclose the information in the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
JR
|
F2010-37
|
August 30, 2011 |
Buffalo Trail Public Schools Regional Division
The applicant asked the Buffalo Trail Public Schools Regional Division No. 28 (BTPSRD) for the governing or founding documents of…
[More]
The applicant asked the Buffalo Trail Public Schools Regional Division No. 28 (BTPSRD) for the governing or founding documents of the School Board Employers Bargaining Authority (SBEBA), of which BTPSRD was a member, and all transactional records between SBEBA and BTPSRD. BTPSRD withheld some of the requested information under section 16(1) (disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party), section 17(1) (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), section 23(1) (local public body confidences), section 24(1) (advice, etc.), section 25(1) (disclosure harmful to economic and other interests of a public body) and section 27(1) (privileged information, etc.) of FOIP. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order that confirmed BTPSRD's decisions to withhold information in the records.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2010-36
|
June 30, 2011 |
University of Calgary
The applicant made a request for access to information to the University of Calgary (U of C) relating to a…
[More]
The applicant made a request for access to information to the University of Calgary (U of C) relating to a research project regarding climate change that had been funded through donations. The U of C identified responsive records but severed some information from the records under section 16 (information harmful to business interests), 17 (information harmful to personal privacy), 24 (advice from officials), 25 (information harmful to the economic interests of a public body) and 27 (privileged information) of FOIP. The U of C also required the applicant to pay fees for processing the access request. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order, including ordering the U of C to recalculate and reduce the fees.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2010-35
|
June 2, 2011 |
Red Deer Public School District
An individual complained that the Red Deer Public School District No. 104 (RDPSD) had failed to take steps to prevent…
[More]
An individual complained that the Red Deer Public School District No. 104 (RDPSD) had failed to take steps to prevent the disclosure of her submission to a ministerial review to the Alberta Teachers' Association (ATA) and to prevent its use in the defamation lawsuit, contrary to FOIP. The Adjudicator found RDPSD did not contravene FOIP when it disclosed the complainant's personal information.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2010-34
|
May 30, 2011 |
Alberta Health Services
An individual complained that her employer, Alberta Health Services (AHS), disclosed her personal information to Great West Life Assurancy Company…
[More]
An individual complained that her employer, Alberta Health Services (AHS), disclosed her personal information to Great West Life Assurancy Company (GWL) contrary to her express wishes and FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the complainant had not consented to AHS disclosing her personal information found in Workers' Compensation Board reports to GWL. The Adjudicator also found that, although AHS was authorized to disclose some of the complainant’s personal information pursuant to section 40(1)(l) of FOIP, it disclosed more information to GWL than was necessary or reasonable to meet its purpose of determining the complainant’s eligibility for disability benefits.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2010-33
|
August 3, 2011 |
Summer Village of Gull Lake
The applicant made an access request to the Summer Village of Gull Lake for information related to two stop orders…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the Summer Village of Gull Lake for information related to two stop orders that had been issued against him. In response to the access request, the Summer Village of Gull Lake provided the applicant with a partial copy of records, citing section 27(1)(a) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that solicitor-client privilege and litigation privilege under section 27(1)(a) applied to the information at issue.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2010-32
|
May 27, 2011 |
Edmonton Police Commission
The applicant requested records from the Edmonton Police Commission (EPC) relating to the discussions between the Edmonton Police Service (EPS)…
[More]
The applicant requested records from the Edmonton Police Commission (EPC) relating to the discussions between the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) and EPC regarding “strike letters”. EPC responded to the applicant, withholding information that was not responsive and applying sections 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), 23(1)(b) (local public body confidence), and 24(1)(a) and (b) (advice from officials) of FOIP, to sever a limited amount of information from the responsive records. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order, despite no arguments presented by the parties at inquiry.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2010-31
|
April 20, 2011 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicants requested from the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) all records relating to a file relating to an internal investigation…
[More]
The applicants requested from the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) all records relating to a file relating to an internal investigation of police conduct. EPS responded to the request by providing the applicants with a copy of the internal investigation file, with some records severed pursuant to sections 17 of FOIP. Some records were also withheld under sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(l). The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
JR
|
F2010-30
|
August 29, 2011 |
Agriculture Financial Services Corporation
The applicant made an access request to the Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (AFSC) for the names of Alberta producers who…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (AFSC) for the names of Alberta producers who were issued payments under the Alberta Farm Recovery Plan (AFRP) and Alberta Farm Recovery Plan II (AFRP II) and for the amounts they were issued. AFSC responded to the request by denying the applicant access to the information pursuant to sections 16 and 17 of FOIP. The Adjudicator held that sections 16 and 17 did not apply, and ordered AFSC to disclose the information at issue.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2011 |
JR
|
F2010-29
|
April 21, 2011 |
Employment and Immigration
The applicant asked Employment and Immigration for information relating to complaints made by others under the Employment Standards Code against…
[More]
The applicant asked Employment and Immigration for information relating to complaints made by others under the Employment Standards Code against his former employer. Employment and Immigration withheld all of the requested information under section 16(1) of FOIP. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2010-28
|
May 30, 2011 |
Children and Youth Services
The applicant requested her personal information from Children and Youth Services for the time that she had, as a child,…
[More]
The applicant requested her personal information from Children and Youth Services for the time that she had, as a child, been in the custodial care of Children and Youth Services. Children and Youth Services responded but withheld some information, citing section 17 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that Children and Youth Services did not perform an adequate search for responsive records because it did not search for records from the group home and shelter the applicant had resided in and that she had mentioned in her access request. The Adjudicator also found that the information severed from the records was third party personal information, but held that the disclosure of personal information relating to people acting in their representative or official capacities would not be an unreasonable invasion of the third parties’ personal privacy.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2010-27 & P2010-20
|
March 31, 2011 |
Transportation Safety Board and Guardian Interlock Service (Canada) Ltd.
An individual complained that the Transportation Safety Board collected, used, and disclosed his personal information contrary to Part 2 of…
[More]
An individual complained that the Transportation Safety Board collected, used, and disclosed his personal information contrary to Part 2 of FOIP and that Guardian Interlock Service (Canada) Ltd. (Guardian Interlock), the contracted service provider for the Transportations Safety Board's ignition interlock program, collected, used, and disclosed his personal information contrary to PIPA. The Adjudicator found the collection, use and disclosure of the complainant's personal information complied with FOIP and PIPA, except more information was disclosed than necessary contrary to section 40(4) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2010-26
|
March 24, 2011 |
Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission
The applicant asked the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission (AGLC) for a third party’s written complaint that had precipitated AGLC’s…
[More]
The applicant asked the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission (AGLC) for a third party’s written complaint that had precipitated AGLC’s audit of the applicant’s operations. AGLC gave access to some of the requested information, but withheld other information under sections 16(1) (disclosure harmful to the business interests of a third party), 20(1)(d) (disclosure could reveal a confidential source of law enforcement information) and 20(3)(a) (disclosure could expose a third party to civil liability) of FOIP. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2010-25
|
April 27, 2011 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant made a request for access to a letter written by an Edmonton Police Service officer. The police officer…
[More]
The applicant made a request for access to a letter written by an Edmonton Police Service officer. The police officer wrote the letter to his supervisor to respond to a complaint the applicant had made about statements the police officer had made in the media. EPS withheld the letter under section 17(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the personal information had been provided to the police officer’s supervisor in confidence, and found that there were no factors outweighing the presumption that it would be an unreasonable invasion of the police officer’s personal privacy under section 17(1) of FOIP to disclose the personal information in the records. .
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2010-24
|
February 23, 2011 |
Town of Bruderheim
The applicant made a request to the Town of Bruderheim for a letter written by a named individual. The Town…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the Town of Bruderheim for a letter written by a named individual. The Town of Bruderheim located a record responsive to the applicant’s request, but withheld it in its entirety pursuant to section 17 of FOIP. The Adjudicator upheld the Town of Bruderheim's decision to withhold the record.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2010-23
|
February 28, 2011 |
Edmonton Police Commission
After the Commissioner issued Order F2007-29, the Edmonton Police Commission (EPC) conducted a new search and made a new response…
[More]
After the Commissioner issued Order F2007-29, the Edmonton Police Commission (EPC) conducted a new search and made a new response to the applicant. The applicant requested another review. The Adjudicator found that EPC had not met its duty to assist the applicant under section 10(1) of FOIP, as it had not taken any steps to obtain the records in the possession of an executive search firm.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2010-22
|
February 11, 2011 |
University of Calgary
The applicant asked her former employer the University of Calgary (U of C) for information held by various other employees,…
[More]
The applicant asked her former employer the University of Calgary (U of C) for information held by various other employees, a wellness centre and a doctor associated with the wellness centre. The U of C provided some of the requested information, but withheld other information under section 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), section 24 (advice, etc.), section 25 (disclosure harmful to economic interests of a public body) and section 27 (privileged information, etc.) of FOIP. The Adjudicator made several determinations but, at the time of issuing the order, was not in a position to decide the issue of whether the U of C properly applied section 27 of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2010-21
|
January 31, 2011 |
Calgary Police Service
An individual made a complaint that the Calgary Police Service (CPS), in the course of investigating a complaint submitted by…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that the Calgary Police Service (CPS), in the course of investigating a complaint submitted by the individual, collected and disclosed his personal information contrary to Part 2 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that any personal information collected by CPS was collected for the purposes of law enforcement and in accordance with section 33(b) of FOIP. The Adjudicator also found that the disclosure of the individual's personal information was permitted by section 40(1)(c) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2010-20
|
January 26, 2011 |
Advanced Education and Technology
An individual made a complaint under FOIP that Advanced Education and Technology had disclosed personal information from her tax return…
[More]
An individual made a complaint under FOIP that Advanced Education and Technology had disclosed personal information from her tax return to her daughter when her daughter applied online for a student loan. Advanced Education and Technology argued that it was not an invasion of personal privacy to disclose the personal information, that it had disclosed the information for the purpose for which it had been collected, and that it had implicit authority under the Student Financial Assistance Regulation to disclose the complainant’s information to her daughter. The Adjudicator found that Advanced Education and Technology had not established that it disclosed the complainant’s personal financial information in compliance with Part 2 of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2010-19
|
February 8, 2011 |
City of Edmonton
The applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton for information regarding the amount paid, since January 1,…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton for information regarding the amount paid, since January 1, 1999, to settle each lawsuit against the Edmonton Police Service, the names of the claimants and an explanation for the amounts paid. The City of Edmonton provided the applicant with severed records, citing section 17 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found section 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) applied to the severed information.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2010-18
|
January 12, 2011 |
Employment and Immigration
The applicant asked Employment and Immigration for the cell phone records of the other driver and documentation evidencing another driver’s…
[More]
The applicant asked Employment and Immigration for the cell phone records of the other driver and documentation evidencing another driver’s training and experience. Employment and Immigration withheld information under section 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) and section 20 (disclosure harmful to law enforcement). The Adjudicator found that Employment and Immigration did not have custody or control of the cell phone records. The Adjudicator also found that other information was properly withheld under section 17.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2010-17
|
July 22, 2011 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant asked the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for information pertaining to himself, which included information in the police case…
[More]
The applicant asked the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for information pertaining to himself, which included information in the police case file, a polygraph file, and a video recording of his polygraph interview and examination. EPS withheld some of the information in the files, relying on sections 17(1), 20(1)(a), 20(1)(c), 20(1)(f), 24(1)(a) and 24(1)(b) of FOIP. It withheld all of the video recording under section 20(1). The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2010-16
|
January 10, 2011 |
University of Calgary
The applicant made a request to the University of Calgary (U of C) for an investigation report. The U of…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the University of Calgary (U of C) for an investigation report. The U of C withheld the record pursuant to section 4(1)(b). The Adjudicator held that the record fulfilled the requirements of section 4(1)(b).
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2010-15
|
December 15, 2010 |
Transportation
The applicant made a request to Transportation for “any reports on a high-speed rail system in Alberta”. Transportation withheld the…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Transportation for “any reports on a high-speed rail system in Alberta”. Transportation withheld the records pursuant to sections 4(1)(q), 16(1), 22(1), 24(1)(a), 24(1)(b), 24(1)(c), 24(1)(g) and 25(1)(c) of FOIP. The Adjudicator held that the records did not fulfill the requirements of section 4(1)(q) as there was insufficient evidence that the records were created “on behalf of” one of the classes of persons listed in section 4(1)(q)(i) to (iii). However, the Adjudicator held that section 22(1) applied to the records and upheld Transportation’s decision to withhold the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2010-14
|
July 19, 2011 |
Calgary Police Service
An individual made a complaint under FOIP that his employer, the Calgary Police Service (CPS), had taken his journal, which…
[More]
An individual made a complaint under FOIP that his employer, the Calgary Police Service (CPS), had taken his journal, which he had been required to keep as part of his training as a police recruit, and provided it to a psychologist for assessment. The Adjudicator found that CPS had collected the complainant’s personal information from his journal in order to obtain insights into his behaviour and to assess safety concerns that had arisen, and found that the collection, use and disclosure of his personal information were consistent with the purpose and in compliance with Part 2 of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2010-13
|
November 30, 2010 |
Health and Wellness
The applicant requested “…Group Commencement and Termination notices for [a third party company]…” from Health and Wellness. After contacting the…
[More]
The applicant requested “…Group Commencement and Termination notices for [a third party company]…” from Health and Wellness. After contacting the third party company, Health and Wellness responded to the applicant’s access request, withholding all of the responsive records pursuant to sections 16(1) (disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party) and 17(1) (disclosure harmful to a third party) of the Act. The Adjudicator found that section 16(1) of the Act did not apply to the responsive records because the records did not, as Health and Wellness had argued, reveal commercial or labour relations information, nor was there sufficient evidence brought forward to establish any real expectation of harm to the third party company should the information be disclosed.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2010-12
|
November 29, 2010 |
University of Calgary
The applicant requested records from the University of Calgary (U of C) relating to an investigation regarding a complaint made…
[More]
The applicant requested records from the University of Calgary (U of C) relating to an investigation regarding a complaint made by the applicant about her former supervisor. The U of C refused access to notes made by or for investigation committee members pursuant to section 4(1)(b) of FOIP, severed some information pursuant to section 17, and withheld some records pursuant to sections 24, and 27 of the Act. The Adjudicator found that the notes made by or for committee members fell under section 4(1)(b) of the Act; therefore, the Act did not apply to the notes. The Adjudicator further found that the U of C properly applied sections 17 and 24 of the Act to the remaining responsive records.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2010-11
|
November 25, 2010 |
County of Vermilion River
The applicants asked the County of Vermilion River No. 24 for records relating to its refusal to grant them a…
[More]
The applicants asked the County of Vermilion River No. 24 for records relating to its refusal to grant them a building permit, and various other matters between the parties. The applicants requested a fee waiver, but the County of Vermilion River refused to grant one under section 93(4) of the Act. The applicants argued that they were requesting their own personal information, so that only costs for producing the records could be charged by the County of Vermilion River under section 93(2). The Adjudicator found that no part of the access request fell within the category of a request for personal information. The Adjudicator also found that a fee waiver was not warranted on the basis that the requested records related to a matter of public interest.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2010-10
|
November 10, 2010 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant requested investigation records about an alleged theft by a specific Edmonton Police Service (EPS) member that allegedly led…
[More]
The applicant requested investigation records about an alleged theft by a specific Edmonton Police Service (EPS) member that allegedly led to the EPS member’s arrest and resignation or retirement. EPS refused to confirm or deny the existence of any responsive records, citing section 12(2) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that confirming the existence of responsive records, if they do exist, would unreasonably invade the personal privacy of the EPS member by revealing information about the member’s employment history and any criminal investigation related thereto. The Adjudicator found that section 17(5)(h) of FOIP weighed in favour of withholding the information.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2010-09
|
October 25, 2010 |
Agriculture Financial Services Corporation
An individual complained that the Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (AFSC) disclosed farming operation information in contravention of FOIP. The Adjudicator found…
[More]
An individual complained that the Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (AFSC) disclosed farming operation information in contravention of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that none of this information was the complainant’s “personal information” as defined under section 1(n) of FOIP. Rather, the information was business information about the complainant’s sole proprietorship, which farms and grows crops.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2010-08
|
September 29, 2010 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant asked the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for the portion of its training manual on officer safety. EPS released…
[More]
The applicant asked the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for the portion of its training manual on officer safety. EPS released some of the information, withholding the rest under sections 20(1)(j), 20(1)(k) and 20(1)(m) of FOIP (disclosure harmful to law enforcement). The Adjudicator upheld EPS' decisions to withhold information.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2010-07
|
September 28, 2010 |
County of Thorhild
The applicant made a request to the County of Thorhild No. 7 for access to a lawyer’s billings in relation…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the County of Thorhild No. 7 for access to a lawyer’s billings in relation to a judicial review. The County of Thorhild told the applicant the total amount paid to the lawyer in relation to the judicial review for the requested periods, but declined to give the applicant access to the invoices on the basis of privilege. Section 27(1)(a) of FOIP authorizes the head of a public body to withhold information that is subject to legal privilege. At the inquiry, the County of Thorhild raised the issue of whether the information it had withheld was also subject to section 27(1)(b) (information prepared by or for a lawyer of a public body in relation to a matter involving the provision of legal services). The Adjudicator found that the lawyers’ billings were subject to a presumption of solicitor-client privilege. The Adjudicator found that section 27(1)(b) did not apply to the information that was found not subject to privilege.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2010-06
|
September 8, 2010 |
Calgary Board of Education
The applicant asked for records from the Calgary Board of Education (CBE). CBE estimated photocopying charges of $32.50, then the…
[More]
The applicant asked for records from the Calgary Board of Education (CBE). CBE estimated photocopying charges of $32.50, then the applicant asked to examine the records rather than receive copies. CBE refused to allow the applicant to examine the records, relying on section 4(b) of the FOIP Regulation. The Adjudicator noted that the provision applies only after a public body has decided to give access. As CBE had not yet decided to give the applicant access to records, the Adjudicator found that he could not review any decision not to allow the applicant to examine records. In the course of the inquiry, CBE decided not to charge the applicant any fees and that issue became moot.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2010-05
|
July 13, 2010 |
Justice and Attorney General
The applicant requested a fee waiver from Justice and Attorney General for records relating to the government’s strategy for replacing…
[More]
The applicant requested a fee waiver from Justice and Attorney General for records relating to the government’s strategy for replacing incumbent justices of the peace. The applicant also questioned the amount of the fee estimate. The Adjudicator found that Justice and Attorney General’s fee estimate was reasonable given the breadth of the access request, which resulted in Justice and Attorney General identifying a large number of possible responsive records in its preliminary search.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2010-04
|
July 6, 2010 |
Solicitor General and Public Security
The applicant made a request for access to the Solicitor General and Public Security to records relating to safety measures…
[More]
The applicant made a request for access to the Solicitor General and Public Security to records relating to safety measures in place in the courthouses. Solicitor General and Public Security estimated the fees for processing the applicant’s access request at $411.91. The applicant requested a fee waiver on the basis that the records related to matters of public interest. Specifically, he argued that they would reveal information relating both to a limitation on the ability of Albertans to visit the courthouses and to a risk to public safety. The Adjudicator found that the applicant had not established that the records related to a matter of public interest.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2010-03
|
October 27, 2010 |
Workers' Compensation Board
An individual made a complaint by asking for a review the Workers’ Compensation Board’s (WCB) practices relating to collecting earnings information…
[More]
An individual made a complaint by asking for a review the Workers’ Compensation Board’s (WCB) practices relating to collecting earnings information from principals and partners of businesses when they file annual returns. The Adjudicator determined that the complainant was an organization and therefore lacked standing to bring a complaint regarding the collection of personal information.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2010-02
|
June 29, 2010 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant made a request for access to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) to a record containing details of an…
[More]
The applicant made a request for access to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) to a record containing details of an incident in which she was involved in October 1983. EPS identified a responsive record and provided it to the applicant with portions of an address it contained redacted under section 17(1) (information harmful to a third party’s personal privacy). The Adjudicator found that the address information was not personal information under FOIP, as it was not about an identifiable individual other than the applicant. The Adjudicator ordered EPS to disclose the severed address information to the applicant
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2010-01
|
June 3, 2010 |
Environment
The applicant made a request for access to Environment for water and gas well data collected in a particular area.…
[More]
The applicant made a request for access to Environment for water and gas well data collected in a particular area. Environment provided responsive records to the applicant with the personal information of third parties severed. The Adjudicator determined that Environment had met its duty to assist the applicant and had properly withheld personal information of third parties under section 17 of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
JR
|
F2009-48
|
December 1, 2011 |
Calgary Board of Education
An individual complained that the Calgary Board of Education (CBE) used and disclosed his personal information in contravention of FOIP.…
[More]
An individual complained that the Calgary Board of Education (CBE) used and disclosed his personal information in contravention of FOIP. He also complained that CBE failed to protect his personal information as required under the Act. The Adjudicator found that CBE's initial use and disclosure of the complainant's personal information was not authorized by FOIP, but that once CBE issued an order the disclosure of the information was authorized. The Adjudicator also found that, while CBE's actions were not a best practice in terms of making reasonable security arrangements, it did not contravene section 38 of FOIP.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2009-47
|
January 6, 2011 |
Employment and Immigration
The applicant submitted an access request to Employment and Immigration for all records from a specified period documenting the engagement…
[More]
The applicant submitted an access request to Employment and Immigration for all records from a specified period documenting the engagement of a named individual as a consultant in respect of Bill 27. Employment and Immigration released to the applicant two pages of those responsive records in their entirety, and released the other seven pages after removing some information as non-responsive and severing other information under sections 16, 24 and 27 of FOIP. The Commissioner found section 16 was not properly applied, section 24 did not apply to most of the information severed under that provision and section 27 was properly applied.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2009-46
|
December 23, 2010 |
City of Calgary
The applicant asked the City of Calgary for records regarding pension and other payments made to certain senior officials after…
[More]
The applicant asked the City of Calgary for records regarding pension and other payments made to certain senior officials after their retirement, records regarding benefits paid to another senior official, and records regarding the settlement and expenses incurred following the termination of another senior official’s contract of employment. The City of Calgary withheld some of the requested information under section 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), section 24 (advice, etc.), section 25 (disclosure harmful to economic interests of a public body) and section 27 (privileged information, etc.) of FOIP. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2009-45
|
September 23, 2010 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant asked the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for records relating to a complaint about noise coming from his home.…
[More]
The applicant asked the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for records relating to a complaint about noise coming from his home. EPS withheld information under section 17 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the presumptions against disclosure under section 17(4)(b) (information in a law enforcement record) and section 17(4)(g) (name appearing with or revealing other personal information) were applicable. The Adjudicator confirmed EPS' decision not to disclose the personal information of the complainant.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2009-44
|
June 29, 2010 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant requested from the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) all records relating to a complaint against EPS members that had…
[More]
The applicant requested from the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) all records relating to a complaint against EPS members that had been investigated by the EPS. Portions of the records were severed pursuant to sections 17, 24 and 27 of FOIP. As well, some records were withheld pursuant to section 4(1)(a) of the Act. The Adjudicator found that EPS properly withheld information in the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2009-43
|
June 28, 2010 |
Employment and Immigration
The applicant made a request to Employment and Immigration for copies of email communications between her manager and an employee…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Employment and Immigration for copies of email communications between her manager and an employee that the applicant supervised, during a specified timeframe. Employment and Immigration located responsive records but withheld all of them pursuant to sections 17 and 19(2) of the Act. The Adjudicator found that Employment and Immigration did not provide adequate evidence regarding the scope of its search. The Adjudicator also found that Employment and Immigration properly severed the content of the emails pursuant to section 17 of the Act, as the emails contained personal information of the employee of Employment and Immigration. The Adjudicator also found that Employment and Immigration improperly severed the header of the emails where it did not contain personal information.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2009-42
|
June 30, 2010 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant asked the Calgary Health Region, which is now part of Alberta Health Services (AHS), for records pertaining to…
[More]
The applicant asked the Calgary Health Region, which is now part of Alberta Health Services (AHS), for records pertaining to complaints that he had filed with it. AHS withheld some of the requested information under FOIP, on the basis that it was excepted from disclosure under section 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), section 24 (advice, etc.) and section 27 (privileged information, etc.). The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2009-41
|
November 30, 2010 |
Workers' Compensation Board
An individual made a complaint that the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) had contravened Part 2 of FOIP when it used…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) had contravened Part 2 of FOIP when it used and disclosed his personal information to make decisions regarding entitlement to compensation. The Adjudicator found that WCB had not used the complainant’s personal information contrary to Part 2 of FOIP, as the Workers’ Compensation Act, and by implication, the Government Employees Compensation Act, authorized WCB to use the complainant’s personal information. However, the Adjudicator found that WCB had not established that the complainant’s personal information had been disclosed in accordance with Part 2 when the WCB gave the complainant’s claim file to Canada Post.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2009-40
|
May 18, 2010 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant asked the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for the names of police officers involved in certain investigations of alleged…
[More]
The applicant asked the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for the names of police officers involved in certain investigations of alleged misconduct, the particulars of the charges against them, and the written submissions that EPS made to the Edmonton Police Commission explaining the delay in completing certain other investigations and the reasons for requesting extensions to complete them. EPS withheld all of the information, relying on section 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), section 20 (disclosure harmful to law enforcement), section 23 (local public body confidences) and section 29 (information available to the public) of FOIP. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
JR
|
F2009-39
|
April 30, 2010 |
Calgary Board of Education
The applicant made five access requests to the Calgary Board of Education (CBE). CBE provided the applicant with estimates of…
[More]
The applicant made five access requests to the Calgary Board of Education (CBE). CBE provided the applicant with estimates of fees totaling $1048.50, $383.50, $171.50, $2798.50 and $1750.00. The applicant requested, and CBE denied, a waiver of fees. The Adjudicator found that it was not clear whether CBE had set the fees by resolution. However, as the Adjudicator found that the applicant was entitled to a fee waiver based on his inability to pay the fees, in any event, it was unnecessary to determine whether the fees had been set by the resolution.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2009-38
|
September 13, 2010 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for the entire EPS case file related to…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for the entire EPS case file related to the investigation of a motor vehicle accident involving the applicant. The Adjudicator found that EPS properly withheld some of the records pursuant to section 4(1)(l)(ii) (a record made from information in the Office of the Registrar of Motor Vehicle Services), section 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) and section 21(1)(b) (intergovernmental relations) of FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered that the EPS disclose the remaining records or portions of the records to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2009-37
|
April 29, 2010 |
Employment and Immigration
The applicant submitted an access request to Employment and Immigration for all records relating to a third party’s expense claims…
[More]
The applicant submitted an access request to Employment and Immigration for all records relating to a third party’s expense claims and government credit cards for a specified period. The third party objected to Employment and Immigration's proposed release under FOIP. Among several determinations, the Commissioner decided that most of the third party’s personal information related to government expenses that he incurred in his work capacity.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2009-36
|
June 15, 2010 |
Edmonton and Area Child and Family Services Authority
An individual made a complaint alleging that the Edmonton and Area Child and Family Services Authority (Region 6) collected his…
[More]
An individual made a complaint alleging that the Edmonton and Area Child and Family Services Authority (Region 6) collected his children’s personal information from the Board of Trustees of Edmonton School District No.7 (Edmonton Public School District) in contravention of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that there was insufficient evidence as to whether the family services authority collected the complainant’s children’s recorded personal information. However, the Adjudicator held that if the family services authority did collect the complainant’s children’s recorded personal information, the family services authority would have had the authority under sections 33(a) and 33(c) of FOIP to collect this information and the authority under section 34(1)(a)(ii) of FOIP to collect this information indirectly.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2009-35
|
June 15, 2010 |
Edmonton Public School District
An individual made a complaint alleging that Edmonton Public School District (EPSD) disclosed the complainant’s children’s personal information to Edmonton…
[More]
An individual made a complaint alleging that Edmonton Public School District (EPSD) disclosed the complainant’s children’s personal information to Edmonton and Area Child and Family Services Authority (Region 6) in contravention of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that there was insufficient evidence as to whether EPSD disclosed the complainant’s children’s recorded personal information. However, the Adjudicator held that, in any event, if EPSD did disclose the complainant’s children’s recorded personal information as alleged, EPSD would have had the authority under section 40(1)(l) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2009-34
|
March 31, 2010 |
University of Alberta
The applicant asked the University of Alberta (U of A) for information regarding its teaching and research involving the use…
[More]
The applicant asked the University of Alberta (U of A) for information regarding its teaching and research involving the use of animals. U of A assessed fees in order to process the request. The applicant requested a fee waiver, but U of A refused to grant one under section 93(4) of FOIP. The Adjudicator confirmed U of A's decision not to grant a fee waiver.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2009-33
|
March 31, 2010 |
Calgary and Area Child and Family Services Authority Region 3
The applicant requested, on his own behalf and on behalf of his minor children, records held by Calgary and Area…
[More]
The applicant requested, on his own behalf and on behalf of his minor children, records held by Calgary and Area Child and Family Services Authority bearing his name and the names of any of his children. The family services authority provided responsive records but withheld some information, citing sections 17 and 27(1) of FOIP. The Adjudicator upheld most decisions made by the family services authority but ordered the release of some information to which exceptions did not apply.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2009-32
|
March 31, 2010 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant complained that the Calgary Police Service (CPS) had failed to meet its duty to assist him. It provided…
[More]
The applicant complained that the Calgary Police Service (CPS) had failed to meet its duty to assist him. It provided information to him at a late stage in the inquiry, but had not provided the information at the point at which, by reference to an order of this office in an unrelated case, it became apparent that he was entitled to it under FOIP. The Adjudicator held that the duty to assist was referable to the point at which a public body responds to an access request, and that CPS had not failed in its duty to assist the applicant by failing to provide the information at an earlier point.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2009-31
|
March 30, 2010 |
Employment and Immigration
The applicant made an access request to Employment and Immigration for records of telephone calls made to him by an…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Employment and Immigration for records of telephone calls made to him by an employment standards officer. Employment and Immigration responded that it had not located any responsive records. It indicated that it had searched for calls made on particular telephone lines, and argued that its duty to search for records extended only to telephone calls made on its own system, and not to calls that may have been made on the home phone of a staff member. The Adjudicator found that Employment and Immigration had not established that it had conducted an adequate search for responsive records.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2009-30
|
March 18, 2010 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant asked Corporate Human Resources for records relating to his long term disability insurance (LTDI) claim, which were held…
[More]
The applicant asked Corporate Human Resources for records relating to his long term disability insurance (LTDI) claim, which were held by an insurance company. Corporate Human Resources responded that FOIP did not apply. The Adjudicator concluded that the records requested by the applicant were not in the custody or under the control of Corporate Human Resources.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2009-29
|
March 18, 2010 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant asked the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for a copy of a third party’s access request. EPS refused to…
[More]
The applicant asked the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for a copy of a third party’s access request. EPS refused to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records, on the basis that disclosing the existence or non-existence of the information would be an unreasonable invasion of the third party’s personal privacy under section 12(2)(b) of FOIP. In the unique circumstances of the case, the Adjudicator concluded that disclosure of the existence or non-existence of records responsive to the applicant’s access request would not be an unreasonable invasion of the third party’s personal privacy under section 12(2)(b) of the Act. EPS was ordered to respond to the applicant’s access request without relying on section 12(2).
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2009-28
|
March 31, 2010 |
Alberta Health Services
The applicant made a request for access to Capital Health (now Alberta Health Services or AHS) for records containing information…
[More]
The applicant made a request for access to Capital Health (now Alberta Health Services or AHS) for records containing information about a contract between AHS and the Katz Group to provide outpatient pharmacy services at two hospitals. AHS identified responsive records, and severed information under sections 16 (information harmful to business interests) and 25 (information harmful to the economic interests of a public body) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that sections 16 and 25 did not apply to the records, and ordered AHS to provide the applicant with access to the records in their entirety.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2009-27
|
March 31, 2010 |
Justice and Attorney General
The applicant made a request to Justice and Attorney General for a Crown prosecutor’s file. Justice and Attorney General gave…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Justice and Attorney General for a Crown prosecutor’s file. Justice and Attorney General gave the applicant access to 30 pages of records, but withheld the remainder of the records, on the basis of sections 17 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy), 20(1)(g) (exercise of prosecutorial discretion), 21(1)(b) (supplied in confidence by a government), and 27(1)(a) (confidential police informer privilege) of FOIP. The Adjudicator made several determinations and ordered Justice and Attorney General to reconsider its decision to withhold information under section 20(1)(g). In the event that it exercised its discretion in favor of disclosure, the Adjudicator ordered it to make decisions regarding the application of section 17.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
JR
|
F2009-26
|
February 25, 2010 |
Mount Royal University
The applicant requested records containing his personal information from Mount Royal College (now Mount Royal University or MRU) including a…
[More]
The applicant requested records containing his personal information from Mount Royal College (now Mount Royal University or MRU) including a communication about him created by the security services office. MRU located responsive records but withheld a report created by the security services office. MRU withheld the information in these records under sections 17 (information harmful to the personal privacy of a third party) and 18 (information harmful to individual or public safety) of FOIP. The Adjudicator decided that section 17 did not apply to the records at issue, because all the information in the records was either about the applicant, or employees of MRU acting in representative capacities. Further, the Adjudicator found that section 18 did not apply as MRU had not established that there was a reasonable likelihood that harm would result to personal or public safety if the information in the report were disclosed to the applicant.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2009-25
|
February 19, 2010 |
University of Alberta
The applicant made a request to the University of Alberta (U of A). U of A identified records containing information…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the University of Alberta (U of A). U of A identified records containing information responsive to the access request, but severed some information on the basis that it was non-responsive, and other information on the basis that it would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal information to disclose it (section 17 of FOIP). The Adjudicator determined that the information severed by U of A as non-responsive was reasonably related to the applicant’s access request, and was therefore responsive. The Adjudicator ordered U of A to respond to the applicant under section 10(1) again, this time including the information it had originally omitted as non-responsive. Section 17 was properly applied, however.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2009-24
|
March 30, 2010 |
Service Alberta
The applicants made a request for access to Government Services (now Service Alberta) for records relating to decisions to lay…
[More]
The applicants made a request for access to Government Services (now Service Alberta) for records relating to decisions to lay charges or not lay charges against any or all of the applicants. Service Alberta applied section 4(1)(l)(ii) (information in a registry), section 17 (information harmful to a third party’s personal privacy), section 24(1)(a) (advice), section 27(1)(a) (privilege) and section 27(1)(b) (information prepared by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General) under FOIP to some of the information. Service Alberta also withheld information as “unresponsive” to the applicants’ request. The Adjudicator made several determinations.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
JR
|
F2009-23
|
February 26, 2010 |
University of Alberta
The applicant made a request to the University of Alberta (U of A) for email communications between a member and…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the University of Alberta (U of A) for email communications between a member and other members of a SSHRC committee. That U of A stated that it was unable to locate records relating to the subject of his request. The Adjudicator found that U of A’s response to the applicant did not meet the requirements of section 10(1) of FOIP (duty to assist) as it did not explain its search process adequately. However, the U of A provided this explanation in its submissions during the inquiry.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2010 |
JR
|
F2009-22
|
February 24, 2010 |
University of Calgary
The applicant made an access request to the University of Calgary (U of C) for email communications containing his personal…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the University of Calgary (U of C) for email communications containing his personal information sent and received by a professor in relation to the applicant’s Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) grant application. The U of C explained that the professor had not created or received any responsive email communications. The Adjudicator confirmed that records responsive to the access request had never existed, and the U of C had met its duty to the applicant under section 10(1) of FOIP.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2009-21
|
January 21, 2010 |
Transportation
The applicant asked Transportation for the contract value/price associated with a third party’s successful response to a request for proposals.…
[More]
The applicant asked Transportation for the contract value/price associated with a third party’s successful response to a request for proposals. Transportation refused access under sections 16 (disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party) and 25 (disclosure harmful to economic interests of a public body) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found exceptions were not properly applied and ordered Transportation to disclose the contract value/price to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2010 |
JR
|
F2009-19 & F2009-20
|
January 28, 2010 |
City of Edmonton
The applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton in order to determine the source of information about…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton in order to determine the source of information about her plans to build a new house and details about her building permit that appeared in a newsletter. She also made a complaint that the City of Edmonton had disclosed her personal information contrary to Part 2 of FOIP when it disclosed information about her future home to the neighbour on two occasions. The Adjudicator found that the City of Edmonton had not conducted an adequate search for records as required by section 10(1) of FOIP and it contravened Part 2 of FOIP when it disclosed the applicant's personal information to her neighbour.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2009 |
|
F2009-18
|
November 26, 2009 |
Justice and Attorney General
The applicant asked Justice and Attorney General for information concerning the interception of his private communications. Justice and Attorney General…
[More]
The applicant asked Justice and Attorney General for information concerning the interception of his private communications. Justice and Attorney General withheld six pages, in full or in part, under sections 24(1)(a), 24(1)(b), 27(1)(a) and 27(1)(c) of FOIP. The Adjudicator made several determinations, and ordered Justice and Attorney General to release some information and reconsider its discretion not to disclose other information.
|
|
FOIP |
2009 |
|
F2009-17
|
November 23, 2009 |
Energy
The applicant asked Energy for records related to its review of oil and gas royalty rates. Energy initially refused access…
[More]
The applicant asked Energy for records related to its review of oil and gas royalty rates. Energy initially refused access to some of the requested information under various sections of FOIP. However, it later made the information publicly available. Energy said there was a breakdown in internal communications, and the Adjudicator found that it took appropriate steps to remedy the applicant's concerns once known.
|
|
FOIP |
2009 |
|
F2009-16
|
October 9, 2009 |
University of Calgary
The applicant asked the University of Calgary (U of C) for documents relating to a committee’s examination of his allegations…
[More]
The applicant asked the University of Calgary (U of C) for documents relating to a committee’s examination of his allegations against a professor. U of C refused access to some of the requested information, on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy under section 17 of FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered U of C to disclose the information that had been improperly withheld under section 17, and confirmed its decision to withhold the information that had been properly withheld.
|
|
FOIP |
2009 |
|
F2009-15
|
November 4, 2009 |
City of St. Albert
The applicant made a request to the City of St. Albert for “any and all reports, investigation results, correspondence, or…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the City of St. Albert for “any and all reports, investigation results, correspondence, or documents of any kind related to or arising from the fire on January 4, 2004 at [a residential address], which was attended by the St Albert Fire Department”. The City of St. Albert released certain records to the applicant, but withheld others, relying on sections 16, 17 and 27(2) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found the City of St. Albert did not properly apply most exceptions, and ordered the disclosure of most of the information in the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2009 |
|
F2009-14
|
September 11, 2009 |
Edmonton Public School District
An individual made a complaint after Edmonton Public School District (EPSD), in responding to an MLA and the complainant about…
[More]
An individual made a complaint after Edmonton Public School District (EPSD), in responding to an MLA and the complainant about the complainant's concerns with EPSD, included another public body that was not involved in prior correspondence. The Commissioner found that EPSD had contravened Part 2 of FOIP by disclosing personal information contained in the response to the program area of the second public body.
|
|
FOIP |
2009 |
|
F2009-13
|
September 14, 2009 |
Lethbridge Regional Police Service
The applicant made a request to the Lethbridge Regional Police Service (LRPS) for records relating to an altercation that had…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the Lethbridge Regional Police Service (LRPS) for records relating to an altercation that had resulted in criminal charges taking place in March 2008. He requested all witness statements, the information, the promise to appear, and any similar documents, police officers’ notes, and the prosecutor’s information summary. The Adjudicator found that FOIP did not apply to the records at issue because the records related to a prosecution that was ongoing. FOIP exempts records relating to ongoing prosecutions under section 4(1)(k).
|
|
FOIP |
2009 |
|
F2009-12
|
September 10, 2009 |
Edmonton Public School District
After making requests for records, the applicant believed that Edmonton Public School District had failed to conduct an adequate search…
[More]
After making requests for records, the applicant believed that Edmonton Public School District had failed to conduct an adequate search for records as required by section 10(1) of FOIP. The Commissioner found that the Public Body had conducted an adequate search for records in response to the access request. The Commissioner emphasized that the standard required of a public body in searching for responsive records is reasonableness, not perfection.
|
|
FOIP |
2009 |
|
F2009-11
|
September 8, 2009 |
Calgary and Area Child and Family Services Authority
An individual made a complaint alleging that Calgary and Area Child and Family Services Authority disclosed the complainant’s personal information…
[More]
An individual made a complaint alleging that Calgary and Area Child and Family Services Authority disclosed the complainant's personal information in contravention of FOIP. Calgary and Area Child and Family Services Authority conceded it disclosed in contravention of FOIP the complainant's personal information in the course of its investigation into alleged domestic violence involving third parties and the possible need for child intervention.
|
|
FOIP |
2009 |
|
F2009-10
|
September 2, 2009 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant made a request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for records relating to a disciplinary hearing. EPS identified…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for records relating to a disciplinary hearing. EPS identified five responsive records and provided two of these to the applicant on the basis that they were public documents. EPS withheld the remaining three documents on the basis that they were not public and that it would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of individuals referred to in the documents to disclose the records. The Adjudicator confirmed EPS' decision to withhold the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2009 |
|
F2009-09
|
June 22, 2009 |
Seniors and Community Supports
The applicant asked Seniors and Community Supports for his complete file. Seniors and Community Supports withheld some of the requested…
[More]
The applicant asked Seniors and Community Supports for his complete file. Seniors and Community Supports withheld some of the requested information under section 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), section 20 (disclosure harmful to law enforcement), section 24 (advice, etc.) and section 27 (privileged information) of FOIP. Seniors and Community Supports also determined that some information was excluded from the application of the Act under section 4(1)(a) (information in a court file). The Adjudicator made several determinations, and ordered the release of some information to which exceptions did not apply.
|
|
FOIP |
2009 |
|
F2009-08
|
June 16, 2009 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant asked EPS for copies of records related to an ethics committee’s review of the issue of a particular…
[More]
The applicant asked EPS for copies of records related to an ethics committee’s review of the issue of a particular police officer providing evidence for the defence in a criminal matter. EPS granted partial access, withholding the remaining information under section 17 (disclosure harmful to a third party’s personal privacy), section 21 (disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations) and section 24 (advice, etc.) of the Act. The Adjudicator found exceptions did not apply to some information, and ordered EPS to disclose to the applicant the information that was not subject to an exception to disclosure under section 17, 21 or 24 of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2009 |
|
F2009-07
|
August 14, 2009 |
Housing and Urban Affairs
The applicant made a request to Housing and Urban Affairs for copies of records containing information about a grant under…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Housing and Urban Affairs for copies of records containing information about a grant under the affordable housing program to an organization. The organization objected to disclosure on the basis of section 16 of FOIP. The organization raised issues relating to the identity of the applicant, and the Adjudicator found that it was not necessary for the organization to learn the identity of the applicant. The Adjudicator also found that Housing and Urban Affairs had not made decisions to disclose some of the records at issue, and so there was no jurisdiction to review Housing and Urban Affairs' decision in relation to those records.
|
|
FOIP |
2009 |
|
F2009-06
|
April 27, 2009 |
Agriculture Financial Services Corporation
The applicant made a request for records for all communications or papers with his name to the Agriculture Financial Services…
[More]
The applicant made a request for records for all communications or papers with his name to the Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (AFSC). AFSC estimated the fees would be $600.00. The applicant requested a waiver of the fees under section 93(4) of the Act and AFSC denied the request. The Adjudicator found that the applicant had not established that he was unable to pay the fees and found that the requested fees did not relate to a matter of public interest. The Adjudicator upheld the decision of AFSC.
|
|
FOIP |
2009 |
JR
|
F2009-05
|
May 7, 2009 |
University of Alberta
The applicant made a request to the University of Alberta (U of A) for access to written complaints about proposed…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the University of Alberta (U of A) for access to written complaints about proposed changes to a course under FOIP and a TLEF grant application he had made. The applicant was dissatisfied with the search conducted for records relating to the first part of his request. The Adjudicator found that U of A had not established that it had conducted an adequate search for responsive records in relation to the first part of the access request, and ordered it to search through its electronic back up files.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2009 |
|
F2009-04
|
April 21, 2009 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant asked the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for a copy of a police report in relation to an incident…
[More]
The applicant asked the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for a copy of a police report in relation to an incident where a third party allegedly threatened him, including the name and address of the third party. CPS granted partial access, refusing to disclose some of the information under sections 17 and 20 of FOIP. The Adjudicator confirmed CPS' decision to withhold information.
|
|
FOIP |
2009 |
|
F2009-03
|
March 12, 2009 |
Seniors and Community Supports
The applicant requested made a request for access to records from Alberta Seniors and Community Supports (the Public Body) relating…
[More]
The applicant requested made a request for access to records from Alberta Seniors and Community Supports (the Public Body) relating to complaints, responses and recommendations filed under the Protection for Persons in Care Act in relation to the Chinook Health Region. The applicant requested a review of the decision to withhold facility names from the records. The Adjudicator found that section 17 did not require, and that section 20 did not authorize, Seniors and Community Supports to withhold the names of the facilities, as disclosing the names of the facilities would not enable the applicant to obtain the personal information of individuals or informants.
|
|
FOIP |
2009 |
|
F2009-02
|
March 11, 2009 |
Children and Youth Services
The applicant made a request to Children and Youth Services for access to a record relating to an application for…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Children and Youth Services for access to a record relating to an application for benefits made under victims of crime legislation by an individual. Children and Youth Services applied section 12(2)(b) of FOIPC which states that a public body may refuse to confirm or deny the existence of a record of the Act if disclosing the existence of the record would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy. The Adjudicator confirmed the decision of Children and Youth Services to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of a responsive record.
|
|
FOIP |
2009 |
|
F2009-01
|
February 13, 2009 |
Lethbridge Regional Police Commission
The applicant requested information from the Lethbridge Regional Police Commission (LRPC) relating to an individual prior to the individual’s appointment…
[More]
The applicant requested information from the Lethbridge Regional Police Commission (LRPC) relating to an individual prior to the individual's appointment to LRPC, and it granted partial access. The Adjudicator found that LRPC conducted an adequate search for responsive records. However, the Adjudicator also found that LRPC did not meet its obligation of informing the applicant about what had been done to search for the records, especially given that he specifically asked whether particular records existed.
|
|
FOIP |
2011 |
|
F2008-32
|
January 10, 2011 |
Solicitor General and Public Security
The applicant made a request for records from Solicitor General and Public Security relating to a cost-benefit study conducted by…
[More]
The applicant made a request for records from Solicitor General and Public Security relating to a cost-benefit study conducted by KPMG of the Royal Canadian Mountain Police’s (RCMP) performance as Alberta’s contract provincial police force. Solicitor General and Public Security identified a briefing note and a review review report as records responsive to the applicant’s access request. Solicitor General and Public Security disclosed some information from the briefing note, but withheld the remainder of the information under sections 24(1)(a), (b) and (c) (advice from officials) and section 25 (harm to economic and other interests of a public body) of FOIP. At the inquiry, Solicitor General and Public Security also sought to apply section 21(1)(a) (harm to intergovernmental relations), to the information it had withheld. The Adjudicator found sections 21 and 25 did not apply, and ordered Solicitor General and Public Security to reconsider its discretion to withhold information under section 24.
|
|
FOIP |
2009 |
|
F2008-31
|
September 16, 2009 |
Alberta Insurance Council
The applicant asked the Alberta Insurance Council (AIC) for files pertaining to their investigations of two complaints about him. AIC…
[More]
The applicant asked the Alberta Insurance Council (AIC) for files pertaining to their investigations of two complaints about him. AIC gave the applicant partial access, withholding information under section 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), section 20 (disclosure harmful to law enforcement), section 24 (advice, etc.) and section 27 (privileged information). The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.
|
|
FOIP |
2009 |
|
F2008-30
|
August 7, 2009 |
Calgary and Area Child and Family Services Authority Region 3
After receiving a response to an access request, the individual made a complaint that Region 3 Calgary and Area Child…
[More]
After receiving a response to an access request, the individual made a complaint that Region 3 Calgary and Area Child and Family Services Authority collected his personal information in contravention of FOIP. The Adjudicator found Region 3 Calgary and Area Child and Family Services Authority was in compliance with FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2009 |
|
F2008-29
|
August 7, 2009 |
Calgary Police Service
An individual complained that the Calgary Police Service (CPS) disclosed his personal information, as contained in police reports, to the…
[More]
An individual complained that the Calgary Police Service (CPS) disclosed his personal information, as contained in police reports, to the Region 3 Calgary and Area Child and Family Services Authority (CFSA), contrary to Part 2 of FOIP. The individual also complained that the CPS disclosed this personal information to an affected party, a society for the prevention of domestic violence, pursuant to an information-sharing agreement, in contravention of FOIP. The Adjudicator found CPS was in compliance with FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2009 |
|
F2008-28
|
July 16, 2009 |
Employment and Immigration
The applicant asked Employment and Immigration for information relating to the enactment and implementation of a bill and related regulations.…
[More]
The applicant asked Employment and Immigration for information relating to the enactment and implementation of a bill and related regulations. Employment and Immigration refused access to some of the requested information under sections 16 (disclosure harmful to business interests), 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), 21 (disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations), 22 (Cabinet confidences), 24 (advice, etc.) and 27 (privileged information) of FOIP. It also determined that information was excluded from the application of the Act under section 4(1)(q). The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.
|
|
FOIP |
2009 |
JR
|
F2008-27
|
June 9, 2009 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant requested a copy of a committee report from the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). EPS relied on section 21(1)(b)…
[More]
The applicant requested a copy of a committee report from the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). EPS relied on section 21(1)(b) (information supplied in confidence by a government) in withholding information in the report. The Adjudicator found that section 21(1)(b) did not apply to the information withheld by EPS.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2008-26
|
November 3, 2008 |
Finance and Enterprise
The applicant made a request to Finance and Enterprise for records relating to a process to locate former members of…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Finance and Enterprise for records relating to a process to locate former members of a pension plan who were past retirement age and had not contacted the plan administrator. Finance and Enterprise responded to the applicant’s access request, but withheld the personal information of a third party from two records. The Adjudicator confirmed Finance and Enterprise’s decision to withhold the personal information of a third party.
|
|
FOIP |
2009 |
|
F2008-25
|
May 21, 2009 |
Attendance Board
An individual complained that his personal information had been collected in a manner contrary FOIP when the provincial Attendance Board…
[More]
An individual complained that his personal information had been collected in a manner contrary FOIP when the provincial Attendance Board admitted into evidence a psychologist’s report that, though pertaining primarily to the complainant’s son, also contained some of the complainant’s personal information. He also complained that his personal information had been disclosed contrary to the Act when the Attendance Board disclosed the report to the son’s school. The Adjudicator found that the Attendance Board’s admission of the entire report as evidence in the attendance hearing was in compliance with FOIP. However, she found that the Attendance Board’s disclosure of the report to the school was not authorized.
|
|
FOIP |
2009 |
|
F2008-24
|
May 15, 2009 |
Edmonton Police Service
After receiving a response to an access request for personal information, the individual complained that queries made relative to him…
[More]
After receiving a response to an access request for personal information, the individual complained that queries made relative to him by EPS members on police information databases were done in contravention of FOIP. The Commissioner rejected the complaint with respect to most of the queries.
|
|
FOIP |
2009 |
|
F2008-23
|
March 31, 2009 |
Edmonton Public School District
A teacher and a secretary were involved in a dispute while both worked at a school operated by Edmonton School…
[More]
A teacher and a secretary were involved in a dispute while both worked at a school operated by Edmonton School District No. 7 (EPSD). Under FOIP, the teacher asked EPSD for a copy of a letter that had been received by the secretary and that the teacher believed contained her personal information. EPSD refused to provide access, saying that the letter was not in its custody or under its control, as it had been given to the secretary in her individual capacity. The Adjudicator found that the letter contained the teacher’s personal information, but that it had not been collected by EPSD. When the secretary obtained the letter, she did so in her personal capacity, albeit in relation to a dispute with a fellow employee.
|
|
FOIP |
2009 |
|
F2008-22
|
March 20, 2009 |
Energy Resources Conservation Board
An individual complained that the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) contravened FOIP when it revealed to a gas facility operator…
[More]
An individual complained that the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) contravened FOIP when it revealed to a gas facility operator that he was the individual who had reported a gas odour. ERCB argued that it did not disclose the complainant’s personal information, as it merely indicated that the complainant had been doing pipeline security work. If it did disclose the complainant’s personal information, the Public Body argued that had the authority to do so under various sections of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that ERCB disclosed the complainant's personal information improperly.
|
|
FOIP |
2009 |
JR
|
F2008-21
|
July 15, 2009 |
Edmonton Police Commission
The applicant made a request for access to records about dismissals of disciplinary charges under section 43(11) of the Police…
[More]
The applicant made a request for access to records about dismissals of disciplinary charges under section 43(11) of the Police Act. The Edmonton Police Commission (EPC) responded to the applicant’s request for access, but withheld information under sections 17 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy), 20 (harm to law enforcement), 24 (advice from officials) and 27 (privileged information) of FOIP. The Adjudicator made several determinations, including finding that the public interest in disclosing opinions and views, which illustrate the circumstances under which the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) has dismissed complaints of police misconduct under section 43(11) of the Police Act, outweighed the privacy interests of third parties.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2009 |
|
F2008-20
|
March 18, 2009 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant asked the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for a video allegedly capturing police officers assaulting an individual, and an…
[More]
The applicant asked the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for a video allegedly capturing police officers assaulting an individual, and an internal report investigating the matter. EPS refused access to all of the information under section 17 of the Act, on the basis that the requested records contained the personal information of third parties and disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of their personal privacy. The Adjudicator confirmed the decision of EPS, but ordered the disclosure of some information to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2008-19
|
July 31, 2008 |
Infrastructure
The applicant requested copies of records from Infrastructure relating to the sale of the McLeod and Permanent Trust Buildings by…
[More]
The applicant requested copies of records from Infrastructure relating to the sale of the McLeod and Permanent Trust Buildings by the Province of Alberta in 1997. Infrastructure determined that a purchase agreement between an organization and Public Works, Supply and Services was responsive to the applicant’s request and decided to disclose the record. The organization objected to disclosure of the record. The Adjudicator confirmed the decision of Infrastructure to disclose the record.
|
|
FOIP |
2009 |
|
F2008-18
|
January 12, 2009 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant requested copies of records relating to the operation of red light cameras and records containing criticisms of red…
[More]
The applicant requested copies of records relating to the operation of red light cameras and records containing criticisms of red light cameras from the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). EPS withheld a record entitled the “Red Light Client Training Manual” under section 16 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the manual contained the technical information of a third party. However, the Adjudicator found that section 16 of the Act did not apply to the technical information in the manual. EPS was ordered to disclose the manual to the Applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2008-17
|
December 23, 2008 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for an internal affairs investigation file. EPS disclosed…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for an internal affairs investigation file. EPS disclosed most of the file, but severed some information applying sections 17 and 24 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that EPS improperly applied section 17 of the Act to some of the severed information as it was not personal information, but found that the EPS properly severed personal information of the complainant, witnesses, a reporter and affected parties. The Adjudicator also found that EPS properly applied section 24(1)(b) of the Act.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2008-16
|
December 23, 2008 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant requested records relating to a complaint made against him by the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). EPS responded but…
[More]
The applicant requested records relating to a complaint made against him by the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). EPS responded but severed several records pursuant to sections 4, 17, 21, 24 and 27 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that there were instances where EPS had not properly applied sections 17, 21, 24 and 27 of the Act.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2008-15
|
July 2, 2008 |
Employment and Immigration
The applicant requested information from Employment and Immigration regarding personal expense records of a third party that were generated while…
[More]
The applicant requested information from Employment and Immigration regarding personal expense records of a third party that were generated while he was using a government credit card and correspondence between several named government ministers and employees regarding the same. The applicant also requested all documents within a named file number. Employment and Immigration decided to withhold the majority of the information as either non-responsive or pursuant to section 17(unreasonable invasion of privacy). The Commissioner held that Employment and Immigration did not properly withhold a portion of the records as non-responsive or pursuant to section 17, and ordered Employment and Immigration to disclose that information to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2008-14
|
July 2, 2008 |
Finance and Enterprise
The applicant requested information from Finance and Enterprise regarding personal expense records of a third party that were generated while…
[More]
The applicant requested information from Finance and Enterprise regarding personal expense records of a third party that were generated while he was using a government credit card and correspondence between several named government ministers and employees regarding the same. The applicant also requested all documents within a named file number. Finance and Enterprise decided to withhold the majority of the information as either non-responsive or pursuant to section 17(unreasonable invasion of privacy). The Commissioner held that Finance and Enterprise did not properly withhold a portion of the records as non-responsive or pursuant to section 17, and ordered Finance and Enterprise to disclose that information to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
JR
|
F2008-13
|
October 9, 2008 |
Edmonton Police Service
The Edmonton Police Service (EPS) objected to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner or delegate to conduct an inquiry under FOIP.…
[More]
The Edmonton Police Service (EPS) objected to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner or delegate to conduct an inquiry under FOIP. It based its objection on alleged non-compliance with section 69(6) of FOIP, which requires an inquiry to be completed within 90 days unless the Commissioner notifies the parties that the period is being extended, and provides an anticipated date for the completion of the review. The Adjudicator found that the Commissioner did not lose jurisdiction.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2008 |
JR
|
F2008-12 & H2008-03
|
October 30, 2008 |
Caritas Health Group
The applicant made an access request for a copy of a letter and an email containing his personal information from…
[More]
The applicant made an access request for a copy of a letter and an email containing his personal information from Caritas Health Group. In addition to requesting a review of Caritas Health Group's failure to provide records, the applicant also made a complaint that it disclosed his personal information in contravention of FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Caritas Health Group to disclose the records to the applicant, but for the name of a patient that appeared in the letter. The Adjudicator found that Caritas Health Group did not disclose the personal information of the applicant contrary to Part 2 of FOIP.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2009 |
|
F2008-11
|
January 15, 2009 |
The applicant made an access request to the City of Calgary for a copy of a valuation report relating to…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the City of Calgary for a copy of a valuation report relating to the airport and communications relating to the preparation of the valuation report. The City of Calgary identified responsive records but severed information from these records on the basis of section 24 (advice from officials). The Adjudicator decided that section 24(1) of FOIP did not apply to the information severed by the City of Calgary because the information fell under section 24(2). The Adjudicator ordered the City of Calgary to disclose the records in their entirety to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2008-10
|
April 7, 2008 |
Finance and Enterprise
The applicant asked Finance and Enterprise for copies of contracts awarded to two named individuals. One of the individuals consented…
[More]
The applicant asked Finance and Enterprise for copies of contracts awarded to two named individuals. One of the individuals consented to the release of his two contracts, provided that his salary information and home address were withheld. Finance and Enterprise provided the applicant with the requested records but withheld the annual salary, monthly salary and home address of the second individual, on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of his personal privacy under section 17 of FOIP. The Adjudicator confirmed Finance and Enterprise's decision to refuse access.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
JR
|
F2008-09
|
August 19, 2008 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant asked the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for access to disciplinary decisions involving its members. CPS refused access under…
[More]
The applicant asked the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for access to disciplinary decisions involving its members. CPS refused access under section 17 of FOIP, on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of third parties. The Adjudicator concluded that disclosure of most of the personal information in the records at issue would not be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy and accordingly ordered CPS to give access to the applicant.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2008-08
|
June 6, 2008 |
Employment and Immigration
The applicant asked Employment and Immigration for the questions and results of a public opinion survey on employment standards, which…
[More]
The applicant asked Employment and Immigration for the questions and results of a public opinion survey on employment standards, which had been conducted by telephone. Employment and Immigration refused access, relying on the discretionary exceptions to disclosure set out in sections 24(1)(a), (b), (d) and (g) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found section 24(1) did not apply, and ordered Employment and Immigration to give the applicant access to the information.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2008-07
|
February 28, 2008 |
Justice and Attorney General
The applicant made a request to Justice and Attorney General for copies of all records relating to the Calgary Crown…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Justice and Attorney General for copies of all records relating to the Calgary Crown Prosecutor’s Office’s investigation into an incident involving a peace officer and the decision not to press criminal charges against the officer. Justice and Attorney General denied the request, citing sections 17(1), 17(4), 20(1), 21(1) and 27 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the records at issue revealed information relating to or used in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and that Justice and Attorney General had properly applied its discretion to withhold them under section 20(1)(g).
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2008-06
|
December 23, 2008 |
City of Edmonton
The applicant requested records from the City of Edmonton relating to 12 building and development permits. The Adjudicator found that…
[More]
The applicant requested records from the City of Edmonton relating to 12 building and development permits. The Adjudicator found that the City of Edmonton did not provide sufficient evidence that it conducted an adequate search for records and, therefore, may have failed in its duty to assist the applicant under section 10(1) of FOIP when it did not search both possible repositories for records. The Adjudicator also found that not providing the applicant with copies of responsive records because the records had been provided to the applicant as the result of prior access requests was contrary to section 10(1) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2008-05
|
December 23, 2008 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant made a request to Edmonton Police Service (EPS) on behalf of his client for information regarding a possible…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Edmonton Police Service (EPS) on behalf of his client for information regarding a possible wiretap on his client’s telephone and information as to who was performing that wiretap. EPS refused to confirm or deny the existence of the wiretap pursuant to section 12(2) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that EPS had properly applied section 12(2) of FOIP to the applicant’s request. However, the Adjudicator cautioned against applying a blanket policy to requests for wiretaps that did not take into consideration the individual circumstances of an applicant’s request.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2008-04
|
December 23, 2008 |
Calgary Board of Education
The applicant made an access request to the Calgary Board of Education (CBE) for her daughter’s cumulative student file and…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the Calgary Board of Education (CBE) for her daughter’s cumulative student file and other records relating to her daughter. CBE withheld some records on the basis that they were not responsive to the applicant’s request or severed pursuant to section 17 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the information withheld by CBE from the records was responsive to the applicant’s request. However, the Adjudicator found that, with limited exceptions, the third party personal information in the records had been or must be severed under section 17 of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2008-03
|
December 12, 2008 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant requested copies of records and audio communication records relating to a traffic ticket issued to her client by…
[More]
The applicant requested copies of records and audio communication records relating to a traffic ticket issued to her client by the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). Initially EPS refused access to the records as the traffic ticket was still a matter before the courts. The applicant made a second request. EPS questioned the Adjudicator's jurisdiction. For the first request, the Adjudicator found that records were excluded by section 4(1)(k) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that applicant’s second request occurred after the prosecution of the traffic ticket had concluded and the Adjudicator could hear the matter. The Adjudicator further found that the EPS failed to fulfill its duty under section 10 of the Act when it did not find or disclose a certain record.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2008-02
|
January 31, 2008 |
Justice and Attorney General
The applicant requested that Justice and Attorney General provide copies of records relating to a decision of a crown prosecutor…
[More]
The applicant requested that Justice and Attorney General provide copies of records relating to a decision of a crown prosecutor about pressing charges against Edmonton Police Service officers. Justice and Attorney General withheld the requested records on the basis that they were related to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, were subject to legal privilege, and contained personal information. The Adjudicator confirmed the decision of Justice and Attorney General to withhold the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2008-01
|
February 15, 2008 |
Calgary Police Service
An individual complained that a member of the Calgary Police Service (CPS) had disclosed personal information to her former husband.…
[More]
An individual complained that a member of the Calgary Police Service (CPS) had disclosed personal information to her former husband. CPS conceded that a staff sergeant had collected, used and disclosed the complainant’s personal information in contravention of Part 2 of FOIP. Following the complaint, CPS introduced new policies prohibiting improper access of police databases by its members.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2007-32
|
January 16, 2008 |
Sustainable Resource Development
Sustainable Resource Development decided to release information regarding surface materials lease applications made by a third party to the applicant…
[More]
Sustainable Resource Development decided to release information regarding surface materials lease applications made by a third party to the applicant who had requested them. The third party objected to release of the records. The Adjudicator confirmed the decision of Sustainable Resource Development to release the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
JR
|
F2007-31
|
November 27, 2008 |
Grande Yellowhead Regional Division
Individuals made a complaint that the Grande Yellowhead Regional Division No. 35 (GYRD) disclosed the complainants’ personal information to the…
[More]
Individuals made a complaint that the Grande Yellowhead Regional Division No. 35 (GYRD) disclosed the complainants’ personal information to the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) in contravention of FOIP. During the inquiry process, GYRD and ATA asserted that the Commissioner had lost jurisdiction to hear the inquiry, due to delay which those parties assert exceeds the timeline set out in section 69(6) of FOIP. The Commissioner held that section 69(6) was complied with in this case.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2007-30
|
December 19, 2007 |
Edmonton Police Service
An individual complained that Edmonton Police Service’s (EPS) use of the applicant’s personal information in conducting searches in PROBE and…
[More]
An individual complained that Edmonton Police Service’s (EPS) use of the applicant’s personal information in conducting searches in PROBE and CPIC systems contravened Part 2 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that, pursuant to section 39(1)(b), EPS had the applicant’s consent to use the applicant’s personal information to conduct some of the searches. The Adjudicator also found that EPS had the authority, pursuant to section 39(1)(a), read in conjunction with sections 33(b) and 33(c), to use the applicant’s personal information to conduct the remaining searches.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2007-29
|
June 12, 2008 |
Edmonton Police Commission
The applicant requested copies of his personal information and information about a police chief competition from the Edmonton Police Commission…
[More]
The applicant requested copies of his personal information and information about a police chief competition from the Edmonton Police Commission (EPC). EPC released records, but severed information from them on the basis of solicitor-client privilege (section 27 of FOIP) and because they contained personal information (section 17 of FOIP). The Commissioner ordered EPC to release information relating to city council members and the personal information of the author of a letter. The Commissioner determined that EPC had properly applied section 27 to the records at issue. The Commissioner also found that EPC had not responded to the applicant openly, accurately and completely as required by section 10 of FOIP and had not conducted an adequate search for responsive records.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
JR
|
F2007-28
|
February 14, 2008 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant requested records containing his personal information from the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). EPS disclosed some information to the…
[More]
The applicant requested records containing his personal information from the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). EPS disclosed some information to the applicant, but withheld the identities of the authors and recipients of certain emails. EPS advised the applicant that it would not search its electronic backup files. The Commissioner ordered EPS to release the personal information it had withheld because the persons were acting in their official capacities when they created the records and, in one case, because the author intended to be identified. The Commissioner found that EPS had not completed an adequate search for records and had therefore not met its duty to assist the applicant. The Commissioner ordered EPS to search for the requested records, and specified that the search was to include the electronic backup files.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2007-27
|
November 12, 2007 |
Calgary Health Region
The applicant alleges that the information about herself in her daughter’s hospital record at Alberta Children’s Hospital is her own…
[More]
The applicant alleges that the 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 issue arose as to whether the applicant’s request to the Calgary Health Region is deemed to be a request for correction or amendment under section 36 of FOIP by virtue of the deeming provision in section 16(2) of HIA. The concurrent HIA inquiry resulted in Order H2007-006. The Adjudicator found that the information is in the custody or under the control of the Calgary Health Region as a public body that is a custodian as defined in HIA under section 16(3) of HIA. However, the Adjudicator found that section 4(1)(u) of FOIP excludes the information from FOIP because the information is “health information” as defined in HIA.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2007-26
|
March 11, 2008 |
Energy and Utilities Board
An individual complained that the Energy and Utilities Board disclosed, in contravention of section 40 of FOIP, the complainant’s personal…
[More]
An individual complained that the Energy and Utilities Board disclosed, in contravention of section 40 of FOIP, the complainant’s personal information to two organizations. The Adjudicator found that the there was insufficient information and evidence to conclude that the Energy and Utilities Board disclosed the complainant’s personal information to these two organizations.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2007-25
|
November 24, 2008 |
County of Vermilion River
The applicant made an access request to the County of Vermilion River #24 for an employee’s letter of resignation and…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the County of Vermilion River #24 for an employee’s letter of resignation and a copy of the settlement agreement concerning that employee. He also requested bills of account from two law firms. The Adjudicator ordered the County of Vermilion River to disclose portions of the settlement agreement, as the Adjudicator found that disclosing some of the personal information contained in these records would not be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy. The Adjudicator confirmed the decision of the County of Vermilion River to withhold the letter of resignation. The Adjudicator found that the settlement agreement was not privileged. The Adjudicator found that the lawyers’ bills of account were subject to a presumption of solicitor-client privilege. As the Adjudicator found that the presumption was rebutted only in relation to the total amounts billed, the applicant was entitled only to that information.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2007-24
|
January 11, 2008 |
Solicitor General and Public Security
The applicant requested a fee waiver in the public interest for records pertaining to courthouse perimeter security, which was denied…
[More]
The applicant requested a fee waiver in the public interest for records pertaining to courthouse perimeter security, which was denied by Solicitor General and Public Security. The Adjudicator found that Solicitor General and Public Security reasonably formed the opinion that the record was not a matter of public interest, properly exercised its discretion when deciding to refuse the fee waiver, and therefore, properly refused to waive the fees under section 93(4)(b) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2007-23
|
January 10, 2008 |
Capital Health
The applicant requested a fee waiver for a continuing access request, which was denied by Capital Health. The applicant asked…
[More]
The applicant requested a fee waiver for a continuing access request, which was denied by Capital Health. The applicant asked to be excused from paying the fee, saying the information is important to bring closure to outstanding concerns between the parties that are protracted and longstanding issues, pursuant to Order 2001-042. The Adjudicator found that Capital Health reasonably formed the opinion that none of the three criteria apply that allow a public body to grant a fee waiver (inability to pay, fairness and public interest), properly exercised its discretion when deciding to refuse, and therefore, properly applied sections 93(4)(a) and 93(4)(b) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2007-22
|
September 25, 2007 |
Conseil scolaire catholique et francophone du Sud de l’Alberta
The applicant requested information, including personal information from the Conseil scolaire catholique et francophone du Sud de l’Alberta. The Conseil…
[More]
The applicant requested information, including personal information from the Conseil scolaire catholique et francophone du Sud de l’Alberta. The Conseil scolaire catholique et francophone du Sud de l’Alberta provided records, but withheld or severed information on the basis of sections 17, 19, 21, 24, 25, and 27 of FOIP, and on the basis that some information was not within the scope of the applicant’s access request. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2007-21
|
May 30, 2008 |
Justice and Attorney General
The applicant asked Justice and Attorney General for access to all documentation and files about himself held by certain departments…
[More]
The applicant asked Justice and Attorney General for access to all documentation and files about himself held by certain departments within Justice and Attorney General. Justice and Attorney General provided access to some of the requested information, but withheld the remaining information under sections 4(1)(a) (information in a court file), 4(1)(d) (record of an officer of the legislature), 17 (disclosure harmful to a third party’s personal privacy), 20(1)(g) (information relating to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion), 24(1)(a) (advice, etc.), 24(1)(b) (consultations or deliberations), 27(1)(c) (privileged information) and 58 (information supplied or record produced during an investigation or inquiry by Commissioner) of FOIP. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2007-20
|
August 7, 2007 |
Finance
The applicant made an access request to Finance for information related to any security issues or errors which were made…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Finance for information related to any security issues or errors which were made in regard to the $400 resource rebate payments issued by the Government of Alberta. Finance estimated the fees for service to be $767.50. The applicant requested a waiver of the fees pursuant to section 93 on the basis that the records related to a matter of public interest. The Adjudicator held that the requested records related to a matter of public interest and fell within section 93(4)(b) of FOIP, and ordered the fee to be reduced to zero.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2007-19
|
March 3, 2008 |
Edmonton Public School District
A student’s parents complained that Edmonton Public School Board District No. 7 (EPSD) had collected and used the student’s personal…
[More]
A student’s parents complained that Edmonton Public School Board District No. 7 (EPSD) had collected and used the student's personal information when its administrators confiscated his cell phone and accessed the photographs it contained. The Commissioner found that the evidence did not establish that the parents had standing to make the complaint under FOIP or that the son’s personal information had been collected or used by EPSD.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2007-18
|
April 2, 2008 |
Edmonton Police Commission
An individual requested that the Edmonton Police Commission (EPC) correct certain of his personal information contained in a written decision…
[More]
An individual requested that the Edmonton Police Commission (EPC) correct certain of his personal information contained in a written decision of EPC and other records. EPC refused to make the requested corrections under section 36 of FOIP, but annotated the file with the correction request. The Adjudicator found that EPC properly refused to correct the complainant’s personal information, but it did not make a proper annotation or linkage between the correction request and the personal information requested to be corrected.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2007-17
|
January 21, 2008 |
Capital Health
The applicant made an access request to Capital Health for information regarding public complaints, public health inspections and statistical data…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Capital Health for information regarding public complaints, public health inspections and statistical data regarding restaurant inspections. Capital Health initially estimated the fees for service to be in excess of $140,000. Capital Health issued a revised estimate of $1,240. The applicant subsequently requested a fee waiver pursuant to section 93(4)(b) of FOIP on the basis that the records related to a matter of public interest. Capital Health did not grant the fee waiver. The Commissioner held that the requested records related to a matter of public interest and fell within section 93(4)(b) of the Act. The Commissioner ordered the fee to be reduced to zero.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2007-16
|
November 15, 2007 |
Employment, Immigration and Industry
The applicant requested copies of all of her personal information from Employment, Immigration and Industry, with the exception of documents…
[More]
The applicant requested copies of all of her personal information from Employment, Immigration and Industry, with the exception of documents that she provided to Employment, Immigration and Industry or that it already provided to her. Employment, Immigration and Industry estimated the number of records involved to consist of at least 1,828 pages and the accompanying fee to be $457. The applicant requested a fee waiver under section 93(4)(a) of FOIP on the basis that she could not afford payment. Employment, Immigration and Industry acknowledged the applicant’s inability to pay the entire fee but exercised its discretion not to excuse payment. The Adjudicator found that because the request for a fee waiver was based on inability to pay, and the applicant had requested her personal information rather than general government records, the scope of the request and cost to Employment, Immigration and Industry were less relevant than in matters involving fee waivers based on public interest or fairness.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
JR
|
F2007-15
|
November 15, 2007 |
University of Alberta
An individual complained that the University of Alberta had disclosed confidential employment information when it had posted a statistical summary. During…
[More]
An individual complained that the University of Alberta had disclosed confidential employment information when it had posted a statistical summary. During the inquiry, the complainant made a second complaint about another incident in which information was disclosed. The Adjudicator decided that posting the statistical summary contravened Part 2 of FOIP, but determined there was no jurisdiction to make a decision regarding the second incident.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2007-14
|
October 10, 2008 |
The applicant requested access to records relating to the source of payment to the law firm of Bennett Jones for…
[More]
The applicant requested access to records relating to the source of payment to the law firm of Bennett Jones for legal services rendered in relation to complaints by the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) or its employees to the Law Society against the applicant, the amount of the payments relating to each complaint and the budgetary item from which the payments were drawn. EPS withheld the bills and other responsive records under section 27 of FOIP on the basis that they were privileged. The Adjudicator determined that disclosing the total amounts due, the firm letterhead, and the name and address of EPS from each bill of account would not enable the applicant to acquire privileged communications. The Adjudicator decided that EPS was entitled to withhold all other information on the basis of section 27 of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2007-13
|
April 2, 2008 |
Health and Wellness
The applicant made an access request to Health and Wellness for documented communications between Health and Wellness and any department…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Health and Wellness for documented communications between Health and Wellness and any department of the Government of Alberta, cabinet minister, minister’s staff, employer, employers’ organization, union or other stakeholder concerning the enactment, promulgation and implementation of Bill 27 and the Regulations thereto. Health and Wellness provided the applicant with some records but withheld a large number of records pursuant to several sections of the Act. The Commissioner made several determinations.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2007-12
|
October 12, 2007 |
Edmonton Police Commission
The applicant requested records relating to the hiring of an executive director of the Edmonton Police Commission (EPC), including the…
[More]
The applicant requested records relating to the hiring of an executive director of the Edmonton Police Commission (EPC), including the employment contract. EPC advised the applicant that it was extending the time to respond to his access request under section 14 of FOIP. EPC responded to the access request and severed information under section 17 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that EPC had not met its duty to assist the applicant under section 10 of FOIP or its duty to respond to the applicant within the statutory timeframe in section 11. The Adjudicator ordered EPC to reconsider its decision to withhold information under section 17 and ordered EPC to refund fees to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2007-11
|
February 5, 2008 |
University of Alberta
The applicant made a request to the University of Alberta for a copy of an agreement, entered into by the…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the University of Alberta for a copy of an agreement, entered into by the University of Alberta , the Students’ Union, and Coca Cola Bottling Ltd., for establishing the latter as the sole cold beverage provider to the University of Alberta. The University of Alberta agreed to permit the applicant and individual students to view the entire agreement in its offices, but refused to provide a copy to the applicant. The Adjudicator held that the University of Alberta had failed to meet its statutory obligation to provide a copy of the records to the applicant, and ordered it to do so.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2007-10
|
August 7, 2007 |
Town of Lamont
The applicant made an access request to the Town of Lamont for information regarding the Town of Lamont’s contracts and…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the Town of Lamont for information regarding the Town of Lamont’s contracts and tender process as well as information regarding the Town of Lamont’s administration. The Town of Lamont estimated the fees for service to be $262.50. Upon receipt of the fee estimate, the applicant requested a waiver of the fees pursuant to section 93. The Applicant also questioned whether the Town of Lamont properly estimated the fees for service and whether the Town of Lamont fulfilled its duty to assist. The Adjudicator found that the fee waiver criteria under section 93 were not fulfilled and confirmed the Town of Lamont’s decision not to waive fees. The Adjudicator also found that the Town of Lamont fulfilled its duty to assist. The Adjudicator found that the Town of Lamont did not properly estimate the fees for service and ordered the Town of Lamont to provide the applicant with a new fee estimate.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2007-09
|
September 24, 2007 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant made a request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for materials relating to the investigation of the applicant…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for materials relating to the investigation of the applicant by EPS. EPS stated that the records were excluded from FOIP by section 4(1)(k). EPS stated that the records related to a prosecution and that all the proceedings in regard to the prosecution had not been completed. EPS maintained that the prosecution was not “completed” for the purposes of section 4(1)(k) until the expiry of the one year stay period. The Adjudicator held that, at the date of inquiry, the one year stay period had expired. As such, whether section 4(1)(k) applied to the records was a moot issue.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2007-08
|
September 24, 2007 |
Infrastructure and Transportation
The applicant made an access request to Infrastructure and Transportation for records relating to the suspension of her driver’s licence.…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Infrastructure and Transportation for records relating to the suspension of her driver’s licence. Infrastructure and Transportation provided some records, but refused to provide others in reliance on section 27(1) of FOIP (legal privilege) and section 24(1) of FOIP (advice from officials). The Adjudicator confirmed Infrastructure and Transportation’s decision to withhold the records under section 27.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2007-07
|
April 18, 2007 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for copies of records relating to complaints made…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for copies of records relating to complaints made by the EPS to the Law Society of Alberta. The applicant also requested access to records relating to complaints by the EPS to the Canadian Judicial Council or the Alberta Judicial Council regarding judges and to the provincial court regarding justices of the peace. EPS denied the applicant’s request. The Adjudicator held that a portion of the records were excluded from FOIP under section 4(1)(a). The Adjudicator also found that section 17 applied to the personal information in the remaining records.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2007-06
|
August 16, 2007 |
City of Edmonton
The applicant made a request to the City of Edmonton for access to files relating to a condominium conversion, a…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the City of Edmonton for access to files relating to a condominium conversion, a noise control plan, and a business license. The applicant requested review of the City of Edmonton's response on the basis that the City of Edmonton had failed to provide all the records relating to the access request and that the documents that had been provided were incomplete or inaccurate. The applicant also requested review of the City of Edmonton’s decision not to provide a copy of a certificate of title. The Adjudicator found that the City of Edmonton had conducted an adequate search for responsive records and had met its duty to assist the applicant under section 10 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the certificate of title was exempt from FOIP under section 4(1)(l)(v).
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2007-05
|
December 6, 2007 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for directives and training materials relating to canine…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for directives and training materials relating to canine units. EPS provided the requested information, but withheld a video on the basis of section 20(1)(c), 20(1)(j) and 20(1)(k) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that some of the information contained in the video was properly withheld under section 20(1)(k), but that the remainder of information in the video should be disclosed.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2007-04
|
January 4, 2008 |
Justice and Attorney General
The applicant requested records from Justice and Attorney General about a pilot project. Justice and Attorney General disclosed some information,…
[More]
The applicant requested records from Justice and Attorney General about a pilot project. Justice and Attorney General disclosed some information, but withheld other information pursuant to section 24(1)(b) (advice from officials), section 27(1)(b) (legal privilege - legal services) and section 27(1)(c) (legal privilege - information in correspondence) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that Justice and Attorney General properly applied section 27(1)(c) of FOIP to most of the information withheld and properly applied section 27(1)(b) to the balance of the information. The Adjudicator did not find it necessary to consider whether Justice and Attorney General properly applied section 24(1)(b) of FOIP to the same information.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2007-03
|
January 15, 2008 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant submitted an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for any records relating to the police investigation…
[More]
The applicant submitted an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for any records relating to the police investigation of a particular incident. EPS refused to either confirm or deny whether there were any responsive records under section 12(2) of FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered EPS to respond to the applicant’s request without relying on section 12(2).
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
JR
|
F2007-01, F2007-02 & P2007-01
|
February 15, 2008 |
City of Edmonton, Edmonton Police Service and Emu Inc. (Carrying on Business as Cash Converters Mill Woods)
An individual complained that a second hand store had collected his personal information under a municipal bylaw and uploaded that…
[More]
An individual complained that a second hand store had collected his personal information under a municipal bylaw and uploaded that information to a database maintained by Business Watch International (BWI), so that the personal information was available to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). Under a directive of the City of Edmonton’s City Manager, pawnshops and second hand stores must upload the personal information collected under Bylaw 13138 to a database maintained by Business Watch International (BWI). The Commissioner made several determinations, including that the City of Edmonton did not have the authority under FOIP to require second hand stores and pawnshops to upload the complainant’s personal information to the BWI database. The Commissioner ordered the City of Edmonton to destroy the complainant’s personal information and to take immediate steps to secure the personal information of pawnshop and second hand store clients uploaded to the BWI database under the directive that is in the physical custody of a pawnshop or second hand store.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2010 |
|
F2006-33
|
October 13, 2010 |
Edmonton Police Service
An individual brought a complaint that his name had been used by various members of the Edmonton Police Service (EPS)…
[More]
An individual brought a complaint that his name had been used by various members of the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) to run queries on police information systems, on nine occasions, in the absence of the authorization required by section 39 of FOIP. He also complained that the security arrangements for personal information in relation to such queries were not in accordance with the requirements of section 38 of the Act. The Commissioner found that the EPS had demonstrated that it had authority under section 39 for conducting some of the queries, but that it had failed to demonstrate that it had authority for some of them and that some of them had clearly been conducted for improper purposes and without authority. The Commissioner held that the systems that were in place at the time the unauthorized queries were conducted were inadequate both in terms of the training members had received for entering queries, and as to the absence of a requirement to give reasons and to enter the reason on the computerized information system.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2006-32
|
March 2, 2007 |
Capital Care Group
The applicant applied for a waiver of fees that Capital Care Group charged with respect to his request for records,…
[More]
The applicant applied for a waiver of fees that Capital Care Group charged with respect to his request for records, in a particular format, regarding actual and budgeted expenditures and revenues relating to six seniors’ care facilities over the course of six fiscal years. The Adjudicator affirmed Capital Care Group’s decision to deny the fee waiver, on the basis that the records do not relate to a matter of public interest.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
JR
|
F2006-31
|
September 22, 2008 |
Edmonton Police Service
The Edmonton Police Service (EPS) objected to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner on the basis that the Commissioner did not…
[More]
The Edmonton Police Service (EPS) objected to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner on the basis that the Commissioner did not meet the 90-day timeline set out in section 69(6) of FOIP. The Commissioner found that the timeline had been met in this case. The Commissioner also held that, even if the timeline had not been met in section 69(6), section 69(6) is not mandatory. The Commissioner further held that, even if section 69(6) is mandatory and the timeline had not been met, in the circumstances of the present case, the legislature would not have intended that a loss of jurisdiction should result. These circumstances were that there would be no alternative remedy for the complainant for an alleged breach of his privacy rights and the complainant would suffer prejudice; any breach of the timeline by the Commissioner was technical or trivial; and as EPS had participated in setting the dates for completion of the inquiry, it was not prejudiced by any alleged failure of the Commissioner to anticipate the date of completion of the inquiry. The Commissioner also found that section 69(6) permitted extension of the timeline after the 90 days had expired.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2006-30
|
January 16, 2008 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant submitted an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for any records relating to access of information…
[More]
The applicant submitted an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for any records relating to access of information about his family members by EPS using PROBE and CPIC, and all records relating to those inquiries and the names of the EPS personnel involved. EPS provided a chart indicating certain times when the names of some of the family members of the applicant were searched, the time, and the name query parameters. Relying on section 17(1) of FOIP, it did not release the names of the members of EPS who conducted the searches. The Adjudicator found that there was no basis under section 17 of the Act for withholding the names of these persons.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2006-29
|
March 26, 2007 |
Edmonton Police Service
Through an access request, an individual obtained a list of queries made relative to him on police information databases by…
[More]
Through an access request, an individual obtained a list of queries made relative to him on police information databases by EPS members. The individual then made a complaint that these queries were conducted without authority under FOIP. EPS had provided explanations for most of the 14 queries. For seven, it provided documentation or explanations showing the law-enforcement purpose for the queries. Five of the queries were conducted by the Police Information Check Unit, which conducts such checks in relation to individuals who themselves request them or consent to them. With respect the two remaining queries, conducted in 2000 and 2001, the sworn EPS members who conducted them could not recall the reasons they had done so. As their evidence was not contradicted, the Adjudicator accepted the officers’ sworn evidence that they had not queried any names on any EPS information system other than to complete their police duties
|
|
FOIP |
2006 |
|
F2006-28
|
December 5, 2006 |
Workers' Compensation Board
The applicant made a request to the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) for access to a number of records including the…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) for access to a number of records including the applicant’s entire treatment file held by another organization. WCB provided the applicant with access to several records but did not obtain the applicant’s entire file from the other organization. WCB told the applicant that it did not have custody or control over records held solely by the centre. The Commissioner held that the records at issue were not in the custody or under the control of the WCB under section 4(1). The Commissioner also found that the applicant’s access request was not frivolous or vexatious under section 55 of FOIP, and WCB’s request to disregard the request.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2006-27
|
January 2, 2008 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant requested records from the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) about the investigation of a newspaper relating to the “Overtime…
[More]
The applicant requested records from the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) about the investigation of a newspaper relating to the “Overtime Stakeout incident”, an alleged police “sting”. EPS disclosed some information to the applicant, but withheld other information. The Commissioner confirmed the decision of EPS to withhold the information pursuant to the exceptions to access for third party personal information in section 17, advice from officials in section 24(1)(a) and privileged information in section 27(1)(c) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2006-26
|
January 23, 2007 |
Workers' Compensation Board
The Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) disclosed personal information, including medical information, relative to a WCB claim made by the former…
[More]
The Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) disclosed personal information, including medical information, relative to a WCB claim made by the former owner of a business, to the person to whom the business had been sold. The new owner had not requested the information. The former owner brought a complaint about the disclosure under FOIP. The Adjudicator held that because the business maintained the same WCB account and experience record after the change in ownership, WCB was authorized by its statute to disclose a small part of the disclosed information (particulars of decisions as to the complainant’s entitlement to compensation) to the new owner. The WCB did not have authority to disclose most of the information it disclosed, and with respect to those disclosures, it was in contravention of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2006-25
|
January 21, 2008 |
University of Calgary
The applicant made a request to the University of Calgary for copies of reference letters submitted by external referees in…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the University of Calgary for copies of reference letters submitted by external referees in the process of determining whether to promote him to full professor. The University of Calgary relied on section 19(2) of FOIP to refuse to disclose information, stating that the evaluations were obtained in confidence and that disclosure would identify the referees as participants in a formal employee evaluation process. The Adjudicator concluded that the University of Calgary did not properly apply section 19(2), as it had applied the test under section 19(1) to the reference letters, rather than the requirements of section 19(2). The Adjudicator applied section 19(2) to the information in the reference letters and ordered the University of Calgary to disclose to the applicant the personal information that the Adjudicator found did not identify or could not reasonably identify the referees as participants in a formal employee evaluation process.
|
|
FOIP |
2006 |
|
F2006-24
|
November 20, 2006 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant made a request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for access to a number of records which included…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for access to a number of records which included a report authored by a working group of the Alberta Association of Chiefs of Police and a portion of the association minutes. The Alberta Association of Chiefs of Police, as the third party, objected to CPS' decision to disclose the information. The Commissioner held that the records were in the custody and control of CPS. The Commissioner also found that the records were not personal records and, as such, did not fulfill the section 4(1)(n) criteria.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2006-23
|
January 17, 2008 |
University of Alberta and University of Calgary
The applicant made a request to the University of Alberta and the University of Calgary (Public Bodies) for information, as…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the University of Alberta and the University of Calgary (Public Bodies) for information, as it exists at specified points in time, regarding the required and recommended books for each of the courses and classes offered by the Public Bodies, and the maximum and current number of students enrolled in those courses and classes. The Public Bodies withheld the information, citing sections 25 (disclosure harmful to economic and other interests) and 29 (information that is or will be available to the public) under FOIP. The Adjudicator concluded that the Public Bodies properly exercised their discretion under sections 25 and 29 of the Act in refusing to disclose all of the information requested by the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2006-22
|
August 21, 2007 |
Alberta Securities Commission
The applicant requested records from the Alberta Securities Commission (ASC). ASC estimated fees for producing copies at $64.50. The applicant…
[More]
The applicant requested records from the Alberta Securities Commission (ASC). ASC estimated fees for producing copies at $64.50. The applicant requested review by this office of whether ASC had met its duty to assist and had complied with the time limits for responding to an access request under FOIP. The applicant also requested waiver of the fees. The Adjudicator found that ASC did not extend the time frame for responding to the applicant under section 14 of FOIP and did not make every reasonable effort to respond to the applicant not later than 30 days after receiving an access request under section 11. The Adjudicator found that ASC met its general duty to assist the applicant under section 10(1). The Adjudicator ordered ASC to refund the fees paid by the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2006-20
|
May 1, 2007 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant submitted an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for any records relating to him, including any…
[More]
The applicant submitted an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for any records relating to him, including any name checks or computer searches and for the names of EPS employees who ran the searches. EPS provided a chart indicating when the applicant’s name was searched, the time and the name search parameters, but the names of EPS employees who conducted the searches were not released pursuant to section 17(1) of FOIP. EPS would also neither confirm nor deny the existence of any additional records responsive to the applicant’s request pursuant to section 12(2) of the Act. The Adjudicator did not accept that EPS had properly relied on section 12(2) of FOIP. The Adjudicator further found that the employees were acting in their representative capacities and that EPS did not demonstrate why release of their names would constitute an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy. The Adjudicator ordered the release of the names of the employees conducting the searches.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2006-19
|
December 17, 2007 |
Calgary Police Service
An individual complained that the Calgary Police Service (CPS) collected, used and disclosed her personal information contrary to Part 2…
[More]
An individual complained that the Calgary Police Service (CPS) collected, used and disclosed her personal information contrary to Part 2 of FOIP. She also complained that CPS failed to make every reasonable effort to ensure that her personal information was accurate and complete. The Adjudicator made several determinations on the complaint.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2006-18
|
December 17, 2007 |
Workers' Compensation Board
An individual complained that the the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) collected, used and disclosed her personal information contrary to Part…
[More]
An individual complained that the the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) collected, used and disclosed her personal information contrary to Part 2 of FOIP. She also complained that WCB failed to make every reasonable effort to ensure that her personal information was accurate and complete. The complainant was the subject of an investigation on the basis that she was misrepresenting the extent of her disability. WCB obtained her legal land description and conducted video surveillance. The Adjudicator made several determinations on the complaint.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2006-17
|
September 18, 2007 |
Alberta Securities Commission
The applicant made a correction request under FOIP to the Alberta Securities Commission. The applicant requested that the Alberta Securities…
[More]
The applicant made a correction request under FOIP to the Alberta Securities Commission. The applicant requested that the Alberta Securities Commission remove her personal information from the national registration database. The applicant also informed the Alberta Securities Commission that she objected to the collection, use and disclosure of her personal information. Several determinations were made on the applicant's requests.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2006-16
|
February 21, 2007 |
Calgary Police Service
On the basis of information he had received from the Calgary Police Service (CPS), an individual complained that information sharing…
[More]
On the basis of information he had received from the Calgary Police Service (CPS), an individual complained that information sharing agreements between CPS and an affected party, and a research agreement between CPS and another affected party, were in contravention of FOIP. Though the complainant alleged that his own personal information had been disclosed to third parties pursuant to these agreements, he did not provide evidence that substantiated this. The Adjudicator dismissed the complaint. Section 65(3) of the Act permits a review and inquiry only if a person’s own personal information has been collected, used or disclosed. Therefore, a finding that personal information has been collected, used or disclosed contrary to FOIP can be made in an inquiry only on the basis that the complainant’s own personal information was so disclosed.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2006-15
|
December 11, 2007 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant submitted an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for records relating to the number of times…
[More]
The applicant submitted an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for records relating to the number of times a CPIC database search of his name had been made in the last 10 years. EPS provided the requested information about a number of queries. Relying on section 12(2) of FOIP, EPS refused to either confirm or deny whether there were any additional responsive records. The Commissioner found that EPS' refusal to confirm or deny the existence of a record, pursuant to section 12(2) of the Act, had not been proper, and ordered EPS to reply to the applicant without relying on section 12(2).
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2006-14
|
November 19, 2007 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant made a request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for access to records relating to the arrest and…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for access to records relating to the arrest and detention of his son. EPS provided certain records to the applicant but severed the personal information of his son and other third parties. The Adjudicator found that, in failing to initially provide all of the responsive records, EPS did not initially fulfill its duty under section 10 of FOIP. However, the Adjudicator found that EPS subsequently fulfilled its duty when it provided the additional records. The Adjudicator found that the information that was severed from the records given to the applicant was an identifiable part of a law enforcement record, and that disclosure was therefore presumed to be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of third parties. As the applicant did not successfully rebut the presumption, the Adjudicator concluded that EPS properly applied section 17 of FOIP and confirmed the decision to withhold the personal information.
|
|
FOIP |
2006 |
|
F2006-13
|
October 10, 2006 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant submitted an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for all records relating to queries about himself…
[More]
The applicant submitted an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for all records relating to queries about himself on the PROBE and CPIC databases, and all records relating to the queries. Relying on section 12(2) of FOIP, EPS responded by refusing to either confirm or deny whether there were any responsive records. The Commissioner did not accept that EPS properly relied on section 12(2) in the circumstances of this case, and ordered EPS to respond to the applicant’s request without relying on the provision. The Commissioner provided an addendum to this decision to EPS. It contains a discussion which must be confidential by reference to the Commissioner’s duty under section 59(3)(b) of the Act not to disclose if there were responsive records.
|
|
FOIP |
2006 |
|
F2006-12
|
October 10, 2006 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant submitted an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for records relating to queries about him, on…
[More]
The applicant submitted an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for records relating to queries about him, on the PROBE and CPIC databases, for the prior 10 years, including the names of persons conducting the queries. EPS provided the requested information about a number of queries. Relying on section 12(2) of FOIP, EPS refused to either confirm or deny whether there were any additional responsive records. The Commissioner did not accept that EPS properly relied on section 12(2) in the circumstances of this case, and ordered EPS to respond to the applicant’s request without relying on the provision. The Commissioner provided an addendum to this decision to EPS. This addendum contains a discussion which must be confidential by reference to the Commissioner's duty under section 59(3)(b) of FOIP to not disclose whether there were responsive records.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2006-11
|
June 6, 2007 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant made a request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for records relating to testimony given by an individual…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for records relating to testimony given by an individual at a fatality inquiry, and records relating to the police chief’s “thorough review” of the circumstances surrounding the testimony. The applicant also asked for all records relating to any PROBE or CPIC queries with respect to the individual, the identity of the EPS members who made the queries, and copies of all records accessed on these occasions. The EPS provided some information relating to the CPIC and PROBE queries, but it refused to confirm or deny whether other records exist under section 12(2) of FOIP. In addition, it located 11 pages of responsive records, but refused to provide them, on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (b), and (c) of the Act (privileged information). The Adjudicator found that EPS had properly applied section 27(1)(a) (legal privilege). However, the Adjudicator found that EPS' refusal to confirm or deny the existence of a record, pursuant to section 12(2) of FOIP, had not been proper.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2006-10
|
October 3, 2007 |
Edmonton Police Commission
The applicant asked the Edmonton Police Commission (EPC) to provide a list of chiefs, deputy chiefs and superintendents whose contracts…
[More]
The applicant asked the Edmonton Police Commission (EPC) to provide a list of chiefs, deputy chiefs and superintendents whose contracts had been bought out or terminated, including their names. The applicant also requested a list of payouts or severance pay and asked for details as to how many deputy chiefs and superintendent positions the police service would normally employ. EPC provided the names and termination dates of three police chiefs. EPC did not provide a list of payouts or severance pay. EPC referred the request for details about superintendent positions to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). The applicant requested review of EPC’s decision, arguing that it is in the public interest to release information regarding the severance pay provided to police chiefs whose contracts have been terminated. The Adjudicator found that the applicant had not made an access request within the meaning of FOIP and so EPC’s decision to withhold information was not reviewable.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2006-09
|
January 14, 2008 |
Solicitor General and Public Security
The applicant requested a fee waiver in the public interest from Solicitor General and Public Security. The Adjudicator ordered Solicitor…
[More]
The applicant requested a fee waiver in the public interest from Solicitor General and Public Security. The Adjudicator ordered Solicitor General and Public Security to excuse the applicant from paying 50% of the fee, pursuant to section 93(4)(b) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2006-08
|
October 12, 2007 |
Executive Council
The applicant requested all records in the custody or control of Executive Council relating to the appointment of a chief…
[More]
The applicant requested all records in the custody or control of Executive Council relating to the appointment of a chief of staff. Executive Council provided a copy of the senior official’s contract, but severed information relating to salary and the signatures of parties to the contract. The Adjudicator ordered Executive Council to disclose the employment contract in its entirety.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2006-07
|
October 12, 2007 |
International and Intergovernmental Relations
The applicant requested all records in the custody or control of International and Intergovernmental Relations (IIR) relating to the appointment…
[More]
The applicant requested all records in the custody or control of International and Intergovernmental Relations (IIR) relating to the appointment of a senior official. IIR provided a copy of the senior official’s contract, but severed information relating to salary, benefits, employment responsibilities and the names of parties to the contract. The applicant requested review of IIR’s decision to sever the information. The Adjudicator ordered IIR to disclose the employment contract in its entirety.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2006-06
|
March 27, 2008 |
Calgary and Area Child and Family Services Authority
The applicant made a request to the Calgary and Area Child and Family Services Authority (Public Body) for its complete…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the Calgary and Area Child and Family Services Authority (Public Body) for its complete file in relation to his son. The Public Body disclosed much of the file but withheld information under sections 17 (disclosure harmful to a third party’s personal privacy) and 21 (disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations) of FOIP. The Public Body also took the position that section 5 (paramountcy) applied to exclude the application of the Act to information falling within section 126.1(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2006-05
|
September 28, 2007 |
Justice and Attorney General
The applicant requested from Justice and Attorney General a copy of a crown prosecutor’s file in relation to a criminal…
[More]
The applicant requested from Justice and Attorney General a copy of a crown prosecutor’s file in relation to a criminal prosecution. Justice and Attorney General withheld this record under sections 17 and 20(1)(g) of FOIP, and the Adjudicator confirmed Justice and Attorney General's decision.
|
|
FOIP |
2008 |
|
F2006-04
|
February 28, 2008 |
Edmonton Police Service
Two individuals complained that the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) did not have the authority to collect their personal information from…
[More]
Two individuals complained that the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) did not have the authority to collect their personal information from CPIC or to use and disclose that information at the Law Enforcement Review Board hearing. The Commissioner held that EPS was authorized by sections 33(b), 34(1)(g), 39(1)(a) and 40(1)(v) of FOIP to collect, use and disclose the personal information of the complainants.
|
|
FOIP |
2006 |
|
F2006-03 & P2006-03
|
October 5, 2006 |
Calgary Board of Education
An individual brought a complaint against the Calgary Board of Education (CBE), and the Escuela Canyon Meadows School Council (school…
[More]
An individual brought a complaint against the Calgary Board of Education (CBE), and the Escuela Canyon Meadows School Council (school council) that the personal information of a child was published in a school directory, without the consent of her parent. CBE raised the objection that the complainant is not the child’s guardian. This case also raised the question of whether the school council is a public body under FOIP or an organization under PIPA. The Commissioner found he did not have jurisdiction under FOIP to conduct an inquiry into the complaints as the complainant is not the guardian of the person whose information is at issue. The Adjudicator also found that the school council in this case is subject to PIPA as an “organization”.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2006-02
|
August 2, 2007 |
Edmonton Police Service
An individual complained that the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) collected his personal information before commencing a threat assessment concerning him.…
[More]
An individual complained that the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) collected his personal information before commencing a threat assessment concerning him. The Commissioner found that EPS' collection of the complainant’s personal information was authorized under the law enforcement provisions contained in section 33(b) and section 34(1)(g) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2006 |
|
F2006-01
|
May 18, 2006 |
Solicitor General and Public Security
Solicitor General and Public Security refused the applicant’s request to be excused from paying the $25.00 initial fee for access…
[More]
Solicitor General and Public Security refused the applicant’s request to be excused from paying the $25.00 initial fee for access to non-personal information. The Adjudicator excused the fee based on fairness. The Adjudicator found that Solicitor General and Public Security had not exercised its discretion properly and, combined with the applicant’s limited ability to pay, created a reason for which it was fair to excuse the fee.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
JR
|
F2005-30
|
December 18, 2007 |
Environment
The applicant sought access to a remediation agreement reached between Environment and a third party. The third party objected to…
[More]
The applicant sought access to a remediation agreement reached between Environment and a third party. The third party objected to release of information. The Commissioner made several determinations, and ordered Environment to disclose to the applicant the entire agreement, except certain items of personal information and an exhibit.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2005-29
|
January 30, 2007 |
City of Calgary
The applicant applied to the City of Calgary for property assessment information relating to a number of properties leased by…
[More]
The applicant applied to the City of Calgary for property assessment information relating to a number of properties leased by the applicant for its stores. The City of Calgary refused to provide the information on the basis that the Municipal Government Act (MGA) prevails over FOIP relative to the requested information. The Commissioner agreed that the MGA prevails and the Commissioner had no jurisdiction over the information requested.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2005-28
|
July 3, 2007 |
Medicine Hat Police Service
The applicant requested access from the Medicine Hat Police Service (MHPS) to records concerning police investigations of two incidents involving…
[More]
The applicant requested access from the Medicine Hat Police Service (MHPS) to records concerning police investigations of two incidents involving the applicant’s family. MHPS denied access to some of the information in the records on the basis of sections 17(1) and 17(4)(b) (personal information) of FOIP. A preliminary issue concerned whether disclosure of the records would be an offence under an Act of Canada within the terms of section 20(4) of FOIP, as some of the records appeared to involve young persons governed by the provisions of the federal Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). The Commissioner found that most of the information was contained in a law enforcement record, that disclosure of most of the information in the records would be an offence under section 138(1) of the YCJA, and therefore MHPS was required by section 20(4) of the FOIP Act to refuse to disclose that information. As to the information to which section 20(4) did not apply, and which MHPS had severed and withheld under section 17, the Commissioner said that additional submissions would be requested.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2005-27
|
February 26, 2007 |
Workers' Compensation Board
An individual made a complaint that the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) disclosed her personal information in contravention of Part 2…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) disclosed her personal information in contravention of Part 2 of FOIP. WCB disclosed personal information to both the complainant’s former employer and to the Appeals Commission. The Adjudicator held that WCB had the authority under sections 40(1)(e) and (f) (legislative authority) of FOIP to disclose the personal information to the complainant’s former employer and to the Appeals Commission. The Adjudicator held that the WCB had the authority under sections 44 and 147(3) of the Workers’ Compensation Act to disclose the complainant’s personal information to the complainant’s former employer. The Adjudicator also found that WCB had the authority, pursuant to section 13.2 of the Workers’ Compensation Act, to disclose the complainant’s personal information to the Appeals Commission.
|
|
FOIP |
2005 |
|
F2005-26
|
December 22, 2005 |
Human Resources and Employment
The applicant made a request to Human Resources and Employment (HRE) for statements he made to an occupational health and…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Human Resources and Employment (HRE) for statements he made to an occupational health and safety officer who was conducting an investigation into a workplace accident. HRE refused to provide the statements, relying on section 20 of FOIP (harm to law enforcement). The applicant also made a complaint that HRE had improperly disclosed his personal information under Part 2 of FOIP, had failed in its duty to ensure his information was accurate when making a decision affecting him (section 35), and had improperly refused to correct his personal information (section 36). The Adjudicator found HRE had properly withheld the records under section 20(1)(f) of FOIP (interference with an investigation). The Adjudicator also held that HRE had not improperly disclosed the applicant’s personal information, and had not failed to discharge its duties under sections 35 and 36 of the Act.
|
|
FOIP |
2006 |
|
F2005-25
|
October 24, 2006 |
Northern Alberta Institute of Technology
An individual made a complaint that NAIT had breached his privacy by disclosing his personal information in contravention of Part…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that NAIT had breached his privacy by disclosing his personal information in contravention of Part 2 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the disclosure from one NAIT employee to another was authorized under section 40(1)(h) (information necessary for the performance of the duties of the officer), and that the disclosure from that second employee to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Alberta was authorized under section 40(1)(f) of the Act (for any purpose in accordance with an enactment of Alberta). The Adjudicator also found under section 40(4) of FOIP that NAIT had disclosed personal information only to the extent necessary to carry out the purposes of section 40(1)(f) and 40(1)(h), in a reasonable manner.
|
|
FOIP |
2006 |
|
F2005-24
|
August 9, 2006 |
David Thompson Health Region
The applicant made a request to the David Thompson Health Region for access to information about himself. The David Thompson…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the David Thompson Health Region for access to information about himself. The David Thompson Health Region did not locate any responsive records to the request. The Adjudicator found that the David Thompson Health Region had conducted an adequate search and met its obligations under section 10(1) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2006 |
|
F2005-23
|
May 11, 2006 |
Alberta Insurance Council
The applicant made a request for correction of her personal information held by the Alberta Insurance Council (AIC). AIC refused,…
[More]
The applicant made a request for correction of her personal information held by the Alberta Insurance Council (AIC). AIC refused, claiming that the personal information about the applicant was correct and complete, and that its decision to refuse the correction request was properly made. AIC said that the information was sufficiently annotated and linked prior to the applicant’s request, and that it should not have to take further action. The Adjudicator confirmed AIC's decision to refuse to correct under section 36(1), but found AIC had not properly met its duties under sections 36(3) and 36(7) to annotate or link the request for correction and to notify the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2005 |
|
F2005-22
|
October 28, 2005 |
Solicitor General and Public Security
The applicant asked for information held by Solicitor General and Public Security pertaining to the death of a young person…
[More]
The applicant asked for information held by Solicitor General and Public Security pertaining to the death of a young person while in custody in January 2004. Solicitor General and Public Security refused to waive the estimated fee of $496.00 on the basis of public interest. The Adjudicator found that the facts showed a clear public interest and ordered the fees reduced to zero.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2005-21
|
March 9, 2007 |
Medicine Hat Police Service
The applicant applied to the Medicine Hat Police Service (MHPS) for access to all information about her son. The request…
[More]
The applicant applied to the Medicine Hat Police Service (MHPS) for access to all information about her son. The request referred to and included a copy of a guardianship order. MHPS denied the applicant’s access request on the ground that disclosure was an unreasonable invasion of the applicant’s son’s personal privacy, as provided by section 17 of FOIP. The Commissioner held that the power and authority granted to the applicant under the Dependent Adults Act and the guardianship order to commence, compromise or settle any “legal proceeding” included criminal proceedings, which were the applicant’s son’s past dealings with the police. The Commissioner ordered MHPS to disclose to the Applicant the personal information about her son.
|
|
FOIP |
2006 |
|
F2005-20
|
June 19, 2006 |
Health and Wellness
The applicant made an access request to Health and Wellness for all records relating to the corporate tax free status…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Health and Wellness for all records relating to the corporate tax free status of Alberta Blue Cross. The applicant said that Health and Wellness failed to meet its duty to the applicant as provided by sections 10, 11 (time limit for responding) and 14 (extending time limit) of FOIP. The Commissioner found that as the records were already released. With regard to section 10, the Commissioner decided that Health and Wellness discharged its duty by informing the applicant as to the requested extensions and the reasons for them. The Commissioner did find, however, that Health and Wellness did not comply with the time limit for responding to the applicant as required by section 11 and as permitted by section 14 of the Act.
|
|
FOIP |
2006 |
|
F2005-19
|
September 18, 2006 |
Children's Services
The applicant made a request to Children’s Services for access to her child welfare file. Children’s Services did not locate…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Children’s Services for access to her child welfare file. Children’s Services did not locate any responsive records to the request. The Adjudicator found that Children’s Services had conducted an adequate search and met its obligations under section 10(1) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2006 |
|
F2005-18
|
September 6, 2006 |
Justice
The applicant made an access request to Justice for all records of any complaints or inquiries into the business practices…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Justice for all records of any complaints or inquiries into the business practices of an Alberta registered corporation. Justice refused to disclose the records citing sections 24 (“advice”) and 27 (“privileged information”) of FOIP. The Commissioner found that Justice had properly applied sections 24 and 27 of the Act, and held that Justice had met its duty to assist under section 10.
|
|
FOIP |
2006 |
|
F2005-16
|
December 1, 2006 |
Edmonton Police Commission
The applicant requested access to a copy of the employment contract for the Chief of Police of the Edmonton Police…
[More]
The applicant requested access to a copy of the employment contract for the Chief of Police of the Edmonton Police Service. The Edmonton Police Commission (EPC) notified the Chief of Police of the EPC’s intention to disclose the entire contract to the applicant under section 17(2)(e) of FOIP, which provides that disclosure of a third party’s classification, salary range, discretionary benefits and employment responsibilities as an officer or employee of a public body would not be an unreasonable invasion of the third party’s personal privacy. The Commissioner upheld EPC’s decision to disclose the entire contract to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2005 |
|
F2005-15
|
December 7, 2005 |
Automobile Insurance Board
The applicant made a request to the Alberta Automobile Insurance Board (AAIB) for records, between specified dates, relating to AAIB’s…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the Alberta Automobile Insurance Board (AAIB) for records, between specified dates, relating to AAIB’s considerations and decisions regarding applications for rate changes by insurance companies. AAIB provided access to responsive records, from which it had removed all insurance company names, and other information that would, in AAIB’s view, potentially identify the companies. It also withheld some records in their entirety. The Adjudicator decided that all the records in the inquiry are “insurer information” under the Insurance Act. As the provisions in the Insurance Act with respect to “insurer information” prevail over FOIP, and as all the issues related to “insurer information”, the Adjudicator held there was no jurisdiction to decide any of the issues in the inquiry.
|
|
FOIP |
2006 |
|
F2005-14
|
September 20, 2006 |
Athabasca University
An individual made a complaint that Athabasca University had breached the complainant’s privacy under Part 2 of FOIP. The President…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that Athabasca University had breached the complainant’s privacy under Part 2 of FOIP. The President of Athabasca University had emailed a number of employees recommending that all future contact with the complainant be limited to written communication. Attached to that email were a series of prior emails the Complainant had forwarded to the President. The Adjudicator found that Athabasca University had authority under section 40(1) of FOIP to disclose the complainant’s personal information to its employees. However, the Adjudicator found that Athabasca University disclosed more personal information than was necessary to carry out the purposes in section 40(1). The Adjudicator ordered Athabasca University to develop a written policy and procedure regarding disclosures of personal information in these types of situations and ensure that its employees were informed of the same.
|
|
FOIP |
2006 |
|
F2005-13
|
April 7, 2006 |
City of St. Albert
The applicant made an access request to the City of St. Albert for a copy of an inspector’s direction issued…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the City of St. Albert for a copy of an inspector’s direction issued by Environment Canada relating to the discharge of a substance from a former landfill site in the City of St. Albert. The City of St. Albert denied the applicant’s request under section 20 of FOIP (law enforcement). The Adjudicator agreed that the record fit the definition of law enforcement, but found that the City of St. Albert did not adequately demonstrate the specific harm required to properly apply section 20 to the record. The Adjudicator ordered the release of the record to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2006 |
|
F2005-12
|
June 6, 2006 |
Justice
The applicant made a request to Justice for access to a report prepared by independent consultants commissioned by Justice. Justice…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Justice for access to a report prepared by independent consultants commissioned by Justice. Justice refused to disclose the report citing sections 4(1)(q) (records created for Executive Council), 24 (“advice”) and 27 (privileged information). The Commissioner found that the record was not excluded by section 4(1). The Commissioner also held that Justice had properly applied section 24 of FOIP. Having made this determination the Commissioner found it unnecessary to consider the application of section 27. The Commissioner found that the Public Body had met its duty to assist under section 10. However, it had not properly extended the time limit for responding to the request as authorized by section 14 of FOIP. As a result, pursuant to section 72(3)(c) of the Act, the Commissioner ordered Justice to refund the fees paid by the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2005 |
|
F2005-11
|
May 10, 2005 |
Health and Wellness
A third party asked the Commissioner to review a decision of Health and Wellness to disclose to an applicant communications…
[More]
A third party asked the Commissioner to review a decision of Health and Wellness to disclose to an applicant communications between the third party and the Minister of Health about a pharmaceutical product. The third party claimed the disclosure would be harmful to its business interests within the terms of section 16(1) of FOIP. The Commissioner upheld Health and Wellness' decision to disclose on the basis that the third party had not established that the information fell within section 16(1).
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2005-10
|
March 7, 2007 |
City of Calgary
The City of Calgary received a request for access to records which contained the personal information of a third party…
[More]
The City of Calgary received a request for access to records which contained the personal information of a third party or parties. The third party objected to the disclosure and requested a review of the City of Calgary’s decision to release the records after severing out third party information. The third party also argued that the records were excluded from FOIP by section 4(1)(m) (personal or constituency records of an elected member of a local public body). The Adjudicator found that the records at issue, a communication with an Alderman about an issue in the constituency, were not excluded from the Act by section 4(1)(m). The Adjudicator found that section 17 applied to portions of the records and ordered the City of Calgary to disclose the records after severing third party personal information.
|
|
FOIP |
2005 |
JR
|
F2005-09
|
July 25, 2005 |
Seniors and Community Supports
The applicant applied to Community Development, now Seniors and Community Supports, for access to information regarding complaints under the Protection…
[More]
The applicant applied to Community Development, now Seniors and Community Supports, for access to information regarding complaints under the Protection of Persons in Care Act in relation to three nursing home facilities owned by a third party. Community Development refused access to all the information in a summary record that was responsive to the applicant’s access request. The third party was determined to be a “public body.” The Commissioner found that Community Development did not properly apply section 20 of FOIP (law enforcement) or section 25 (harm to economic and other interests of a public body) to the record and ordered release of the information in the record, except for that information that was not responsive to the applicant’s access request.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2005 |
|
F2005-08
|
November 4, 2005 |
Northern Alberta Institute of Technology
The applicant made a number of requests to the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology (NAIT) for access to her personal…
[More]
The applicant made a number of requests to the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology (NAIT) for access to her personal information, and for some general information relating to NAIT’s policies. She also asked that a grade on a transcript be corrected. NAIT provided some records, but severed or withheld some information on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of third parties under section 17(1), or was information subject to solicitor-client privilege under section 27. It refused to change the grade. The Commissioner made several determinations related to the requests.
|
|
FOIP |
2006 |
|
F2005-07
|
December 20, 2006 |
Justice and Attorney General
An individual filed a complaint alleging that Justice and Attorney General’s disclosure of the complainant’s personal information by an employee…
[More]
An individual filed a complaint alleging that Justice and Attorney General's disclosure of the complainant’s personal information by an employee of the Maintenance Enforcement Program was contrary to Part 2 of FOIP. Justice and Attorney General admitted the disclosure by its employee and said that it had taken disciplinary action. The Commissioner raised the issue of whether the Maintenance Enforcement Act prevailed over the FOIP. The Commissioner held that section 12(3) and section 15(1) of the Maintenance Enforcement Act governed the disclosure of the information, the FOIP Act did not apply, and he did not have jurisdiction over the disclosure. In an alternative analysis of section 5 of the FOIP Act, the Commissioner came to the same conclusion that he did not have jurisdiction over the disclosure.
|
|
FOIP |
2006 |
|
F2005-06
|
December 28, 2006 |
Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers' Compensation
The applicant made a request to the Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers’ Compensation (Public Body) for access to all documents…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers’ Compensation (Public Body) for access to all documents with personal and general information connected to appeals before the Public Body in which he was the claimant. The applicant requested a fee waiver. The Public Body refused to waive the fees, first estimated at $850.00, on the basis that the applicant had previously received most of the records at no cost. During the course of the review by this office, the Public Body agreed to waive the fees for 190 pages of records not previously received by the applicant at no cost. The Adjudicator found that the Public Body’s refusal to waive the remainder of the fees was reasonable, considering all the circumstances.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2005-05
|
June 25, 2007 |
Infrastructure and Transportation
The applicant made an access request to Infrastructure and Transportation [formerly Alberta Infrastructure] for the flight logs of government airplanes.…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Infrastructure and Transportation [formerly Alberta Infrastructure] for the flight logs of government airplanes. The applicant also asked for a fee waiver, which was refused. The Adjudicator found that Infrastructure and Transportation did not comply with the timeline for response, as provided by section 11 of FOIP. The Adjudicator also found that Infrastructure and Transportation was not authorized to extend the timeline for response, as provided by section 14 of the Act. The Adjudicator found that, on a balance of probabilities, Infrastructure and Transportation delayed the applicant’s access to the records until after the provincial election. Because the Adjudicator found that this was not an inadvertent breach of the timelines, the Adjudicator ordered Infrastructure and Transportation to refund all fees paid by the applicant in relation to this access request.
|
|
FOIP |
2005 |
|
F2005-04
|
July 22, 2005 |
Health and Wellness
The applicant applied to Health and Wellness for copies of correspondence between the Regional Health Authorities Alberta Council of Chairs…
[More]
The applicant applied to Health and Wellness for copies of correspondence between the Regional Health Authorities Alberta Council of Chairs and Health and Wellness. The applicant argued that Health and Wellness did not properly sever the records under sections 24(1) of FOIP (advice from officials) and 25(1) of the Act (harm to the economic interests of a public body or government). The Commissioner concluded that Health and Wellness properly applied section 24(1) of the Act when it severed the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2005 |
|
F2005-03
|
June 24, 2005 |
Parkland Regional Library
The Parkland Regional Library installed keystroke logging software on the computer of an information technology employee, unknown to the employee.…
[More]
The Parkland Regional Library installed keystroke logging software on the computer of an information technology employee, unknown to the employee. The employee complained that this collection was not permitted under FOIP, and that the collected information had not been adequately protected by the Parkland Library. The Parkland Library relied on section 33(c) of FOIP, which permits collection of information that relates directly to and is necessary for an operating program or activity of a public body. It argued that the collected information was necessary to manage the employee, based on concerns about his productivity, and his use of his working time. The Commissioner found that the Parkland Regional Library did not have the authority under section 33 of the Act to collect the applicant’s personal information that it collected through keystroke logging. Noting that less-intrusive means were available for collecting information needed for managing, the Commissioner held that the keystroke logging program collected information about the applicant’s activities during working time that was not necessary to manage him in the circumstances.
|
|
FOIP |
2006 |
|
F2005-02
|
February 3, 2006 |
Workers' Compensation Board
The Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) disclosed a complainant’s personal information to the Appeals Commission for the Workers’ Compensation Board, regarding…
[More]
The Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) disclosed a complainant’s personal information to the Appeals Commission for the Workers’ Compensation Board, regarding an allegation of a reasonable apprehension of bias concerning the complainant. The complainant objected to the disclosure of personal information and also to the extent of personal information disclosed. WCB argued that it was authorized to disclose the personal information pursuant to section 40(1) of FOIP. The Commissioner held that WCB was authorized to disclose the personal information under section 40(1)(j) (enforcing a legal right) of the Act, and that the extent of the disclosure was necessary to enable WCB to carry out the purposes of section 40(1) in a reasonable manner.
|
|
FOIP |
2005 |
|
F2005-01
|
February 16, 2005 |
Calgary Police Service and Justice
The applicant made an access request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for access to all records pertaining to the…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for access to all records pertaining to the death of her son. CPS provided the applicant with a portion of the records but withheld the remainder, citing section 27(1) [privileged information], 17 [personal information], 20(1) [law enforcement], 21 [intergovernmental relations] of FOIP as its authority to withhold its information. CPSalso transferred a portion of the access request to Justice. Justice cited section 27(1) [privileged information] and section 20(1)(g) [prosecutorial discretion] as its authority to withhold information. The Adjudicator held that CPS properly withheld the majority of the records under sections 17, 20(1)(m) and 27(1)(b). The Adjudicator also found that Justice properly withheld its records under section 27(1)(b). However, the Adjudicator found that CPS breached Part 2 of FOIP when it disclosed to the parties, as part of its earlier submission, some of the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2005 |
|
F2004-32
|
February 22, 2005 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant requested access to information regarding a complaint filed with the Calgary Police Service (CPS). CPS released the responsive…
[More]
The applicant requested access to information regarding a complaint filed with the Calgary Police Service (CPS). CPS released the responsive records but severed excerpts from a specified chapter relying on sections 18 (individual health or safety, or public safety) and 20 (law enforcement) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that CPS had not provided evidence to fulfill the “harms” tests necessary for the application of section 18 and 20, and and ordered the records released.
|
|
FOIP |
2004 |
|
F2004-31
|
December 21, 2004 |
City of Calgary
The applicants made a request for access to information related to decommissioning of water wells and septic systems on properties…
[More]
The applicants made a request for access to information related to decommissioning of water wells and septic systems on properties “west of 69 Street and south of Old Banff Coach Road.” The City of Calgary conducted a search for records and estimated fees at $555.75. The applicants asked for a fee waiver, which was refused by the City of Calgary. The Adjudicator found that the records do not contain information that relates to a matter of public interest and the applicant should not be excused from paying the fee under section 93(4)(b) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2005 |
|
F2004-30
|
June 24, 2005 |
Justice
The applicant made a request to Justice for all documents related to the charges, investigation and trial of a former…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Justice for all documents related to the charges, investigation and trial of a former government official who had been convicted of a charge of "accepting a benefit" contrary to the Criminal Code. Justice refused to disclose most of the contents of the file. The Commissioner upheld this refusal by agreeing that some of the records were properly withheld on the basis either that they were outside the scope of FOIP under section 4(1)(a) (information in a court file), or that they fell under section 29(1) (information available to the public). The Commissioner also agreed that Justice had properly relied on section 20(1)(g) in refusing to disclose records that had been used in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
|
|
FOIP |
2006 |
|
F2004-29
|
January 31, 2006 |
Edmonton Police Service
The Edmonton Police Service (EPS) denied the applicant’s request for access to records on the basis of section 18(1)(a) (harm…
[More]
The Edmonton Police Service (EPS) denied the applicant’s request for access to records on the basis of section 18(1)(a) (harm to an individual) of FOIP. EPS claimed that all the records should be withheld and gave evidence to show the likelihood of harm to third parties. The Adjudicator found confirmed EPS' decision.
|
|
FOIP |
2005 |
|
F2004-28
|
October 4, 2005 |
City of Calgary
The applicant submitted a request for information to the City of Calgary for access to severance agreements for all management…
[More]
The applicant submitted a request for information to the City of Calgary for access to severance agreements for all management employees and all employment-related benefits for commissioners and executive officers. In Order F2003-002, the City of Calgary was directed to release four agreements regarding the payment of supplementary pensions to four employees and perform additional searches. The applicant was not satisfied with the results of the subsequent search and requested a further review. The remaining issue was whether or not section 17 of FOIP (disclosure of third party personal information) applies to the records or information at issue. The Adjudicator found that section 17 of the Act applies to the records/information at issue.
|
|
FOIP |
2006 |
|
F2004-27
|
April 18, 2006 |
University of Alberta
The applicant made a request to the University of Alberta (U of A) for access to her personal files. The…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the University of Alberta (U of A) for access to her personal files. The U of A disclosed a large number of records, but withheld a number on the basis of specified exceptions. It also indicated that some requested records were no longer in its possession, and had been destroyed. The U of A objected to the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction. The Adjudicator rejected the U of A’s objection. The Adjudicator found that the U of A had met its duty to assist the applicant, and had conducted an adequate search. The Adjudicator also found that the U of A was not required to retain a particular record for at least one year under section 35(b) of FOIP, because the required period of retention for this record was governed by a collective agreement between the U of A and the association of its academic staff.
|
|
FOIP |
2006 |
|
F2004-26
|
September 18, 2006 |
Labour Relations Board
The applicant made an access request to the Labour Relations Board (LRB) for records, for the year 2003, documenting communications…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the Labour Relations Board (LRB) for records, for the year 2003, documenting communications concerning the enactment, promulgation and implementation of Bill 27 and the regulations thereto. LRB provided some responsive records but refused to provide a large number on the grounds that they were properly withheld under sections 22(1) (“cabinet confidences”), 24(1)(a) and 24(1)(b) (“advice from officials”), and 24(1)(e) (“draft legislation”) of FOIP. The Commissioner made several determinations, and ordered the release of some information to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2006 |
|
F2004-25
|
November 30, 2006 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant made two requests to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for access to information about himself, and for correction…
[More]
The applicant made two requests to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for access to information about himself, and for correction of records. CPS severed some information under sections 17 (third party personal privacy) and 20 (law enforcement) of FOIP, and it refused to correct information. The Adjudicator found that CPS had not properly severed some information under sections 17 and 20 of the Act. The Adjudicator ordered CPS to make one correction while confirming its decision not to correct other information. The Adjudicator also found that CPS had failed to annotate the record for the refused corrections.
|
|
FOIP |
2006 |
|
F2004-24
|
August 21, 2006 |
Finance
The applicant made an access request to Finance for a copy of an actuarial report commissioned by the government to…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Finance for a copy of an actuarial report commissioned by the government to help set the rate for basic automobile insurance in 2003 and the total cost of the report. Finance denied access to the entire report on the basis that it was “advice” (section 24(1)(a) of FOIP). Finance disclosed the total cost of the report but withheld the breakdown of the cost on the basis that it was personal information (section 17 of the Act). The Commissioner confirmed Finance’s decision to withhold the report under section 24(1)(a) of FOIP. The Commissioner found that section 17 did not apply to the breakdown of the cost, but said that the parties could provide further written submissions on whether that information should be withheld under the provision for business interests (section 16 of the Act).
|
|
FOIP |
2005 |
|
F2004-23
|
August 16, 2005 |
Edmonton Police Service
The Applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for copies of a videotaped interview, polygraph test…
[More]
The Applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for copies of a videotaped interview, polygraph test and any other information relating to interviews the applicant had with EPS. EPS argued that section 20(1)(f) of FOIP (interference or harm to an ongoing or unsolved law enforcement investigation, including a police investigation) applied. The Adjudicator confirmed the decision of EPS not to disclose the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2005 |
|
F2004-22
|
November 28, 2005 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant made a request for access to all recruiting files and documentation pertaining to his application for employment with…
[More]
The applicant made a request for access to all recruiting files and documentation pertaining to his application for employment with the Calgary Police Service (CPS). CPS cited sections 17, (unreasonable invasion of privacy), 19 (confidential evaluations), 20 (law enforcement), 21(intergovernmental relations), 26 (testing and auditing procedures) and 27 (privileged information) of FOIP as its authority to withhold some of the records. The Adjudicator held that CPS did not properly withhold some of the records at issue and ordered it to disclose those records to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2005 |
|
F2004-21
|
May 9, 2005 |
Health and Wellness
The applicant made a request Health and Wellness for access to records regarding the Health Information Act. Health and Wellness…
[More]
The applicant made a request Health and Wellness for access to records regarding the Health Information Act. Health and Wellness cited a number of exceptions as its authority to withhold the records. The Adjudicator partially upheld the decision by Health and Wellness. The Adjudicator found that a portion of the records were non-responsive to the access request and that some of the records were excluded from the application of FOIP as being records of an officer of the Legislature (section 4(1)(d)) and records sent between Executive Council or MLAs (section 4(1)(q)). The Adjudicator also found that Health and Wellness properly applied the provisions concerning advice, consultations or deliberations, information relating to legal services or legal privilege (sections 24(1)(a), 24(1)(b), 27(1)(b) and 27(1)(a) respectively) of FOIP to a number of records and properly exercised its discretion in that regard. The Adjudicator ordered some of the records to be disclosed to the applicant, which were found to not meet the criteria for withholding under FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2004 |
|
F2004-20
|
December 16, 2004 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant made an access request for all information about him in the custody of the Edmonton Police Service (EPS).…
[More]
The applicant made an access request for all information about him in the custody of the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). EPS said that it did not have any records related to the applicant. The Adjudicator found that EPS conducted an adequate search for responsive records and thereby meet its duty to the applicant, as provided by section 10(1) (duty to assist) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2005 |
|
F2004-19
|
July 19, 2005 |
Environment
The applicant submitted a request to Environment for all records associated with specific resource companies regarding their relationship with Environment.…
[More]
The applicant submitted a request to Environment for all records associated with specific resource companies regarding their relationship with Environment. The Commissioner found that Environment, in responding to the information request of the applicant, met the requirements of sections 10(1), 11(1) and 14 of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2005 |
JR
|
F2004-18
|
May 26, 2005 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant made a request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for access to records regarding an altercation between the…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for access to records regarding an altercation between the applicant and RCMP. EPS cited non-responsiveness of the records, privilege (section 27(1)(a)) and intergovernmental relations (section 21(1)(b)) as its authority under FOIP to withhold the records. The Commissioner upheld EPS’s decision to withhold the records.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2005 |
|
F2004-17
|
February 28, 2005 |
Justice
The applicant applied to Justice for access to information regarding the legal costs incurred by the government in proceeding with…
[More]
The applicant applied to Justice for access to information regarding the legal costs incurred by the government in proceeding with the case entitled, Reference Re: Firearms Act. The Commissioner found that solicitor-client privilege applied to the records including the amounts billed and therefore that Justice had properly applied section 27(1) of FOIP (privileged information).
|
|
FOIP |
2005 |
|
F2004-16
|
December 15, 2005 |
Northern Lakes College
The applicant made an access request to Northern Lakes College for personal information. Northern Lakes College released numerous records but…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Northern Lakes College for personal information. Northern Lakes College released numerous records but refused to disclose portions of 32 pages on the basis that the information contained in the records was either non-responsive or fell under section 17 (third party personal information) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that all of the records, with the exception of one, were either non-responsive or fell under section 17 of the Act. The Adjudicator found that Northern Lakes College properly met its duty to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2005 |
|
F2004-15
|
May 10, 2005 |
Medicine Hat School District
The applicants made a request to the Board of Trustees of Medicine Hat School District # 76 (MHSD) for documents…
[More]
The applicants made a request to the Board of Trustees of Medicine Hat School District # 76 (MHSD) for documents relating to an incident in which their daughter had been falsely accused of having written threatening emails to other students, and questioned at length about this matter by school officials. Relying on various sections of FOIP, MHSD withheld some documents, provided some in severed form, and refused to confirm or deny the existence of some documents. The Commissioner made several determinations in this order, and a limited amount of information was ordered to be disclosed to the applicants.
|
|
FOIP |
2005 |
|
F2004-14
|
April 27, 2005 |
Southern Alberta Institute of Technology
The applicant made a request to the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT) for access to contracts between SAIT and…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT) for access to contracts between SAIT and its fee-for-service instructors (54 in number) entered into in a specific time period. SAIT provided the documents but severed the hourly rate and related information, relying on sections 16, 17 and 25 of FOIP. The Commissioner rejected SAIT’s reliance on section 16 of FOIP on the basis that information that has been negotiated between a third party and a public body is not information that has been “supplied to” a public body within the terms of the section. The Commissioner also held that disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of third parties, on the basis that the information fell within the terms of section 17(2)(f). Finally, The Commissioner held that section 25 does not apply because SAIT did not establish that the disclosure sought could reasonably be expected to harm its competitive position. The Commissioner ordered that the records be disclosed to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2004 |
|
F2004-13
|
November 5, 2004 |
Environment
The applicant requested access to records submitted to Environment regarding soil conditions at the site of a former service station.…
[More]
The applicant requested access to records submitted to Environment regarding soil conditions at the site of a former service station. Environment concluded, after an examination of the criteria for release under section 16 (business interests) of the Act, that it did not have sufficient evidence to conclude that significant harm could reasonably be expected to result to a third party from a release of the records. The third party requested the Commissioner review the decision to disclose the records. The Adjudicator upheld Environment’s decision to release the records to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2005 |
|
F2004-12
|
July 6, 2005 |
Southern Alberta Institute of Technology
The applicant submitted a request to the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT) for access to specified minutes of the…
[More]
The applicant submitted a request to the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT) for access to specified minutes of the Board of Governors minutes of SAIT and its various committees. SAIT provided the applicant with the majority of the records but severed the remaining records arguing that similar information would no longer be supplied to SAIT (section 16 of the Act), local body confidences would not be protected (section 23(1)(b) of the Act), advice from officials would be discouraged (section 24(1)), and economic interests could be harmed (section 25(1)(c) of the Act). The Commissioner found that SAIT properly applied sections 23(1)(b), 24(1) and section 25(1)(c)(ii) to withhold the records, and did not have to consider whether section 16(1) also applied.
|
|
FOIP |
2004 |
|
F2004-11
|
May 7, 2004 |
City of Calgary
The applicant made a request to the City of Calgary for a number of records regarding a fire which occurred…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the City of Calgary for a number of records regarding a fire which occurred in the Erlton district of southwest Calgary. In response to the access request, the City of Calgary provided access to only a portion of the records at issue. The City of Calgary withheld the records on the ground that they contained privileged information (section 27(1) of FOIP). The Adjudicator held that the City of Calgary properly withheld the records under section 27(1)(a) (litigation privilege) of FOIP and properly exercised its discretion in that regard.
|
|
FOIP |
2004 |
|
F2004-10
|
May 6, 2004 |
Edmonton Public School District
An individual complained that the Edmonton Public School Board District No. 7 (EPSD) released the personal information of the complainant…
[More]
An individual complained that the Edmonton Public School Board District No. 7 (EPSD) released the personal information of the complainant and her child contrary to Part 2 (protection of privacy) of FOIP. The record containing the personal information was disclosed to EPSD’s employees and another parent who made an access request under FOIP. The record was a letter that advocated for continued support for children with special needs and also contained personal information in the context of specific school-based programs. The record included information and enclosures from the other parent and was copied by the complainant to the other parent and to other individuals. The Adjudicator held that EPSD had the authority under FOIP to disclose the record containing the personal information.
|
|
FOIP |
2005 |
|
F2004-09
|
June 8, 2005 |
Infrastructure and Transportation
The applicant made an access request to Infrastructure and Transportation (formerly Transportation) for his file with the driver fitness and…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to Infrastructure and Transportation (formerly Transportation) for his file with the driver fitness and monitoring branch. Infrastructure and Transportation disclosed most of the file to the applicant but refused to disclose a complaint letter from a third party, citing section 17 (third party personal information) and section 20 (law enforcement). The Adjudicator found that the record was properly withheld under section 17 and confirmed Infrastructure and Transportation’s decision not to disclose the record to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2007 |
|
F2004-08
|
March 6, 2007 |
Palliser Health Region
The applicant made multiple requests for access to information to Palliser Health Region (PHR). PHR responded to the Applicant under FOIP.…
[More]
The applicant made multiple requests for access to information to Palliser Health Region (PHR). PHR responded to the Applicant under FOIP. The Applicant was not satisfied with PHR’s response and questioned whether she received all of PHR’s policy and training materials pertaining to takedowns. The applicant alleged that PHR breached its duty to assist under section 10(1) of FOIP. The Commissioner found that PHR met its duty to assist the Applicant under section 10(1) of FOIP, in that PHR discharged its general duty to make every reasonable effort to assist the applicant and to respond to the applicant openly, accurately and completely as well as its specific duty to conduct an adequate search for responsive records. The Inquiry was held in conjunction with the inquiry for OIPC case file number H0062, which resulted in Order H2004-002.
|
|
FOIP |
2004 |
|
F2004-07
|
April 16, 2004 |
Workers' Compensation Board
The applicant made a request to the Workers Compensation Board (WCB) for access to all information relating to himself and…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the Workers Compensation Board (WCB) for access to all information relating to himself and his claims. The request was subsequently narrowed to information in email records other than those on his claim file, and for a letter written by a physician, that the applicant believed had been supplied to him by WCB in severed form in an earlier access request. WCB performed a number of searches for the requested records but did not find them. The Commissioner reviewed the searches conducted by WCB for the requested records, and the manner and timing of its communication of the results. In light of this review, the Commissioner held that WCB conducted an adequate search for the requested records, and met its duty under FOIP to make every reasonable effort to assist the applicant and to respond openly, accurately and completely.
|
|
FOIP |
2004 |
|
F2004-06
|
September 30, 2004 |
Mount Royal College
The applicant requested access to records generated by or for Mount Royal College relating to the discussions regarding the sale…
[More]
The applicant requested access to records generated by or for Mount Royal College relating to the discussions regarding the sale and lease of Holy Cross Hospital. A third party disagreed with the position taken by Mount Royal College in disclosing records. The third party argued that disclosure of the records would be harmful to its business interests as per section 16 (business interests) of FOIP. The Adjudicator determined that the records were not supplied explicitly or implicitly in confidence and disclosure would not be reasonably expected to bring about the consequences envisaged under subsection 16(1)(c) of the Act. Mount Royal College had cited the applicability of sections 17 (personal privacy) and 27(1) (privileged information) as authority for severing some of the records. However, Mount Royal College did not make any submissions in this regard. As section 17 is a mandatory provision, the Adjudicator considered its applicability and concluded that disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s privacy under subsection 17(2)(e) (employment responsibilities). By contrast, section 27 is a discretionary provision and the Adjudicator took Mount Royal College’s failure to speak to the discretionary exception as acquiescence to the release of the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2006 |
|
F2004-05 & H2004-01
|
March 16, 2006 |
Calgary Health Region
The applicant requested his mental health records from three hospitals in the Calgary Health Region (CHR). CHR provided the applicant…
[More]
The applicant requested his mental health records from three hospitals in the Calgary Health Region (CHR). CHR provided the applicant with the records under FOIP but withheld the names, initials, signatures, position titles, professional designations and credentials about other individuals in the health, justice, law enforcement, corrections and legal systems. CHR also processed the records under HIA and withheld the information about other individuals saying that sections 11(1)(a)(ii) and 11(1)(a)(iii) of HIA applied and the disclosure could reasonably be expected to threaten the mental or physical health or safety of other individuals and to pose a threat to public safety. The Commissioner found that all of the information withheld was health information under HIA. The Commissioner found that CHR had properly applied the harms test in section 11(1)(a)(ii) of HIA to the information withheld. Given the decision that the information withheld was health information under HIA and not personal information under FOIP, the Commissioner found there was no information remaining to be considered under section 18(1)(a) or section 17 of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2004 |
|
F2004-04
|
May 10, 2004 |
Alberta Learning
The applicant submitted access requests for information to Alberta Learning. Not satisfied with the information provided by Alberta Learning, the…
[More]
The applicant submitted access requests for information to Alberta Learning. Not satisfied with the information provided by Alberta Learning, the applicant questioned whether Alberta Learning conducted adequate searches for responsive records. The applicant also complained that Alberta Learning disclosed her personal information to another public body, without authority. The Commissioner found Alberta Learning conducted adequate searches for responsive records and had the authority to disclose the applicant’s personal information.
|
|
FOIP |
2004 |
|
F2004-03
|
April 20, 2004 |
University of Alberta
The applicant made a request to the University of Alberta (U of A) for access to communications sent or received…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the University of Alberta (U of A) for access to communications sent or received by university officials in which his name was mentioned and which related to a Decanal review proceeding in his faculty. The U of A provided some of the documents but withheld or severed others, citing various sections of FOIP. The Adjudicator upheld the U of A’s decision to withhold the records. The Adjudicator held that the records fell within solicitor-client privilege, and that the U of A properly withheld them under the ‘legal privilege’ exception to disclosure in the Act.
|
|
FOIP |
2005 |
|
F2004-02
|
February 23, 2005 |
Restructuring and Government Efficiency
The applicant requested records related to contracts between Innovation and Science and a third party company. The records are now…
[More]
The applicant requested records related to contracts between Innovation and Science and a third party company. The records are now in the custody and under the control of Alberta Restructuring and Government Efficiency (Public Body). The Public Body estimated fees for service at $433. The applicant requested a waiver of fees on the basis that the records relate to a matter of public interest. The applicant also questioned whether the fees were properly estimated. The Adjudicator found that the records do not relate to a matter of public interest and confirmed the Public Body’s decision not to waive the fees. The Adjudicator also found that the fees had been properly estimated.
|
|
FOIP |
2004 |
|
F2004-01
|
February 24, 2004 |
University of Calgary
The applicant submitted a request for information to the University of Calgary (U of C), seeking access to all file…
[More]
The applicant submitted a request for information to the University of Calgary (U of C), seeking access to all file information from the U of C including 245 documents contained in the applicant’s Faculty of Graduate Studies student file. The U of C provided the applicant with almost all the records but severed a few of the records arguing that sections 24(1)(a), 24(1)(b) and 27(1)(a) of FOIP applied to the records. The Adjudicator found that the U of C properly applied sections 24(1)(a), 24(1)(b) and 27(1)(a) of FOIP to the records at issue.
|
|
FOIP |
2004 |
|
F2003-25
|
February 9, 2004 |
Human Resources and Employment
The applicant requested that Human Resources and Employment (HRE) excuse the fee for services under FOIP, on the basis that…
[More]
The applicant requested that Human Resources and Employment (HRE) excuse the fee for services under FOIP, on the basis that the applicant could not afford to pay. When HRE refused, the applicant asked the Commissioner to review that decision. The Commissioner reduced the fees to nil.
|
|
FOIP |
2004 |
|
F2003-24
|
December 14, 2004 |
Executive Council
The applicant made a request for access to information related to comments attributed to the Premier on the topic of…
[More]
The applicant made a request for access to information related to comments attributed to the Premier on the topic of abortion. Executive Council conducted an initial search for records and estimated fees at $837.00. The applicant asked for a fee waiver on the ground that the records relate to a matter of public interest. Executive Council refused the request. The Adjudicator found that the records do not contain information that relates to a matter of public interest and the applicant should not be excused from paying the fee under section 93(4)(b) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2005 |
|
F2003-23
|
January 12, 2005 |
Lethbridge Police Service
The applicant requested access to a transcript of a phone call made on October 29, 2002 from the Lethbridge Hospital…
[More]
The applicant requested access to a transcript of a phone call made on October 29, 2002 from the Lethbridge Hospital to the Lethbridge Police Service (LPS). The applicant requested that all fees related to the request be waived. During the course of this inquiry, LPS notified the Adjudicator that the records sought by the applicant were missing. The Adjudicator ordered LPS to conduct a further search for records. In the event that the records were found, the Adjudicator decided to order LPS to reduce the fees to $0, under section 93(4)(a) of FOIP (for any other reason it is fair to excuse payment).
|
|
FOIP |
2005 |
|
F2003-22
|
January 12, 2005 |
Medicine Hat Police Service
The applicant requested access to general information from the Medicine Hat Police Service (MHPS) relating to a series of incidents…
[More]
The applicant requested access to general information from the Medicine Hat Police Service (MHPS) relating to a series of incidents in 2002. The applicant requested a waiver of the initial $25 fee based on inability to pay. Notwithstanding the evidence of limited financial means of the applicant, the Adjudicator found that it was not an appropriate case to grant a waiver of the $25 fee on the basis of inability to pay. The fee was not a barrier to access in this case.
|
|
FOIP |
2005 |
|
F2003-21
|
May 11, 2005 |
University of Calgary
The applicant made an access request to the University of Calgary (U of C) for a copy of a report…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the University of Calgary (U of C) for a copy of a report written by a committee set up by one of the dean’s to look into a complaint made by the applicant. The U of C provided the record after severing it extensively, citing sections 24(1)(a) (advice from officials) and 17 (third person personal information) as authority for not disclosing the severed information. The Adjudicator found that the U of C had applied sections 24(1)(a) and 17(4)(g) correctly to most of the record. Where these sections were not properly applied, the Adjudicator ordered the U of C to disclose specific passages of the record to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2004 |
|
F2003-20
|
April 15, 2004 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant made a request for access to all personal information collected by the Calgary Police Service (CPS) in regard…
[More]
The applicant made a request for access to all personal information collected by the Calgary Police Service (CPS) in regard to his employment application. In response to the access request, CPS provided access to only a portion of the responsive records. CPS cited sections 17 (unreasonable invasion of privacy), 19 (confidential evaluations), 20(1)(c) (harm to the effectiveness of investigative techniques and procedures), 20(1)(d) (confidential source of law enforcement information), 20(1)(m) (harm to security of property or system) and 26 (testing and auditing procedures and techniques) of FOIP as its authority to withhold the records. The Adjudicator ordered CPS to provide the applicant with a complete copy of the severed records that were originally provided to the applicant in response to the access request. The Adjudicator ordered CPS to identify, on these records, the portion that was severed and the section numbers that CPS claimed as its authority in this inquiry to withhold the records. The Adjudicator also ordered CPS to provide, as part of this copy, a better photocopy of several records.
|
|
FOIP |
2004 |
|
F2003-19
|
August 11, 2004 |
Grant MacEwan College
The applicant applied to Grant MacEwan College to correct the applicant’s evaluation and to send new records to the Alberta…
[More]
The applicant applied to Grant MacEwan College to correct the applicant’s evaluation and to send new records to the Alberta Association of Registered Nurses (AARN), indicating that the applicant passed the nursing refresher program. Grant MacEwan College refused to correct, on the ground that the applicant’s personal information in the three records at issue consisted of professional or expert opinions, and that FOIP prohibited the correction of those opinions. However, Grant MacEwan College said it would place the applicant’s correction request on the applicant’s student file. The Commissioner found that the applicant’s personal information in the three records at issue consisted of third parties’ recorded statements of facts and opinions about the applicant, and confirmed the Grant MacEwan College’s decision not to correct that personal information. However, the Commissioner ordered Grant MacEwan College to properly link the three records at issue with the applicant’s correction request, and ordered Grant MacEwan College to notify the AARN about the linkage.
|
|
FOIP |
2003 |
|
F2003-18
|
December 29, 2003 |
Human Resources and Employment
The applicant filed an access request Human Resources and Employment (HRE) for a copy of a report prepared by an…
[More]
The applicant filed an access request Human Resources and Employment (HRE) for a copy of a report prepared by an affected party for HRE regarding certain health and safety audits completed by the applicant’s business. After being ordered to obtain the report from the affected party (Order F2002-006), HRE applied section 16(1) and withheld the report. HRE also applied section 17(1) to some of the information, and questioned whether it was responsive to the access request. The Adjudicator found that this information was responsive and upheld HRE’s application of section 17(1) to it. The Adjudicator found that section 16 did not apply to the remaining information, and ordered HRE to disclose that information to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2003 |
|
F2003-17
|
October 6, 2003 |
Fairview College
The applicant filed an access request with Fairview College for access to information relating to a workplace conflict of interest…
[More]
The applicant filed an access request with Fairview College for access to information relating to a workplace conflict of interest allegation against him. Fairview College released records to the applicant in a severed form. The applicant also filed two privacy complaints against Fairview College. The Adjudicator confirmed Fairview College’s severing of the information and found that it had not breached Part 2 of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2003 |
|
F2003-16
|
November 7, 2003 |
Justice
The applicant made a request to Justice for access to all documents regarding the applicant’s complaint of harassment and unfair…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Justice for access to all documents regarding the applicant’s complaint of harassment and unfair employment practices. The applicant also requested a copy of Justice’s investigation report and any documents which allege that the applicant engaged in inappropriate behaviour. In response, Justice provided the applicant with 95 pages of records but withheld, partially or entirely, 96 pages of records. Justice cited sections 17, 24(1)(a) and 24(1)(b)(i) as its authority to withhold these records. The Adjudicator largely upheld Justice’s decision to withhold the records under section 17, 24(1)(a) and 24(1)(b)(i). However, the Adjudicator found that these sections did not apply to the severed portion of one record.
|
|
FOIP |
2005 |
|
F2003-15
|
November 4, 2005 |
Capital Health Authority
The applicant made a number of requests to Capital Health Authority that had provided the practical/clinical portion of a cytotechnology…
[More]
The applicant made a number of requests to Capital Health Authority that had provided the practical/clinical portion of a cytotechnology training program in which she had been enrolled. Capital Health Authority withheld some information. The Commissioner agreed that some of the records fell under the section 4(1)(g) and that he did not have jurisdiction over these records. The Commissioner found that Capital Health Authority had fulfilled its duties under section 10(1) of FOIP to assist the applicant and to conduct an adequate search. With some very minor exceptions, the Commissioner upheld Capital Health Authority’s decision to sever information on the basis that it was unresponsive, or that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of third parties. The Commissioner agreed that some of the information could be withheld on the basis it was privileged. The Commissioner also upheld Capital Health Authority’s refusal to change the applicant’s performance results and scores.
|
|
FOIP |
2004 |
|
F2003-14
|
March 16, 2004 |
Solicitor General
The applicant requested access to any and all statements made by him or by third parties about him pertaining to…
[More]
The applicant requested access to any and all statements made by him or by third parties about him pertaining to a harassment investigation initiated by the applicant. Solicitor General provided the applicant with most of the records but withheld some records on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy and that disclosure would reveal advice given to, or consultations or deliberations involving, the Solicitor General. The Adjudicator upheld Solicitor General’s decision to withhold those records from the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2003 |
|
F2003-13
|
December 3, 2003 |
Health and Wellness
The applicant requested records from Health and Wellness related to the transfer of authority from the Universities Coordinating Council to…
[More]
The applicant requested records from Health and Wellness related to the transfer of authority from the Universities Coordinating Council to the Alberta Dental Association or the Alberta Dental Association and College. Health and Wellness released some records, severed certain records and withheld other records in their entirety, citing sections 17(1), 24(1)(a) and 27(1)(a) of FOIP. The applicant argued that the sections of FOIP relied upon by Health and Wellness did not apply; alternatively, section 32(1)(b) of the Act applied and therefore it was in the public interest that Health and Wellness be required to make full disclosure. The Commissioner found that sections 17(1), 24(1)(a) and 27(1)(a) of FOIP applied to the information and records withheld and that section 32(1)(b) of the Act did not require Health and Wellness to disclose information in the public interest.
|
|
FOIP |
2004 |
|
F2003-12
|
December 15, 2004 |
Workers' Compensation Board
The applicant applied to the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) for an update of information about his WCB claim. When WCB…
[More]
The applicant applied to the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) for an update of information about his WCB claim. When WCB withheld some information, the applicant requested a review. The applicant also questioned whether WCB conducted an adequate search for further records. The Adjudicator ordered WCB to disclose to the applicant some of the information it withheld, but found that WCB properly withheld other information. The Adjudicator also found that WCB conducted an adequate search for further records.
|
|
FOIP |
2003 |
|
F2003-11
|
June 12, 2003 |
Energy
The applicant filed two access requests with Energy for records related to the power purchase arrangement auction and the development…
[More]
The applicant filed two access requests with Energy for records related to the power purchase arrangement auction and the development of the arrangements (PPAs) and dealings between Energy and Enron. The applicant sought a fee waiver for both requests, on the basis of an inability to pay or a public interest in the records. The Commissioner granted a fee waiver on the basis of a public interest in the records relating to the PPAs, and reduced the fee estimate on the second access request, on the basis of Energy’s argument that 33,000 of the records retrieved were not subject to FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2003 |
|
F2003-10
|
June 3, 2003 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant filed an access request with the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for records relating to a complaint of elder…
[More]
The applicant filed an access request with the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for records relating to a complaint of elder abuse made against him. EPS released some information and severed the rest, relying upon multiple provisions of FOIP, including section 18(1)(a) (disclosure harmful to individual safety). The Adjudicator upheld the decision not to disclose all of the severed information in the records under section 18(1)(a).
|
|
FOIP |
2005 |
|
F2003-09
|
June 28, 2005 |
University of Alberta
The applicant made two information requests to the University of Alberta (U of A). In response, the U of A…
[More]
The applicant made two information requests to the University of Alberta (U of A). In response, the U of A released certain records and withheld others. The Adjudicator found that the U of A had initially conducted an inadequate search, but subsequently remedied its error and in sum met its duty to assist the applicant. He found that the two internal complaints processes of the U of A before him were not quasi-judicial processes and the records involved in them were not excluded from FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the internal complaints processes fell within labour relations as contemplated by section 16 of the Act. Some of the withheld records fell within the exception from disclosure under section 16(1)(c)(iv), including personal information about the applicant that third parties brought into the complaints processes. Other records were properly withheld because of legal privilege under section 27. Many of the withheld records were not responsive to the applicant’s requests. The U of A was encouraged to provide a better explanation of why records were not responsive. The Adjudicator declined the applicant’s request to order the U of A to destroy certain records, based on a lack of jurisdiction.
|
|
FOIP |
2003 |
|
F2003-08
|
July 16, 2003 |
Grant MacEwan College
The applicant applied to Grant MacEwan College to any employment references about the applicant, given by Grant MacEwan College or…
[More]
The applicant applied to Grant MacEwan College to any employment references about the applicant, given by Grant MacEwan College or two named individuals of Grant MacEwan College. Other than the information the applicant had previously faxed to Grant MacEwan College, Grant MacEwan College did not have any employment reference information. The Commissioner found that Grant MacEwan College met its duty to the applicant under section 10(1) of FOIP, Grant MacEwan College conducted an adequate search for responsive records, and Grant MacEwan College did not have a duty to the applicant under section 35(a) of the Act.
|
|
FOIP |
2003 |
|
F2003-07
|
July 16, 2003 |
City of Edmonton
The applicant requested access to written records of a reference that the City of Edmonton received from a third party…
[More]
The applicant requested access to written records of a reference that the City of Edmonton received from a third party regarding the applicant, after the applicant’s job interview with the City of Edmonton. The City of Edmonton refused to disclose the information under section 19(1) of FOIP (confidential evaluations). The Commissioner found that, although the information met the criteria for section 19(1), the City of Edmonton did not exercise its discretion properly in refusing access to that information. Therefore, the Commissioner ordered the City of Edmonton to reconsider its decision to refuse access.
|
|
FOIP |
2003 |
|
F2003-06
|
April 9, 2003 |
Calgary Police Service and Law Enforcement Review Board
The applicant made a request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) and to the Law Enforcement Review Board (LERB) for…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) and to the Law Enforcement Review Board (LERB) for access to two unsworn affidavits. CPS withheld the records under section 17 [previously section 16], section 18(1)(a) [previously section 17(1)(a)], section 20(1)(c) [previously section 19(1)(c)], section 20(1)(d) [previously section 19(1)(d)] and section 27(2) [previously section 26(2)]. LERB withheld the records under section 17 [previously section 16], section 18(1)(a) [previously section 17(1)(a)], section 20(1)(n) [previously section 19(1)(k)] and section 27(2) [previously section 26(2)]. The Adjudicator found that CPS and LERB properly applied section 18(1)(a) [previously section 17(1)(a)] to the records. The Adjudicator upheld the decision of CPS and LERB not to disclose the information to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2004 |
|
F2003-05
|
December 29, 2004 |
University of Calgary
The applicant made a request to the University of Calgary (U of C) for access to an investigation report and…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the University of Calgary (U of C) for access to an investigation report and other records relating to a sexual harassment complaint she had made against a member of a faculty of the U of C. The U of C provided some of the documents but withheld or severed others, relying primarily on section 27 (legal privilege), as well as a number of other sections of FOIP. The Adjudicator rejected the U of C’s claim that the report had been prepared for the dominant purpose of litigation, and held that the report could not be withheld under section 27 on that basis. However, the Adjudicator allowed the U of C’s claim of solicitor-client privilege for some of the related documents. The Adjudicator directed that some documents be severed or withheld on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy.
|
|
FOIP |
2005 |
|
F2003-04
|
June 23, 2005 |
Restructuring and Government Efficiency
The applicant sought access to the the government’s SuperNet Agreements. Innovation and Science, now Restructuring and Government Efficiency (the Public…
[More]
The applicant sought access to the the government's SuperNet Agreements. Innovation and Science, now Restructuring and Government Efficiency (the Public Body), decided to give the applicant access to most of the information, but refused to disclose some of the information that the Public Body said was commercial or financial information of third parties (section 16 of the Act) and personal information of third parties (section 17 of the Act). Both the applicant and a third party requested a review of the Public Body’s decision. At inquiry, the Adjudicator found that some of the information was commercial or financial information and personal information of third parties, and ordered the Public Body not to give the applicant access to that information. However, the Adjudicator ordered the Public Body to give the applicant access to the information that was not commercial or financial information or personal information of third parties.
|
|
FOIP |
2003 |
JR
|
F2003-03
|
October 21, 2003 |
Energy and Utilities Board
An individual complained that the Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) disclosed his personal information in contravention of Part 2 of…
[More]
An individual complained that the Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) disclosed his personal information in contravention of Part 2 of FOIP. The complainant asked EUB to conduct a “formal inquiry” about a fish hatchery’s designation as a public facility. EUB sent a copy of a letter that mentioned the applicant’s name to the company that held the license for a nearby sour gas well. The Commissioner found that EUB did not disclose personal information in contravention of Part 2 of the Act.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2003 |
|
F2003-02
|
June 16, 2003 |
City of Calgary
The applicant made a request to the City of Calgary for access to the severance agreements for all managerial employees…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the City of Calgary for access to the severance agreements for all managerial employees of the City of Calgary from January 1, 1999 to July 31, 2001. The Applicant then subsequently made three amendments to his access request expanding the scope of the request to include all employment related benefits for commissioners and executive officers employed by the City of Calgary. In response to the access request and amendments, the City of Calgary disclosed a severed copy of a number of agreements but withheld four supplementary pension agreements in their entirety under section 17 [previously section 16] of FOIP. The applicant objected to the City of Calgary’s decision to withhold the four agreements. In addition, the applicant stated that the City of Calgary did not make every reasonable effort to search for the records as required by section 10 [previously section 9] of the Act. The Adjudicator found that section 17 [previously section 16] applied to the name of each affected party, the retirement date of each affected party and the signature of each affected party. However, the Adjudicator found that section 17 [previously section 16] did not apply to the remainder of the four agreements which included information regarding the supplementary pension benefits formula and other clauses regarding the administration of the pension benefits. The Adjudicator also held that the City of Calgary did not conduct an adequate search for records in response to the applicant’s second amendment and did not properly inform the applicant of the results of the search.
|
|
FOIP |
2004 |
|
F2003-01
|
February 25, 2004 |
Environment
The applicant requested access from Environment to all records relating to a specific approval under the Water Act. Environment disclosed…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Environment to all records relating to a specific approval under the Water Act. Environment disclosed a number of records, but withheld 36 pages of records as being privileged information under section 27(1) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that all but a small amount of information met the requirements of section 27(1) and could be withheld from the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2003 |
|
F2002-30 (Reconsideration)
|
January 21, 2003 |
University of Alberta
On March 28, 2002, the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Court) quashed Order 2000-032 on judicial review and remitted…
[More]
On March 28, 2002, the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Court) quashed Order 2000-032 on judicial review and remitted the matter back to the Commissioner for reconsideration and re-weighing of the specific factors found under section 17(5)(a), section 17(5)(c) and section 17(5)(f) of FOIP. These sections address public scrutiny, fair determination of the applicant’s rights and personal information supplied in confidence. Also to be considered under section 17(5) was the power imbalance between the applicant, a professor, and the former students whose personal information the applicant sought from the University of Alberta. The Commissioner concluded that public scrutiny did not apply, that there was a power imbalance favouring the applicant, and that the former student’s personal information was supplied in confidence. Therefore, the relevant circumstances under section 17(5) weighed in favour of not disclosing personal information in the records sought by the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2003 |
|
F2002-29
|
May 7, 2003 |
Government Services
The Alberta Motor Vehicle Industry Council (AMVIC) requires a criminal record check of individuals who apply for an automotive business…
[More]
The Alberta Motor Vehicle Industry Council (AMVIC) requires a criminal record check of individuals who apply for an automotive business license under the Fair Trading Act (FTA). The Commissioner found that Government Services and AMVIC, the delegate of the Director of Fair Trading under FTA, have the authority under section 33(c) of FOIP to collect criminal record checks for the automotive business licensing program under FTA.
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
F2002-28
|
December 19, 2002 |
Children's Services
The applicant requested a draft report from Children’s Services (CS). The applicant also requested an initial fee waiver based on…
[More]
The applicant requested a draft report from Children’s Services (CS). The applicant also requested an initial fee waiver based on public interest. CS denied the applicant’s information request under section 24(1)(a) [previously section 23(1)(a)] of FOIP. CS argued that section 10(2) of the FOIP Regulation prevented it from waiving the initial fee. The Adjudicator found CS has discretion to waive the initial fee. The Adjudicator also found that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support a fee waiver and confirmed CS' charging of the initial fee. The Adjudicator confirmed CS' decision not to disclose the record under section 24(1)(a) [previously section 23(1)(a)] of the Act.
|
|
FOIP |
2003 |
|
F2002-27
|
October 10, 2003 |
University of Calgary
The applicant made an access request to the University of Calgary (U of C) for a copy of a letter…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the University of Calgary (U of C) for a copy of a letter of reference, which had been submitted to the U of C in confidence. The U of C refused to provide a copy of the one-page record under section 19(1) of FOIP, arguing that it contained confidential evaluations or opinion material related to the applicant’s suitability or qualification for employment. The Adjudicator found that the U of C had properly applied section 19(1) of the Act.
|
|
FOIP |
2004 |
|
F2002-26
|
January 19, 2004 |
St. Michael’s Extended Care Centre Society and St. Michael’s Long Term Care Centre
An individual complained that an individual employed by both St. Michael’s Extended Care Centre Society and St. Michael’s Long Term…
[More]
An individual complained that an individual employed by both St. Michael’s Extended Care Centre Society and St. Michael’s Long Term Care Centre, breached Part 2 of FOIP by disclosing the complainant’s personal information to the Capital Health Authority. The Adjudicator found that both St. Michael’s Extended Care Centre Society and St. Michael’s Long Term Care Centre breached Part 2 of the Act. The Adjudicator also found that neither of these public bodies had the authority under section 40 of FOIP to disclose the information.
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
F2002-25
|
November 20, 2002 |
Solicitor General
The applicant made a request for personal information to the Solicitor General of Alberta (Solicitor General). The personal information requested…
[More]
The applicant made a request for personal information to the Solicitor General of Alberta (Solicitor General). The personal information requested consisted of the names of three individuals who illegibly signed specifically identified request for interview forms at the Edmonton Remand Centre. Solicitor General previously provided the forms to the applicant. Solicitor General did not sever the illegible names or any other information from the records. The applicant asked Solicitor General to decipher the illegible names. Solicitor General wrote the applicant stating that the names were being withheld under section 17(1) [previously section 16(1)] of the Act (third party personal information). The Commissioner found there was no jurisdiction to make an order that would satisfy the applicant’s request for clarification of the signatures on the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2003 |
|
F2002-24
|
January 14, 2003 |
Environment
The applicant applied to Environment for records related to an investigation on a specific property. Environment initially refused to disclose…
[More]
The applicant applied to Environment for records related to an investigation on a specific property. Environment initially refused to disclose all of the records on the basis of the personal information and law enforcement exceptions under FOIP. However, Environment ultimately provided more than 950 pages of records to the applicant. The Adjudicator Environment’s decision that certain records were exempt from the application of the Act pursuant to sections 4(1)(l)(iii), (v) and (q). The Adjudicator also held that Environment had properly applied section 20(1)(a) [previously section 19(1)(a)] and section 17 [previously section 16] to the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
F2002-23
|
October 31, 2002 |
Human Resources and Employment
The applicant requested both personal and general information, in two separate requests, from Human Resources and Employment (HRE). The applicant…
[More]
The applicant requested both personal and general information, in two separate requests, from Human Resources and Employment (HRE). The applicant also requested a full fee waiver on the grounds that she could not afford to pay. HRE denied the request for the general information, a manual, under section 29(1)(a) of FOIP, indicating that the manual was available to the public for purchase. HRE also refused to waive the fees for the records containing the applicant’s personal information. The Adjudicator agreed that the manual was available for purchase and confirmed HRE’s decision to refuse access. In dealing with the fee waiver, the Adjudicator decided to divide the records containing the applicant’s personal information into two groups. The first group contained correspondence between the applicant and HRE after February 1, 2000. The applicant indicated in her submission that she already had copies of these records. The Adjudicator confirmed HRE’s decision to charge fees for these records. For the remainder of the records containing the applicant’s personal information, the Adjudicator excused the applicant from paying the fees on the grounds that the applicant could not afford the payment.
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
JR
|
F2002-22
|
August 28, 2002 |
Justice
The applicant wanted from Justice access to trial and docket sheets, past and future, for all courthouses in Alberta. Justice…
[More]
The applicant wanted from Justice access to trial and docket sheets, past and future, for all courthouses in Alberta. Justice denied access under FOIP, on the grounds that the records were excluded from the Act because they were either information in a court file (section 4(1)(a) of the Act), judicial administration records (section 4(1)(a) and section 4(3) of the Act) or records relating to a prosecution (section 4(1)(k) of the Act). The Commissioner found that the records were in the custody (possession) of Justice and were not excluded from the Act. The Commissioner decided that the records were court administration records to which FOIP applied. Justice would therefore be expected to take the next step in processing the applicant’s access requests under FOIP by providing fee estimates for the records requested.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2003 |
|
F2002-21
|
April 9, 2003 |
Infrastructure
The applicant requested records from Justice and Infrastructure. Justice had a single record, which was transferred to Infrastructure. Infrastructure dealt…
[More]
The applicant requested records from Justice and Infrastructure. Justice had a single record, which was transferred to Infrastructure. Infrastructure dealt with the applicant’s requests. Infrastructure located 192 records, 95 of which were disclosed or partially disclosed. Records were exempted or severed under sections 24(1) [previously section 23(1)], 25 [previously section 24] and 27 [previously section 26] of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that section 24(1) and section 27 applied to the records and confirmed Infrastructure’s decision not to disclose the records to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
F2002-20
|
August 7, 2002 |
Lethbridge Police Service
An individual made a complaint which alleged that the former Chief of the Lethbridge Police Service (LPS) contravened Part 2…
[More]
An individual made a complaint which alleged that the former Chief of the Lethbridge Police Service (LPS) contravened Part 2 of FOIP by verbally disclosing the complainant’s personal information to the editor of the Lethbridge Herald. The complainant alleged that following this unauthorized disclosure, the information was then subsequently published in that paper. The Commissioner found that the complainant did not meet the burden of proving that LPS disclosed the complainant’s personal information to the editor of the Lethbridge Herald. As such, the Commissioner found that LPS did not contravene Part 2 of the Act.
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
F2002-19
|
August 8, 2002 |
Alberta Learning
The applicant made a request to Alberta Learning for access to a copy of the applicant’s student’s finance file. Alberta…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Alberta Learning for access to a copy of the applicant’s student’s finance file. Alberta Learning disclosed the majority of the records to the applicant, but withheld portions of the remaining records under section 17 [previously section 16], section 24(1)(b) [previously section 23(1)(b)], section 27(1)(b) [previously section 26(1)(b)], and section 27(1)(c) [previously section 26(1)(c)]. The Adjudicator found that Alberta Learning properly applied section 17 [previously section 16] and section 24(1)(b) [previously section 23(1)(b)] to the records and partially upheld the application of section 27(1)(b) [previously section 26(1)(b)]. In addition, the Adjudicator found that, although Alberta Learning correctly applied section 27(1)(c) [previously section 26(1)(c)], Alberta Learning did not properly exercise its discretion under that section. The Adjudicator therefore ordered Alberta Learning to reconsider its decision in regard to section 27(1)(c) [previously section 26(1)(c)].
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
F2002-18
|
October 11, 2002 |
Edmonton Public Schools
An individual complained that Edmonton Public Schools disclosed personal information in contravention of Part 2 of FOIP when it sent…
[More]
An individual complained that Edmonton Public Schools disclosed personal information in contravention of Part 2 of FOIP when it sent a copy of a letter to other people. The Commissioner found that Edmonton Public Schools did not disclose the personal information in contravention of Part 2 of the Act.
|
|
FOIP |
2003 |
|
F2002-17
|
August 7, 2003 |
Mount Royal College
The applicant requested that Mount Royal College provide 10 years of employment-related records in CD ROM format. The applicant also…
[More]
The applicant requested that Mount Royal College provide 10 years of employment-related records in CD ROM format. The applicant also made a fee waiver request under section 93(4)(a) [previously section 87(4)(a)] of FOIP. There were two categories of records. The first category was emails and the second category consisted of computer logs. MRC advised the applicant that it could not provide the records in a CD ROM format and provided the applicant with a fee estimate for providing paper copies of the records. MRC denied the Applicant’s fee waiver request. The Adjudicator found that MRC was not required to create any record, electronic or paper from the computer logs. Doing so would unreasonably interfere with MRC’s operations. The Adjudicator found that MRC was required to create an electronic record from the emails. However, MRC was unable to electronically sever the emails before providing access to them in electronic format. Therefore, MRC is only required to provide the emails in paper format. The Adjudicator also found that as there was no evidence to support a fee waiver for the paper production of the email records, and the request for a fee waiver for these records was denied.
|
|
FOIP |
2003 |
|
F2002-16
|
July 28, 2003 |
City of Calgary
The applicant applied to the City of Calgary for access to records concerning an equal opportunity complaint the applicant brought…
[More]
The applicant applied to the City of Calgary for access to records concerning an equal opportunity complaint the applicant brought against the city in November 1992. The city responded that the records had been destroyed. Adamant that microfiche records must still exist, the applicant questioned the adequacy of the city’s search and whether the city otherwise met its duty to the applicant, as required by section 10(1) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the city conducted an adequate search for responsive records and otherwise met its duty to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2003 |
|
F2002-15 & H2002-06
|
November 3, 2003 |
Calgary Health Region
The applicant made a request to the Calgary Health Region (CHR) for access to all records relating to an investigation…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the Calgary Health Region (CHR) for access to all records relating to an investigation respecting a physician. CHR provided access to 73 of 280 pages of records, but withheld, partially or entirely, 207 pages of records. CHR also refused to provide access to some of the records on the basis that some of the records were non-responsive to the request. In addition, CHR cited the Health Information Act, as well as sections 4(1)(c) [previously section 4(1)(b.1)], 17 [previously section 16], 18 [previously section 17], 24(1)(a) [previously section 23(1)(a)], 27(1)(a) [previously section 26(1)(a)] and 27(1)(b) [previously section 26(1)(b)] of FOIP as its authority to withhold the records. The Commissioner upheld CHR’s decision to withhold the records. In addition, the Commissioner held that section 11(2)(a) of the Health Information Act and section 4(1)(u) [previously section 4(1)(p)] of FOIP applied to the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
F2002-14
|
July 22, 2002 |
Municipality of Crowsnest Pass
The applicant applied to the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass for records containing specific technical information related to the municipal water…
[More]
The applicant applied to the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass for records containing specific technical information related to the municipal water system. The municipality conducted a search of its records and interviewed its employees, but did not locate any responsive records. The Commissioner held that the municipality had failed to meet its duty to the applicant under section 10(1) [previously 9(1)] of FOIP, and ordered the municipality to conduct a further search, focusing specifically on records in the control of the municipality that may be in the hands of a third party.
|
|
FOIP |
2003 |
|
F2002-13
|
January 13, 2003 |
Transportation
The applicant asked the Commissioner to review the adequacy of Transportation’s search for records in response to an access request.…
[More]
The applicant asked the Commissioner to review the adequacy of Transportation’s search for records in response to an access request. The Commissioner found that Alberta Transportation conducted an adequate search for records.
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
F2002-12
|
June 25, 2002 |
Calgary Roman Catholic Separate School District
The applicant requested Calgary Roman Catholic Separate School District No. 1 (CRCSSD) to provide access to a copy of her…
[More]
The applicant requested Calgary Roman Catholic Separate School District No. 1 (CRCSSD) to provide access to a copy of her son’s English 10-H final exam questions and her son’s responses with notations resulting in his final mark. CRCSSD provided access to the applicant’s son’s responses, but refused access to the record, which consists of exam questions, instructions and reading passages on which the exam questions are based. CRCSSD said that the record was excluded from the application of FOIP by section 4(1)(g) [previously section 4(1)(d)]. The Adjudicator upheld CRCSSD's decision.
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
F2002-11
|
December 16, 2002 |
Sustainable Resource Development
The applicant applied to Sustainable Resource Development (SRD) for access to any records that reflected what happened to the original…
[More]
The applicant applied to Sustainable Resource Development (SRD) for access to any records that reflected what happened to the original “allocations” transferred from the estate of the applicant’s father (who operated an outfitting company) to a named individual in 1994. An “allocation” allows an “outfitter-guide” to take one hunter to a particular area (Wildlife Management Unit) to hunt for a specified species in a specified manner. The Adjudicator agreed with SRD that the information about allocations was information about a license, permit or other similar discretionary benefit concerning a commercial activity, and that a public body had granted the license, permit or other similar discretionary benefit to the third parties. Therefore, disclosure of the third parties’ names and information about the nature of the license, permit or other similar discretionary benefit was not an unreasonable invasion of the third parties’ personal privacy, as provided by section 17(2)(g) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2003 |
|
F2002-10
|
September 17, 2003 |
Alberta Learning
The applicant requested access to the handwritten notes of a named employee of Alberta Learning. The notes related to a…
[More]
The applicant requested access to the handwritten notes of a named employee of Alberta Learning. The notes related to a complaint made by a third party about the welfare of a special needs student at a specific school. Alberta Learning removed part of the information from the records as non-responsive and severed other information under section 17 of FOIP (personal information of a third party). The Adjudicator found that Alberta Learning had incorrectly identified a small portion of the information removed as non-responsive. However, the Adjudicator found section 17 applied to all of the personal information which was withheld from the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
F2002-09
|
December 30, 2002 |
Banff Centre
The Banff Centre could not find certain records that allegedly should have been on the applicant’s personnel file. Those records…
[More]
The Banff Centre could not find certain records that allegedly should have been on the applicant’s personnel file. Those records predated the coming into force of FOIP for the Banff Centre. The Adjudicator found that he did not have any jurisdiction over the Banff Centre’s record-keeping practices before FOIP came into force. Furthermore, the issue was whether the Banff Centre met its duty to make every reasonable effort to respond to the applicant openly, accurately and completely, as required by section 10(1) of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the Banff Centre met that duty.
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
F2002-08
|
December 20, 2002 |
City of Calgary
The applicant made an access request to the City of Calgary for notes made while checking with the applicant’s references.…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the City of Calgary for notes made while checking with the applicant’s references. The city denied access to a two-page record under section 19(1) of FOIP, on the grounds that the record contained confidential evaluations. The Adjudicator found that the city had properly applied section 19(1).
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
F2002-07
|
September 19, 2002 |
Justice
The applicant applied to Justice for access to the details of billing and the fees Justice paid to solicitors who…
[More]
The applicant applied to Justice for access to the details of billing and the fees Justice paid to solicitors who represented both Justice and Justice’s employee in two related lawsuits, one against Justice and one against the Justice’s employee. The Commissioner found that solicitor-client privilege applied to the solicitors’ statements of accounts. However, he could not distinguish between the information to which solicitor-client privilege of the Justice applied (section 27(1)(a) of FOIP, a discretionary provision allowing a public body to disclose privileged information of the public body), and the information to which solicitor-client privilege of the employee applied (section 27(1)(a) and section 27(2) of FOIP, a mandatory provision requiring Justice to refuse to disclose privileged information of a person other than a public body). Therefore, the Commissioner adopted an all or nothing approach and found that section 27(2) of FOIP applied to prevent disclosure of the solicitors’ statements of accounts.
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
F2002-06
|
September 26, 2002 |
Human Resources and Employment
The applicant made a request to Human Resources and Employment (HRE) for access to a report about the applicant’s company…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Human Resources and Employment (HRE) for access to a report about the applicant's company that was completed by the Alberta Forest Products Association (AFPA). HRE denied the applicant’s access request on the ground that it no longer had custody or control of the record. The applicant also asked whether HRE had a duty under section 35(b) [previously section 34(b)] to retain the information in the record. The Adjudicator found that HRE had control of the record for the purposes of FOIP and ordered HRE to retrieve the record from the AFPA. However, the Adjudicator found that, at the time that HRE had custody of the record, it did not have a duty under section 35(b) [previously section 34(b)].
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
F2002-05
|
July 30, 2002 |
County of Thorhild
The applicant submitted a formal request for information to the County of Thorhild No. 7 (County). Before performing all of…
[More]
The applicant submitted a formal request for information to the County of Thorhild No. 7 (County). Before performing all of the services requested by the applicant, the County responded by providing some of the information requested as well as a fee estimate for the remaining information. The applicant disagreed with the fee estimate, the information being offered and disputed the record keeping procedures of the County. The Adjudicator found that the fee estimate, the assistance provided, and the record keeping practices of the County were all in accordance with FOIP. The Adjudicator observed that the decision did not prevent the applicant from making a direct request to the County and asking the County to excuse all or part of the fees.
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
F2002-04
|
August 28, 2002 |
Justice
The applicant sought access from Justice to employee complaints about the person who allegedly dismissed the applicant from their employment…
[More]
The applicant sought access from Justice to employee complaints about the person who allegedly dismissed the applicant from their employment at the Court of Appeal. Justice could not find any responsive records in its own records system. Justice said that, if responsive records existed, those records were in the Court of Appeal and may be in the custody or under the control of the Chief Justice of the Court. The Commissioner found that Justice itself did not have custody (possession) of any responsive records, and it did not have control of any responsive records that may exist in the Court of Appeal. Therefore, FOIP did not apply to those records.
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
F2002-03
|
October 30, 2002 |
Town of Ponoka
The applicant requested a review of the fees charged by the Town of Ponoka for access to records. The applicant…
[More]
The applicant requested a review of the fees charged by the Town of Ponoka for access to records. The applicant felt that the fees should be waived under FOIP because the records contained information about an issue that was of public interest. The Adjudicator determined that the records did not contain information that was of public interest and confirmed the $25.00 fee charged to the applicant by the Town of Ponoka.
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
F2002-02
|
July 5, 2002 |
Environment
The applicant applied to Environment requesting access to the proposal of a third party that responded to a request for…
[More]
The applicant applied to Environment requesting access to the proposal of a third party that responded to a request for proposal to provide aerial fire fighting services to the Government of Alberta. The Adjudicator found that most, but not all, of the information that Environment withheld in the third party’s proposal was confidential business information of the third party and must not be disclosed under section 16 [previously section 15] of FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered disclosure of some information for which he found that section 16 did not apply.
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
F2002-01
|
March 27, 2002 |
Edmonton Police Service
An individual complained that the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) disclosed their personal information in violation of Part 2 of FOIP.…
[More]
An individual complained that the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) disclosed their personal information in violation of Part 2 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the disclosures of personal information were in compliance with the Act.
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
2001-42
|
April 5, 2002 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant made a request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for access to several types of records including specific…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for access to several types of records including specific internal and external investigation reports. The applicant subsequently asked CPS to waive the estimated fee under section 93(4) [previously section 87(4)] of FOIP. The last fee estimate provided to the applicant was in the amount of $641.50. The Commissioner reduced the fee to nil. The Commissioner held that given the protracted and longstanding issues between CPS and the applicant, it was fair to excuse payment of the fee.
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
JR
|
2001-41
|
July 26, 2002 |
Workers' Compensation Board and Appeals Commission
The applicant applied to the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) for all information relating to him or his WCB claims, including…
[More]
The applicant applied to the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) for all information relating to him or his WCB claims, including communications between the WCB legal department and the Appeals Commission. WCB coordinated its response with that of the Appeals Commission, locating 1,891 pages of records, and severing some. The Acting Commissioner held that WCB did not respond to the applicant openly, accurately and completely, or conduct a thorough search for records. WCB did properly exempt records from disclosure on the basis of solicitor-client privilege and non-responsiveness. The Acting Commissioner held that the Appeals Commission responded to the applicant openly, accurately and completely, conducted a thorough search for records, and properly exempted a record from disclosure on the basis of solicitor-client privilege.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2001 |
|
2001-40
|
December 21, 2001 |
Edmonton Police Commission
The applicant applied to the Edmonton Police Commission (EPC), seeking access to materials compiled by EPC in relation to him,…
[More]
The applicant applied to the Edmonton Police Commission (EPC), seeking access to materials compiled by EPC in relation to him, particularly his suspension without pay from the Edmonton Police Service. At issue for the inquiry were the minutes of three closed meetings of EPC, to which EPC refused access under section 22 of FOIP (local public body confidences). The Acting Commissioner found that the EPC did not exercise its discretion properly in refusing access under section 22, and ordered the head to reconsider that decision.
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
2001-39
|
May 29, 2002 |
Alberta Securities Commission
An individual complained that the Alberta Securities Commission (ASC) had collected and disclosed personal information about the complainant’s criminal history…
[More]
An individual complained that the Alberta Securities Commission (ASC) had collected and disclosed personal information about the complainant’s criminal history in contravention of Part 2 of FOIP. The Acting Commissioner found that ASC had collected the complainant’s personal information in compliance with FOIP, and that there was no evidence of disclosure by the ASC in contravention of the Act, as had been alleged by the complainant.
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
2001-38
|
September 23, 2002 |
Calgary Board of Education
An individual complained that the Calgary Board of Education (CBE) was using and disclosing personal information of his child to…
[More]
An individual complained that the Calgary Board of Education (CBE) was using and disclosing personal information of his child to set up an email system in contravention of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the complainant’s child’s personal information was being used and disclosed for two purposes. The first purpose was the education of students about the use of email and the internet. The Adjudicator found that this purpose was consistent with the purpose for which the information was collected or compiled and was therefore permissible under FOIP. The second purpose was the advertising, marketing, and revenue generation aspect of the contract. The Adjudicator found that this was not a consistent purpose. Therefore, CBE was not permitted to use or disclose the complainant’s child’s personal information for this purpose unless proper consent was obtained. The Adjudicator found that CBE had not received proper consent, as set out in the FOIP Regulation. The Adjudicator ordered CBE to stop using and disclosing the complainant’s child’s personal information for advertising, marketing, and revenue generation unless the the CBE obtained proper consent for this purpose.
|
|
FOIP |
2001 |
|
2001-37
|
December 21, 2001 |
Government Services
The applicant applied to Government Services for a record that related to an allegation that a company was doing business…
[More]
The applicant applied to Government Services for a record that related to an allegation that a company was doing business without a license in Alberta. Government Services refused to disclose some information in the records to the applicant. The Adjudicator held that Government Services had properly identified some information in the records as non-responsive, and had properly applied section 16(1) and section 20(1)(b) to withhold information in the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
2001-36
|
January 25, 2002 |
City of Calgary
The applicant made a request to the City of Calgary for access to a variety of assessment information. Along with…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the City of Calgary for access to a variety of assessment information. Along with that request, the applicant asked the City of Calgary to waive the $25 application fee under section 93(4) [previously section 87(4)] of the FOIP Act. The City of Calgary refused to grant the fee waiver. The Commissioner held that the requested information fell within the ambit of sections 299-301 of the Municipal Government Act and that sections 299-301 of the Municipal Government Act were inconsistent and in conflict with FOIP. Consequently, section 5 [previously section 5(2)] of FOIP was engaged so that FOIP did not apply to the access and disclosure of the information. The Commissioner had no jurisdiction to decide whether the applicant was entitled to a fee waiver regarding the records containing assessment information.
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
2001-35
|
May 27, 2002 |
University of Calgary
An individual complained that the University of Calgary (U of C) had breached his privacy when an email conversation between…
[More]
An individual complained that the University of Calgary (U of C) had breached his privacy when an email conversation between the complainant and the chair of the faculty in which he teaches was given to a colleague. The Adjudicator found that most of the personal information in the records was information about the chair and the colleague. Therefore, the U of C did not breach the complainant’s privacy.
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
2001-34
|
March 8, 2002 |
Foothills School Division
An individual complained that the Foothills School Division #38 (FSD) was not authorized to collect her personal information in relation…
[More]
An individual complained that the Foothills School Division #38 (FSD) was not authorized to collect her personal information in relation to a student that she was supervising. The Adjudicator found that the information was collected as authorized by FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
2001-33
|
May 2, 2002 |
Municipality of Crowsnest Pass
The applicant asked the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass to provide access to information about a sports complex, a pipeline and…
[More]
The applicant asked the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass to provide access to information about a sports complex, a pipeline and a well, and a community centre. The applicant’s access request included a series of questions he wanted the municipality to answer about those three projects. The main issues in this inquiry were whether the municipality conducted a thorough search for records and otherwise fulfilled its duty to assist the applicant (section 10(1) [previously section 9(1)] of FOIP). The Commissioner found that the municipality did not respond openly, accurately and completely to certain parts of the applicant's access request, and to provide another response to the applicant with respect to those parts of the request.
|
|
FOIP |
2001 |
|
2001-32
|
December 28, 2001 |
Human Resources and Employment
An individual made a complaint that Human Resources and Employment (HRE) disclosed their personal information in violation of Part 2…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that Human Resources and Employment (HRE) disclosed their personal information in violation of Part 2 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that HRE did not disclose the applicant’s personal information.
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
2001-31
|
January 25, 2002 |
Justice
The applicant made a request to Justice for access to a copy of the review/report regarding a prosecutor’s decision to…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Justice for access to a copy of the review/report regarding a prosecutor’s decision to withdraw a charge of assault. In addition, if the matter had been referred to the Chief Crown Prosecutor, the applicant requested a copy of that file as well. The Commissioner found that Justice properly applied section 20(1)(g) [previously section 19(1)(d.3)] of FOIP (prosecutorial discretion) to the information. Therefore, the Commissioner upheld Justice’s decision not to disclose the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
2001-30
|
January 25, 2002 |
Justice
The applicant made a request to Justice for access to a copy of the Crown prosecutor’s analysis regarding the applicant’s…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Justice for access to a copy of the Crown prosecutor’s analysis regarding the applicant’s complaint against a former business partner. The applicant also requested a copy of a second analysis, which was requested by the Minister. The Commissioner found that Justice properly applied section 20(1)(g) [previously section 19(1)(d.3)] of FOIP (prosecutorial discretion) to the information. Therefore, the Commissioner upheld Justice’s decision not to disclose the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2001 |
|
2001-29
|
December 19, 2001 |
Government Services
The applicant applied to Government Services for records pertaining to a third party’s driving record. Government Services refused access to…
[More]
The applicant applied to Government Services for records pertaining to a third party’s driving record. Government Services refused access to the records, applying section 16(1) of FOIP. Government Services also claimed that section 4(1)(h)(ii) of FOIP applied to the records, excluding them from the application of the Act. The Acting Commissioner determined that section 4(1)(h)(ii) of the Act applied to the records, excluding them from the application of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
2001-28
|
February 7, 2002 |
Edmonton Catholic Separate School District
The applicant wrote two letters to Edmonton Catholic Separate School District No. 7 (ECSSD) requesting information about his son. The…
[More]
The applicant wrote two letters to Edmonton Catholic Separate School District No. 7 (ECSSD) requesting information about his son. The applicant was not satisfied the records he received were those that he had requested. The applicant also complained that ECSSD did not respond to his request openly, accurately, and completely. The Adjudicator found that the records disclosed by ECSSD were those the applicant requested. The Adjudicator also found that ECSSD properly discharged its duty to assist the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
2001-27
|
April 5, 2002 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant applied to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for access to the records of an investigation. EPS provided access…
[More]
The applicant applied to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for access to the records of an investigation. EPS provided access to some records, but did not disclose certain information in other records. The Adjudicator agreed with EPS that the exceptions to disclosure contained in section 17 of the Act (personal information) and section 20(3)(a) of the Act (information in a law enforcement record) applied to the withheld information.
|
|
FOIP |
2001 |
|
2001-26
|
October 3, 2001 |
Human Resources and Employment
The applicant, as administrator of the estate of a deceased individual, applied for access to information held by Human Resources…
[More]
The applicant, as administrator of the estate of a deceased individual, applied for access to information held by Human Resources and Employment (HRE) about an industrial accident which caused the individual’s death. A third party objected to the disclosure, citing section 15 of FOIP (business interests). The Adjudicator found that section 15 did not apply and ordered access to all the records, subject to the severing of the third party personal information as determined by HRE under section 16 of the Act.
|
|
FOIP |
2002 |
|
2001-25
|
March 8, 2002 |
Human Resources and Employment
The applicant applied Human Resources and Employment (HRE) for access to records of a named care institution. The Adjudicator agreed…
[More]
The applicant applied Human Resources and Employment (HRE) for access to records of a named care institution. The Adjudicator agreed with HRE that some of the records and information contained in the records should be withheld under various exceptions to disclosure set out in FOIP. However, the Adjudicator ordered HRE to disclose to the applicant other information contained in the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2001 |
|
2001-24
|
November 21, 2001 |
Town of Ponoka
The applicant applied to the Town of Okotoks for records relating to the applicant, or a named organization, if the…
[More]
The applicant applied to the Town of Okotoks for records relating to the applicant, or a named organization, if the applicant’s name was included in the records. The town released some records, but said that it could not release town bylaw records held by RCMP, because they were not in the custody or under the control of the town. The applicant asked the Commissioner to review whether the town had custody or control of the records for the purposes of FOIP, and whether the town discharged its duty to assist the applicant. Before the inquiry, the town obtained the bylaw records from RCMP and released them to the applicant. The Acting Commissioner found that the town had control of the bylaw records sought by the applicant. He also held that the town had discharged its duty to assist the applicant.
|
|
|
2001 |
|
2001-23
|
August 22, 2001 |
Environment
The applicant applied for records relating to land exchanges between the provincial Crown and Three Sisters Resorts Inc. in the…
[More]
The applicant applied for records relating to land exchanges between the provincial Crown and Three Sisters Resorts Inc. in the Canmore area. The applicant asked Environment to waive the estimated fee of $1855.30, as he lacked the ability to pay (section 87(4)(a) of FOIP) and the records related to a matter of public interest (section 87(4)(b) of the Act). Environment refused the fee waiver on both grounds. The Commissioner held that there was a public interest in certain records and reduced the fee by 80%, to $371.06. The Commissioner commented that when a public body is deciding whether to waive a fee under section 87(4)(b), it should consider the principles and objects of the Act, and assess all the relevant facts and circumstances, not just those presented by an applicant.
|
|
|
2001 |
|
2001-22
|
December 17, 2001 |
Health and Wellness
The applicant made a request to Health and Wellness for access to correspondence from Ciba-Geigy Canada Ltd. (Ciba) to Alberta…
[More]
The applicant made a request to Health and Wellness for access to correspondence from Ciba-Geigy Canada Ltd. (Ciba) to Alberta Blue Cross relating to the listing of two drugs on the Alberta formulary. Ciba objected to the disclosure. The only information at issue was a three-page letter dated November 3, 1994, from Ciba to Health and Wellness. The Acting Commissioner found that this information met all requirements of section 15(1) of FOIP. Therefore, the Acting Commissioner ordered Health and Wellness not to disclose the information to the applicant.
|
|
|
2001 |
|
2001-21
|
August 22, 2001 |
Community Development
The applicant made a request for access to a letter dated January 5, 2001 from Epcor Generation Inc. (Epcor) to Community…
[More]
The applicant made a request for access to a letter dated January 5, 2001 from Epcor Generation Inc. (Epcor) to Community Development and for other records relating to the future development of the Rossdale Power Plant site. Epcor objected to the disclosure of one sentence found in one of the records and requested a review by the Commissioner. The Commissioner found that the information met all of the requirements under section 15(1) of FOIP. In addition, the Commissioner held that Epcor did not consent to the disclosure of the information under section 15(3)(a). Therefore, the Commissioner ordered Community Development not to disclose the information to the applicant.
|
|
|
2001 |
|
2001-20
|
August 22, 2001 |
City of Calgary
The applicant filed an access request with the City of Calgary for all information related to discretionary buyouts for city…
[More]
The applicant filed an access request with the City of Calgary for all information related to discretionary buyouts for city mangers since January 1, 1999. The city issued notice of its decision to sever some personal information and disclose the records. Three third parties asked the Commissioner to review the city’s decision to disclose their personal information. The Commissioner upheld the city’s decision and ordered the city to release the records, as the city had severed them, to the applicant.
|
|
|
2001 |
|
2001-19
|
May 22, 2001 |
City of Edmonton
The applicant for access to a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the City of Edmonton and Telus Communications Inc. The…
[More]
The applicant for access to a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the City of Edmonton and Telus Communications Inc. The city was prepared to disclose the record. However, Telus objected to the disclosure of the MOU, citing section 15(1) (disclosure harmful to business interests). The Commissioner held that Telus discharged its burden of proof, and therefore ordered the city to withhold the MOU.
|
|
FOIP |
2001 |
JR
|
2001-18
|
May 10, 2001 |
Alberta Cancer Board
The applicants applied to the Alberta Cancer Board (ACB) for access to health records relating to their son. ACB had…
[More]
The applicants applied to the Alberta Cancer Board (ACB) for access to health records relating to their son. ACB had provided the applicants with a total of 878 pages, and had withheld only two pages of records. The Commissioner found that the ACB did not properly apply section 26(1) of the Act to the two remaining pages of records, and ordered these pages disclosed to the applicants with names and initials of certain third parties severed.
|
JR
|
|
2001 |
|
2001-17
|
June 14, 2001 |
Environment
The applicant applied to Environment for a large volume of records relating to the purchase of commercial timber and fibre permits,…
[More]
The applicant applied to Environment for a large volume of records relating to the purchase of commercial timber and fibre permits, licenses and quotas. The applicant asked Environment to waive the estimated fee of $621,921.40, on the ground that the records related to a matter of public interest. Alberta Environment refused. The Commissioner agreed that the fee should not be waived.
|
|
|
2001 |
|
2001-16
|
April 18, 2001 |
Calgary Regional Health Authority
The applicant applied to the Calgary Regional Health Authority (CRHA) for access to a record relating to terminations of pregnancy…
[More]
The applicant applied to the Calgary Regional Health Authority (CRHA) for access to a record relating to terminations of pregnancy for congenital anomalies. CRHA said it had no responsive records unless it created new records out of other existing records. The Assistant Commissioner found that the CRHA was not in breach of their duty to assist the applicant pursuant to section 9(1) of FOIP. Pursuant to section 9(2) of the Act, the Assistant Commissioner found that the CRHA does not have a duty under the Act to create records for the applicant. The records could not be created from a record in electronic form using normal computer hardware and software and technical expertise and creating the record would unreasonably interfere with its operations. The Assistant Commissioner requested CRHA to provide the applicant with the statistical information it can create using its normal computer hardware and software systems and technical expertise. It was not necessary to consider whether other sections of the Act apply, as CRHA does not have a duty to create a record.
|
|
|
2001 |
|
2001-15
|
July 24, 2001 |
Executive Council
The applicant requested copies of written correspondence received by the Executive Council Office in regard to Bill 11, the Health…
[More]
The applicant requested copies of written correspondence received by the Executive Council Office in regard to Bill 11, the Health Care Protection Act. The applicant asked the Executive Council Office to waive the estimated fee of $50,209.20 under section 87(4). The Executive Council Office refused to grant the fee waiver. The Commissioner held that the fee should be reduced by 80% to $10,041.84.
|
|
|
2001 |
|
2001-14
|
August 24, 2001 |
Government Services
The applicant applied to Government Services for copies of two change of name applications regarding the applicant’s child. The Assistant…
[More]
The applicant applied to Government Services for copies of two change of name applications regarding the applicant’s child. The Assistant Commissioner agreed with Government Services that a copy of a change of name application was a record made from information in an office of a district registrar as defined in the Vital Statistics Act, and was excluded from the application of the FOIP Act by section 4(1)(h)(iv).
|
|
|
2001 |
|
2001-13
|
May 22, 2001 |
Law Enforcement Review Board
The applicant wanted access to the records regarding his appeals before the Law Enforcement Review Board (LERB). The applicant also…
[More]
The applicant wanted access to the records regarding his appeals before the Law Enforcement Review Board (LERB). The applicant also alleged that LERB did not process his access requests in accordance with section 9(1) of the Act. The Commissioner decided that LERB did meet its section 9(1) obligation to the applicant. With the exception of some information LERB severed from a record, the Commissioner also decided that LERB had properly withheld the information under the various sections of FOIP.
|
|
|
2001 |
|
2001-12
|
March 16, 2001 |
Mental Health Board
The applicant applied to the Mental Health Board (MHB) for access to his patient records created during his two brief…
[More]
The applicant applied to the Mental Health Board (MHB) for access to his patient records created during his two brief admissions as an involuntary patient at Alberta Hospital Edmonton. MHB refused access. The Assistant Commissioner found that the Mental Health Act, not FOIP, applied to those records.
|
|
|
2001 |
|
2001-11
|
March 15, 2001 |
Justice
The applicant asked Justice for any correspondence or information related to him or his company. Justice refused to disclose the…
[More]
The applicant asked Justice for any correspondence or information related to him or his company. Justice refused to disclose the records to the applicant on the grounds that the information was related to and used in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion (section 19(1)(d.3) of FOIP). The Assistant Commissioner upheld Justice's decision to withhold the information.
|
|
FOIP |
2001 |
JR
|
2001-10
|
May 10, 2001 |
Calgary Board of Education
The applicants made an access request to the Calgary Board of Education (CBE) for a copy of a complaint against…
[More]
The applicants made an access request to the Calgary Board of Education (CBE) for a copy of a complaint against one or both of them. CBE refused access to the complaint under sections 16, 17 and 23(1) of FOIP. The Commissioner partially upheld the decision to refuse access, but ordered CBE to release most of the complaint to the applicants.
|
JR
|
|
2001 |
|
2001-09
|
March 6, 2001 |
Workers' Compensation Board
The applicant wanted access to his personal information held by the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB). The applicant also wanted WCB…
[More]
The applicant wanted access to his personal information held by the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB). The applicant also wanted WCB to correct a videotape of the applicant’s workplace. The Commissioner decided that WCB had properly withheld some information from the applicant, but ordered other information to be disclosed. The Commissioner also found that the WCB had properly refused to correct the videotape, but ordered the WCB to link the videotape with the correction request.
|
|
|
2001 |
|
2001-08
|
May 22, 2001 |
Health and Wellness
The applicant requested a package of information from Health and Wellness related to proposed business arrangements between the Calgary Regional…
[More]
The applicant requested a package of information from Health and Wellness related to proposed business arrangements between the Calgary Regional Health Authority (CRHA) and MDS-Kasper Medical Laboratories (MDS). The Commissioner considered late exceptions and determined that he would consider mandatory provisions but not discretionary provisions that were raised during the course of the inquiry. The Commissioner found that Health and Wellness did not properly apply section 21(1) (cabinet confidences), and that this provision did not apply to the record. The Commissioner found that section 26(1)(a) (solicitor-client privilege) and section 26(2) applied to the two memoranda from legal counsel to CRHA and MDS, and that these pages must not be disclosed. The Commissioner found that the doctrine of res judicata did not apply to the record or to the information. Section 15(1) (business interests of a third party) applied to parts of the covering letter to the Minister of Health, but Health and Wellness was ordered to disclose the balance of this letter to the applicant.
|
|
|
2001 |
|
2001-07
|
April 4, 2001 |
Municipal Affairs and Town of Ponoka
The applicant requested information from the Town of Ponoka and Municipal Affairs about investigations the two public bodies had conducted…
[More]
The applicant requested information from the Town of Ponoka and Municipal Affairs about investigations the two public bodies had conducted further to the applicant's allegations of impropriety among town council and administration. The applicant complained that the public bodies failed to provide the responsive records and that they did not conduct an adequate search pursuant to their obligation under section 9(1) of FOIP. The Assistant Commissioner found that both public bodies fulfilled their duties to assist the applicant and that they both conducted adequate searches.
|
|
|
2001 |
|
2001-06
|
February 21, 2001 |
Health and Wellness
The applicant requested information from Health and Wellness relating to cost effectiveness and impact on medical outcomes of surgery performed…
[More]
The applicant requested information from Health and Wellness relating to cost effectiveness and impact on medical outcomes of surgery performed by private clinics on a contract basis for regional health authorities. The Assistant Commissioner found that Health and Wellness failed to fulfill its duty to assist pursuant to section 9(1) and required a further search for responsive records. The Assistant Commissioner found that section 20(1)(a)(i) did not apply and it was not necessary to consider whether section 23(1)(b) applied to the record. The Assistant Commissioner found that section 23(1)(a) did apply and upheld the decision of Health and Wellness to refuse to disclose the record pursuant to FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2001 |
|
2001-05
|
February 12, 2001 |
City of Calgary
The applicant asked the City of Calgary for property assessment detail reports. The Assistant Commissioner found these records to be…
[More]
The applicant asked the City of Calgary for property assessment detail reports. The Assistant Commissioner found these records to be within the ambit of section 300 of the Municipal Government Act (a summary of the assessment of any assessed property in the municipality). Section 301.1 of the Municipal Government Act says that sections 299-301 prevail despite the FOIP Act. The Assistant Commissioner held that section 5(2) of the FOIP Act applies; therefore, the Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction regarding the disclosure of the property assessment detail reports.
|
|
FOIP |
2001 |
|
2001-04
|
July 10, 2001 |
Workers' Compensation Board
An individual complained that the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) collected, used and disclosed her personal information in contravention of FOIP.…
[More]
An individual complained that the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) collected, used and disclosed her personal information in contravention of FOIP. The complainant also questioned the accuracy and completeness of that information under FOIP. The Commissioner held that WCB did not breach the collection provisions under sections 32 and 33 of FOIP, and did not contravene the provisions regarding accuracy and completeness under section 34. In addition, the Commissioner found that he did not have the jurisdiction under section 37 to decide what personal information a decisionmaker should use when making a decision. The Commissioner found that section 37 only ensures that, if WCB uses personal information of an individual, the information is used in accordance with the purposes listed in the section. However, the Commissioner found that WCB breached section 38 of the Act when it disclosed the complainant’s entire x-ray file to a medical specialist in the United States.
|
|
FOIP |
2001 |
|
2001-03
|
March 12, 2001 |
University of Calgary
The applicant complained that the University of Calgary (U of C) failed to provide her with access to all records…
[More]
The applicant complained that the University of Calgary (U of C) failed to provide her with access to all records she requested. The Inquiry Officer found that the U of C did not fulfil its duty to respond openly, accurately and completely, as it did not properly clarify the request and therefore could not conduct a proper search. The Inquiry Officer ordered the U of C to clarify the records that are responsive to the access request and to conduct a further search. In addition, the U of C was ordered to provide the applicant with an explanation of how it conducted the search for responsive records and why certain records could not be located.
|
|
FOIP |
2001 |
|
2001-02
|
July 17, 2001 |
Human Resources and Employment
The applicant sent an access request to Human Resources and Employment (HRE) for copies of letters and submissions received by…
[More]
The applicant sent an access request to Human Resources and Employment (HRE) for copies of letters and submissions received by HRE from various organizations regarding revisions to the Labour Relations Code and the performance and decisions of the Labour Relations Board for specified years. At the date of the inquiry, 61 pages of records remained at issue. HRE claimed that 24 of the 61 pages were not responsive to the request. HRE also claimed sections 23(1)(a) and 16 as its authority to withhold the records. In addition, an affected party stated that section 15(1) applied to the records. The Commissioner agreed that HRE properly withheld the 24 pages of records as not responsive to the request. The Commissioner also decided that of the remaining 37 pages of records at issue under sections 15(1), 23(1)(a) and 16, HRE properly withheld three pages of records.
|
|
FOIP |
2001 |
|
2001-01
|
April 27, 2001 |
Children's Services
The applicant asked for a copy of a special case review prepared by Children’s Services after the death of a…
[More]
The applicant asked for a copy of a special case review prepared by Children’s Services after the death of a child. Children’s Services released part of the review, but withheld or severed information under sections 5(2), 16 and 23(1)(a) of FOIP. The Assistant Commissioner partially upheld the application of section 5(2) and section 16 to the records, and ordered the release of other information in the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2001 |
|
2000-34
|
April 30, 2001 |
Environment
The applicant applied to Environment for access to records concerning an application for approval of a seismic exploration program for…
[More]
The applicant applied to Environment for access to records concerning an application for approval of a seismic exploration program for oil and gas. The Commissioner found that most of the records fell within section 49(1) of the Mines and Minerals Act. Section 16(1) of the FOIP Regulation says that section 49(1) of the Mines and Minerals Act prevails with respect to any record, return or information obtained under the Mines and Minerals Act that would reveal geological work or geophysical work. Therefore, the Commissioner did not have jurisdiction over most of the records and the applicant could not get access to those records under FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2001 |
|
2000-33
|
January 18, 2001 |
Calgary Regional Health Authority
The Calgary Regional Health Authority (CRHA) refused the applicant’s request to waive a fee pursuant to section 87(4) of FOIP.…
[More]
The Calgary Regional Health Authority (CRHA) refused the applicant’s request to waive a fee pursuant to section 87(4) of FOIP. The Assistant Commissioner found that the information requested relates to a matter of public interest under section 87(4)(b) and waived the fee. However, none of the information requested existed in a record. The Assistant Commissioner said that a decision about whether CRHA had a duty to create the
record requested pursuant to section 9(2) would necessitate hearing further from the parties. The Assistant Commissioner set this further issue down for another inquiry.
|
|
FOIP |
2001 |
JR
|
2000-32
|
May 1, 2001 |
University of Alberta
The applicant sent an access request to the University of Alberta (U of A) for records relating to a decision…
[More]
The applicant sent an access request to the University of Alberta (U of A) for records relating to a decision by one of the U of A faculties to remove her from a graduate committee. The U of A responded to the request by withholding two pages of records that it claimed were non-responsive to the request. In addition, the U of A partially or entirely withheld 22 pages of records that were responsive to the request. The U of A cited section 16 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) and sections 26(1)(a) and 26(2) (privileged information) as its authorities to withhold these records. The Commissioner held that the two pages of records were responsive to the request. The Commissioner also held that, with the exception of a small portion of information, sections 16, 26(1)(a) and 26(2) did not apply to the information in the records, and ordered the U of A to disclose the majority of the records to the applicant.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
2001 |
|
2000-31
|
March 19, 2001 |
Health and Wellness
The applicant requested information from Health and Wellness regarding contracting by the Government of Alberta and regional health authorities of…
[More]
The applicant requested information from Health and Wellness regarding contracting by the Government of Alberta and regional health authorities of insured and non-insured services to private, for-profit providers. Health and Wellness responded to the request by providing the applicant with 60 of 69 responsive pages of records. Health and Wellness withheld 9 pages of records under sections 26(1)(a) and 26(1)(b) (privileged information). The Commissioner agreed with Health and Wellness’ decision to withhold records under section 26(1)(a).
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
2000-30
|
December 20, 2000 |
Calgary Regional Health Authority
The applicant applied to the Calgary Regional Health Authority (CRHA) for access to records relating to the loss of hospital…
[More]
The applicant applied to the Calgary Regional Health Authority (CRHA) for access to records relating to the loss of hospital privileges in the early 1980s by a particular doctor. CRHA responded that most of the records responsive to the applicant’s request were destroyed in 1995. The Inquiry Officer found that the Commissioner does not have jurisdiction over how a public body dealt with its records retention system prior to the extension of FOIP over health care bodies on October 1, 1998. However, the Inquiry Officer ordered CRHA to comply with its duty under section 9(1) of the Act to respond to the applicant openly, accurately and completely with regard to the search conducted in response to the applicant’s request.
|
|
FOIP |
2001 |
|
2000-29
|
March 21, 2001 |
University of Alberta
The applicant asked the University of Alberta (U of A) to disclose the six letters of references submitted by third…
[More]
The applicant asked the University of Alberta (U of A) to disclose the six letters of references submitted by third parties for her application to a PhD program. The U of A refused to disclose on the grounds that it would be an unreasonable invasion of the third parties' personal privacy under section 16(1) of FOIP. The Commissioner determined that disclosure of this information would not be an unreasonable invasion of the third parties' personal privacy, and stated that the U of A's policy not to disclose letters of reference for application to graduate studies was not in accordance with FOIP. The Commissioner also determined that the U of A could not apply section 18 (confidential evaluations) of FOIP to withhold the letters because the U of A did not meet all the criteria of that section. The Commissioner ordered U of A to disclose to the applicant the letters in their entirety.
|
|
FOIP |
2001 |
|
2000-28
|
March 19, 2001 |
City of Calgary
The applicant requested information from the City of Calgary about a complaint made against them. The city disclosed 458 pages…
[More]
The applicant requested information from the City of Calgary about a complaint made against them. The city disclosed 458 pages of records, but severed the personal information of third parties from some of the records. The Commissioner decided that disclosure of most of the third parties’ personal information severed from the records would be an unreasonable invasion of the third parties’ personal privacy, as provided by section 16 of FOIP, and agreed that the information should not be disclosed to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2001 |
|
2000-27
|
March 21, 2001 |
Calgary Police Service
The applicant sent an access request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) requesting their own personal information. CPS responded to…
[More]
The applicant sent an access request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) requesting their own personal information. CPS responded to the request by providing the applicant with 48 of 50 pages of records responsive to the request. CPS withheld the two pages of records under FOIP, citing section 16 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), section 17(3) (disclosure harmful to individual or public safety) and section 19 (disclosure harmful to law enforcement). These two pages consist of a computer printout and a copy of a threat assessment conducted by CPS. The Commissioner upheld CPS' decision to withhold these two records from the applicant under sections 16, 19(1)(c) and 19(1)(d).
|
|
FOIP |
2001 |
|
2000-26
|
January 23, 2001 |
Human Resources and Employment
The applicants made a request to Human Resources and Employment (HRE) for access to the complaint letters sent to HRE…
[More]
The applicants made a request to Human Resources and Employment (HRE) for access to the complaint letters sent to HRE by third parties. The complaint letters alleged that the applicants conducted themselves improperly. HRE withheld the letters under FOIP, citing disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16). The Commissioner decided that the letters should be disclosed except for the names of other individuals referred to in the letters.
|
|
FOIP |
2001 |
|
2000-25
|
January 24, 2001 |
Government Services
The applicant asked Government Services to excuse him from the estimated fees on an access request. The Inquiry Officer found…
[More]
The applicant asked Government Services to excuse him from the estimated fees on an access request. The Inquiry Officer found that the applicant gave no proof for his claims, and confirmed that Government Services had properly exercised its discretion in deciding not to excuse the fee.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
2000-24
|
December 21, 2000 |
City of Calgary
The applicant asked the City of Calgary for the names and mailing addresses of property owners from the assessment roll.…
[More]
The applicant asked the City of Calgary for the names and mailing addresses of property owners from the assessment roll. The Commissioner held that section 15(2) (disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party) of FOIP applied because the names and mailing addresses were information about third parties collected for the purpose of determining tax liability and/or for collecting a tax. The Commissioner upheld the city's decision to withhold the information.
|
|
FOIP |
2001 |
|
2000-23
|
February 13, 2001 |
City of Calgary
The applicant filed an access request with the City of Calgary for records relating to the applicant’s employment with the…
[More]
The applicant filed an access request with the City of Calgary for records relating to the applicant’s employment with the city. The Commissioner held that the city had properly applied section 4(1)(h)(ii) of FOIP, but the city’s search failed to satisfy section 9(1). A further search was ordered. The Commissioner found that the city properly applied section 16 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) to the records, section 19 (disclosure harmful to law enforcement) did not apply to the records, and section 26(1)(a) (privileged information) applied to most of the records for which it was claimed. The Commissioner rejected the applicant's section 31 public interest claim.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
2000-22
|
November 23, 2000 |
Government Services
The applicant asked Government Services for access to records concerning the authority for certain changes that the Land Titles Office…
[More]
The applicant asked Government Services for access to records concerning the authority for certain changes that the Land Titles Office had allegedly made to split mineral titles prior to 1912, and discussions or decisions about correcting those titles. The Commissioner held that the records the applicant requested were records made from information in a Land Titles Office, and were excluded from the application of the Act by section 4(1)(h)(iii).
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
2000-21
|
November 24, 2000 |
Justice
The applicant requested access from Justice for records related to certain land transfers, land titles and internal registrar directives. After…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Justice for records related to certain land transfers, land titles and internal registrar directives. After searching its records, Justice transferred the request and the records it found to Municipal Affairs. The applicant subsequently alleged that Justice had failed to discharge its statutory duty to assist and improperly transferred the request. The Commissioner found that Justice had discharged its duty to assist and had properly transferred the request. The Commissioner held that the mandatory duty to assist was distinct from the discretionary power to transfer a request under the Act, and upheld the conduct of Justice.
|
|
FOIP |
2001 |
|
2000-20
|
March 19, 2001 |
Workers' Compensation Board
The applicant requested access from Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) to personal information. WCB provided records but withheld information under FOIP,…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) to personal information. WCB provided records but withheld information under FOIP, citing records to which FOIP does not apply (section 4), disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16) and paramountcy (section 5). The Commissioner found WCB properly withheld most information, but ordered WCB to release some records to which section 4 did not apply, subject to additional severing decisions.
|
|
FOIP |
2001 |
|
2000-19
|
May 1, 2001 |
Health and Wellness
The applicant requested access from Health and Wellness to records relating to the termination of their employment. Health and Wellness…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Health and Wellness to records relating to the termination of their employment. Health and Wellness provided records but withheld some information under FOIP, citing disclosure harmful to law enforcement (section 19), privileged information (section 26) and disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16). The Commissioner found that Health and Wellness did not correctly apply sections 19 and 26 to the withheld information. The Commissioner found that section 16 applied to some but not all of the information in the records, and ordered the disclosure of some information to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
2000-18
|
September 27, 2000 |
Workers' Compensation Board
The applicant made a correction request under section 35(1) of FOIP to the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB). WCB acknowledged the…
[More]
The applicant made a correction request under section 35(1) of FOIP to the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB). WCB acknowledged the errors and said it would correct the information on the applicant's file. WCB also said it would correct the applicant's information in other documents that contained the errors. The Inquiry Officer found that WCB corrected all the relevant records.
|
|
FOIP |
2001 |
|
2000-17
|
April 11, 2001 |
City of Edmonton
The applicant requested access from the City of Edmonton to information contained in a photo radar contract between the City…
[More]
The applicant requested access from the City of Edmonton to information contained in a photo radar contract between the City of Edmonton and a third party business, including operating manuals. The City of Edmonton disclosed some information but withheld other information under FOIP, citing disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party (section 15). The Commissioner agreed with the City of Edmonton that section 15 applied to almost all the information that the City of Edmonton had withheld under that section.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
2000-16
|
October 31, 2000 |
Edmonton Police Service
The applicant requested access from Edmonton Police Service (EPS) to communications between the chief and three named police officers. EPS…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Edmonton Police Service (EPS) to communications between the chief and three named police officers. EPS refused to confirm or deny the existence of records pursuant to section 11(2) of FOIP. The Commissioner upheld EPS' decision to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of a record.
|
|
FOIP |
2001 |
|
2000-15
|
January 24, 2001 |
Children's Services
The applicant requested access from Children’s Services to specific correspondence. The Inquiry Officer found that Children’s Services did not fulfill…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Children's Services to specific correspondence. The Inquiry Officer found that Children's Services did not fulfill its duty to respond openly, accurately and completely, as required by section 9 of FOIP. The Inquiry Officer ordered Children's Services to conduct a search for records set out in a clarification letter from the applicant. Children's Services was also ordered to respond to the applicant about the details of the search conducted.
|
|
FOIP |
2001 |
|
2000-14
|
July 17, 2001 |
Human Resources and Employment
The applicant requested access from Human Resources and Employment (HRE) to information related to a third party business. HRE provided…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Human Resources and Employment (HRE) to information related to a third party business. HRE provided records to the applicant but withheld some information, citing disclosure harmful to business interests (section 15) and disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16). The applicant requested a review of HRE's decision to withhold information under section 15. The Commissioner found that HRE did not properly apply section 15, and ordered the release of that information.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
2000-13
|
August 31, 2000 |
Executive Council
The applicant requested access from Executive Council to information relating to pine shakes. Executive Council denied access to the records…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Executive Council to information relating to pine shakes. Executive Council denied access to the records under FOIP, citing records to which FOIP does not apply (section 4) and cabinet confidences (section 21). The Commissioner found section 4 applied to some but not all of the information, and that section 21 was properly applied to the information. The Commissioner ordered the release of some records to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
2000-12
|
August 23, 2000 |
Justice
The applicant requested access from Justice to an autopsy report. Justice denied access to the autopsy report under FOIP, citing…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Justice to an autopsy report. Justice denied access to the autopsy report under FOIP, citing disclosure harmful to personal privacy. The Commissioner found that Justice properly refused to disclose the autopsy report.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
2000-11
|
June 5, 2000 |
City of Calgary
The applicant requested access from the City of Calgary to information regarding the Centre Street Bridge. The City of Calgary…
[More]
The applicant requested access from the City of Calgary to information regarding the Centre Street Bridge. The City of Calgary provided a fee estimate. The applicant requested a fee waiver that was denied by the City of Calgary. The Inquiry Officer found that the City of Calgary properly refused the fee waiver.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
2000-10
|
August 21, 2000 |
Treasury
The applicant requested access from Treasury to information regarding contracts between Treasury and a consultant (third party). Treasury provided records…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Treasury to information regarding contracts between Treasury and a consultant (third party). Treasury provided records but withheld some information, citing records to which FOIP does not apply (section 4), disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party (section 15) and cabinet confidences (section 21). The applicant requested a review of Treasury's application of section 15 to the records at issue. The Commissioner found that Treasury did not properly apply section 15, and ordered the release of that information to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
2000-09
|
July 10, 2000 |
Treasury
The applicant requested access from Treasury to records relating to the sale of their provincial student loan to a collection…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Treasury to records relating to the sale of their provincial student loan to a collection agency. Treasury notified the third party collection agency. The third party opposed the release of the records under FOIP, citing disclosure harmful to business interests (section 15). Treasury provided records and, in addition to applying section 15, cited disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16) to withhold some information in the records. The Commissioner found section 15 applied to some but not all of the withheld information, and ordered the release of some information to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
2000-08
|
May 12, 2000 |
Government Services
The applicant requested access from Government Services to records relating to collection of debt practices. Government Services provided a fee…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Government Services to records relating to collection of debt practices. Government Services provided a fee estimate. The applicant paid the fees but requested a refund. The Inquiry Officer found that Government Services reasonably calculated the fees.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
2000-07
|
May 2, 2000 |
City of Calgary
The applicant made a correction request to the City of Calgary. The City of Calgary refused the correction under section…
[More]
The applicant made a correction request to the City of Calgary. The City of Calgary refused the correction under section 35(1) of FOIP but, as required by section 35(2), it had linked the file with the correction that was corrected. The Commissioner found that the City of Calgary correctly responded to the correction request.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
2000-06
|
May 3, 2000 |
Children's Services
The applicant requested access from Children’s Services to records relating to their placement and residency in a child welfare facility.…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Children's Services to records relating to their placement and residency in a child welfare facility. Children's Services provided a one-page home ledger with some information withheld under FOIP, citing disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16). The applicant disputed the application of section 16 to a single line of the ledger that related to the applicant's stay at the home. The Commissioner found that Children's Services properly refused to disclose the information.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
2000-05
|
June 9, 2000 |
Calgary Regional Health Authority
The applicant requested access from Calgary Regional Health Authority (CRHA) to financial statements, contracts or other agreements related to lab…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Calgary Regional Health Authority (CRHA) to financial statements, contracts or other agreements related to lab and surgery services. CRHA provided records but withheld some information under FOIP, citing records that were not in the custody or control of CRHA (section 4) and disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party (section 15). The Commissioner found section 4 did not apply to records and CRHA applied section 15 correctly to some but not all of the information. The Commissioner ordered the release of 58 pages of a 61-page partnership agreement.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
2000-04
|
April 6, 2000 |
Justice
The applicant requested access from Justice on two separate occasions. Justice withheld some information under FOIP, citing disclosure harmful to…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Justice on two separate occasions. Justice withheld some information under FOIP, citing disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16), and refused to confirm or deny the records responsive to parts of one of the requests (section 11). The Assistant Commissioner found that Justice properly applied sections 16 and 11 to the records at issue.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
2000-03
|
September 20, 2000 |
University of Calgary
The applicant requested access from the University of Calgary (U of C) to a report concerning the Faculty of Social…
[More]
The applicant requested access from the University of Calgary (U of C) to a report concerning the Faculty of Social Work. U of C refused to disclose the report under FOIP, citing disclosure harmful to labour relations of a third party (section 15(1)), records to which FOIP does not apply (section 4(1)(b)), disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16(1)) and advice from officials (section 23). The Commissioner found that section 15 applied to the record and the U of C properly refused to disclose the record. The Commissioner did not have to decide whether other exceptions to disclosure applied.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
2000-02
|
July 6, 2000 |
Mental Health Board
An individual made a complaint against the Alberta Mental Health Board after discovering their personal information was included in a…
[More]
An individual made a complaint against the Alberta Mental Health Board after discovering their personal information was included in a family member's file at Alberta Hospital Edmonton. The Commissioner determined there was no jurisdiction to review the complaint. The individual's information fell within section 17(4) of the Mental Health Act, which prevails over Part 2 of FOIP as to use and disclosure of the complainant's information.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
2000-01
|
April 12, 2000 |
Justice
The applicant made a correction request to Justice. Justice decided not to correct the information. The Commissioner found Justice properly…
[More]
The applicant made a correction request to Justice. Justice decided not to correct the information. The Commissioner found Justice properly exercised its discretion under section 35(1) of FOIP when it decided not to correct the information. The Commissioner ordered Justice to properly link the record with the correct request by placing an annotation on the file next to that record, as required by section 35(2) of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
1999-41
|
February 9, 2000 |
Human Resources and Employment
The applicant requested access from Human Resources and Employment (HRE) to records relating to an accident involving two named companies.…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Human Resources and Employment (HRE) to records relating to an accident involving two named companies. HRE indicated there were no records relating to the request, and the applicant requested a review. The Adjudicator found that HRE conducted an adequate search for records under section 9 of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
1999-40
|
August 22, 2000 |
Treasury
The applicant requested access from Treasury to records relating to a pulp mill project. Treasury withheld information under FOIP, citing…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Treasury to records relating to a pulp mill project. Treasury withheld information under FOIP, citing records to which FOIP does not apply (section 4), disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party (section 15), disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16), cabinet confidences (section 21), advice from officials (section 23), disclosure harmful to economic and other interests of a public body (section 24) and privileged information (section 26). The Commissioner upheld many of Treasury's decisions to withhold records, but ordered the release of some information to which sections 15, 21, 23 and 24 did not apply.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
1999-39
|
April 6, 2000 |
Energy and Utilities Board
The applicant requested access from the Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) to an array of records from a specified period.…
[More]
The applicant requested access from the Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) to an array of records from a specified period. The Commissioner ordered EUB to conduct a search for specified types of records, and ordered it to not charge the applicant any fees for the searches. The Commissioner found EUB failed to respond within timelines set out in FOIP (section 10). The Commissioner ordered EUB to refund the fees the applicant had paid.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
1999-38
|
January 7, 2000 |
Energy and Utilities Board
The applicant requested access from the Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) to information relating to a power outage at the…
[More]
The applicant requested access from the Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) to information relating to a power outage at the applicant's farm. EUB provided its entire file. The applicant believed EUB should have additional records. The Assistant Commissioner found that EUB made every reasonable effort to assist and to respond to the applicant openly, accurately and completely under section 9 of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
1999-37
|
April 4, 2000 |
Justice
The applicant requested access from Justice to a family law file regarding a specific investigation. Justice indicated it was withholding…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Justice to a family law file regarding a specific investigation. Justice indicated it was withholding some information under FOIP, citing records to which FOIP does not apply (section 4), disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16) and privileged information (section 26). The Commissioner found that Justice did not correctly apply sections 16 and 26 to some information, and ordered Justice to release that information to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
1999-36
|
April 11, 2000 |
Foothills School Division
The applicant requested access from Foothills School Division to notes and a memo written after a conversation between the applicant…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Foothills School Division to notes and a memo written after a conversation between the applicant and employees of Foothills School Division. Foothills School Division disclosed the records but withheld information under FOIP, citing disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16) and advice from officials (section 23). The Commissioner upheld Foothills School Division's decisions to withhold information.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
1999-35
|
April 28, 2000 |
Justice and Infrastructure
The applicant requested access from Justice and Infrastructure to a copy of investigation records relating to an accident in which…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Justice and Infrastructure to a copy of investigation records relating to an accident in which the applicant's daughter was involved. The applicant requested a review of the public bodies' adequacy of search under FOIP (section 9). Justice and Infrastructure were ordered to respond the applicant openly, accurately and completely, without any regard or reference to any disclosures of information that may have been made to the applicant by any public body in the past.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
1999-34
|
February 10, 2000 |
Health and Wellness, Alberta Cancer Board, Capital Health Authority and Calgary Regional Health Authority
The applicants requested access from the Public Bodies to records relating to themselves. This inquiry was to decide a jurisdictional…
[More]
The applicants requested access from the Public Bodies to records relating to themselves. This inquiry was to decide a jurisdictional issue. The Commissioner decided there was no jurisdiction to decide whether Health and Wellness properly withheld information from the applicants. The Commissioner had authority to decide whether the Alberta Cancer Board and Capital Health Authority properly withheld records. The Commissioner found that the Calgary Regional Health Authority did not withhold any information from the applicants, and therefore did not need to decide whether there was jurisdiction to review its decision to withhold records.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
1999-33
|
January 19, 2000 |
Alberta Treasury Branches
The applicant requested access from Alberta Treasury Branches (ATB) to records relating to the West Edmonton Mall and all commercial…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Alberta Treasury Branches (ATB) to records relating to the West Edmonton Mall and all commercial and business loans exceeding certain parameters. ATB refused access to the records under FOIP, citing records to which FOIP does not apply (section 4). ATB applied other exceptions to access, as well. The Commissioner found that the records were excluded from FOIP, and did not need to determine whether other exceptions applied to the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
1999-32
|
January 24, 2000 |
Calgary Board of Education
An individual made a complaint that Calgary Board of Education (CBE) disclosed their information in violation of FOIP. In Order…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that Calgary Board of Education (CBE) disclosed their information in violation of FOIP. In Order 1999-19, the Commissioner found CBE disclosed the applicant's personal information to the Calgary Herald. In this order, the Commissioner determined CBE violated Part 2 of FOIP when it disclosed the individual's personal information to the Calgary Herald. CBE was ordered to develop a plan for implementing three requirements to ensure CBE does not further disclose the individual's or anyone else's personal information in contravention of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1999-31
|
December 2, 1999 |
Treasury
The applicant requested access from Treasury to records related to the applicant, the applicant’s professional corporation and a company. Treasury…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Treasury to records related to the applicant, the applicant's professional corporation and a company. Treasury refused access to the records, citing records to which FOIP does not apply (section 4). The Commissioner upheld Treasury's decision.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1999-30
|
December 21, 1999 |
Labour Relations Board
The applicant requested access from the Labour Relations Board (LRB) to a petition that had been provided to LRB. LRB…
[More]
The applicant requested access from the Labour Relations Board (LRB) to a petition that had been provided to LRB. LRB refused to disclose the petition under FOIP, citing disclosure harmful to the business interests of a third party (section 15) and disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16). The Commissioner upheld LRB's decision to refuse access to the petition.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1999-29
|
October 5, 1999 |
Chief Electoral Officer
The applicant made an access request to the Chief Electoral Officer for the “records of individual contributions to Alberta’s Progressive…
[More]
The applicant made an access request to the Chief Electoral Officer for the “records of individual contributions to Alberta’s Progressive Conservative Party”. The applicant specifically requested “those returns associated with annual financial statements and with campaign periods where the contribution exceeded $375”. The applicant also requested that these records be made available in an electronic format. The Chief Electoral Officer responded by saying that this information is available to the public in paper form and that the electronic form is not available to the public. The Chief Electoral Officer also said that section 4(1)(c) excludes the records from the Act. The Commissioner found that the records were outside of the Commissioner's jurisdiction.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
1999-28
|
February 28, 2000 |
Justice
The applicant requested access from Justice to records relating to the applicant’s dismissal of employment. Justice provided records but withheld…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Justice to records relating to the applicant's dismissal of employment. Justice provided records but withheld some information, citing disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16) and disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations (section 20). The Commissioner found that Justice properly withheld information from the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
2001 |
|
1999-27
|
January 31, 2001 |
Family and Social Services
The applicants requested access from Family and Social Services (FSS), or Ma’Mowe Child and Family Services Authority, to information about…
[More]
The applicants requested access from Family and Social Services (FSS), or Ma’Mowe Child and Family Services Authority, to information about themselves. The applicants requested a fee waiver, and requested a review of FSS' decision to withhold information under FOIP, citing paramountcy (section 5), privileged information (section 26), disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16) and confidential evaluations (section 18). The Commissioner reduced the fee charged to the applicants. The Commissioner also made several determinations with respect to FSS' decisions to withhold information, and ordered the release of a limited amount of information to the applicants that had been withheld by FSS.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1999-26
|
December 2, 1999 |
Alberta Securities Commission
The applicant requested access from the Alberta Securities Commission (ASC) to an investigation file relating to the applicant and a…
[More]
The applicant requested access from the Alberta Securities Commission (ASC) to an investigation file relating to the applicant and a company. ASC refused access to the information, citing disclosure harmful to law enforcement (section 19) and disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16). The Commissioner upheld ASC's decisions to refuse access to the information.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1999-25
|
September 8, 1999 |
Justice
The applicant requested access from Justice to records related to a decision made against the applicant. Justice provided some records…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Justice to records related to a decision made against the applicant. Justice provided some records but refused access to others. The Commissioner found that FOIP did not apply to the withheld records under section 4.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1999-24
|
August 26, 1999 |
Environment
The applicant requested access from Environment to records related to the impact of a highway reconstruction on fisheries habitat. Environment…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Environment to records related to the impact of a highway reconstruction on fisheries habitat. Environment charged a fee, which the applicant paid. The applicant subsequently requested a fee waiver. The Commissioner found the applicant was entitled to have the fee waived.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
1999-23
|
January 26, 2000 |
Economic Development
The applicant requested access from Economic Development to records relating to financial transactions involving the West Edmonton Mall and named…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Economic Development to records relating to financial transactions involving the West Edmonton Mall and named organizations. Economic Development provided records to the applicant but withheld information, citing disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party (section 15), disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16), advice from officials (section 23) and cabinet confidences (section 21). The Commissioner made several determinations, and ordered Economic Development to release of some information that had been withheld.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1999-22
|
August 18, 1999 |
Calgary Regional Health Authority
The applicant requested access from Calgary Regional Health Authority (CRHA) to records relating to the applicant’s termination of employment and…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Calgary Regional Health Authority (CRHA) to records relating to the applicant's termination of employment and specifically a lawyer involved in the applicant's termination. CRHA provided the applicant with records but withheld some information under FOIP, citing disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16) and privileged information (section 26). The Commissioner found CRHA correctly refused access to information within the records.
|
|
FOIP |
2000 |
|
1999-21
|
January 20, 2000 |
Treasury
The applicant requested access from Treasury to records related to the rationale for why information was mentioned in a public…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Treasury to records related to the rationale for why information was mentioned in a public accounts document. The applicant requested a review of the adequacy of search under FOIP. Treasury was ordered to conduct a search for records, and to provide more details to the applicant about the searches it conducted.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1999-20
|
November 25, 1999 |
Treasury
The applicant requested access from Treasury to records relating to the West Edmonton Mall refinancing. Treasury provided records but withheld…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Treasury to records relating to the West Edmonton Mall refinancing. Treasury provided records but withheld information under FOIP, citing records to which FOIP does not apply (section 4), disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party (section 15), cabinet confidences (section 21), advice from officials (section 23), disclosure harmful to economic and other interests of a public body (section 25) and privileged information (section 26). The Commissioner made several determinations, and ordered the release of some information to which sections 4, 21, 23 and 24 did not apply.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1999-19
|
July 8, 1999 |
Calgary Board of Education
An individual made a complaint that Calgary Board of Education (CBE) disclosed their information in violation of FOIP. The Commissioner…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that Calgary Board of Education (CBE) disclosed their information in violation of FOIP. The Commissioner found CBE disclosed the applicant's personal information to the Calgary Herald, and decided to withhold another inquiry to determine whether this disclosure was a violation of FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1999-18
|
October 19, 1999 |
Human Resources and Employment
The applicant requested access from Human Resources and Employment (HRE) to records relating to an explosion at the Swan Hills…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Human Resources and Employment (HRE) to records relating to an explosion at the Swan Hills Waste Management Site. A third party objected to disclosure under FOIP. HRE decided to disclose the majority of the information to the applicant, despite the third party's objection. The Commissioner upheld the HRE's decision to disclose the records, and ordered the disclosure of some information to which disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16) did not apply.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1999-17
|
November 25, 1999 |
Executive Council
The applicant requested access from Executive Council to records related to the West Edmonton Mall refinancing. Executive Council provided records…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Executive Council to records related to the West Edmonton Mall refinancing. Executive Council provided records but withheld information under FOIP, citing records to which FOIP does not apply (section 4), disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party (section 15), disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16) and cabinet confidences (section 21). The Commissioner ordered the release of some information to which sections 15, 16 and 21 did not apply.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1999-16
|
November 4, 1999 |
Agriculture, Food and Rural Development
The applicant requested access from Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (AFRD) to records related to the applicant’s farming operation. The…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (AFRD) to records related to the applicant's farming operation. The applicant requested a fee waiver that was denied by AFRD. The Commissioner confirmed AFRD's fee.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1999-15
|
October 6, 1999 |
Environment
The applicant requested access from Environment to records relating an forest industry organization’s annual operating plans. The applicant also requested…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Environment to records relating an forest industry organization's annual operating plans. The applicant also requested a fee waiver that was denied by Environment. The Commissioner ordered Environment to reduce to the fee to nil.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1999-14
|
June 21, 1999 |
Education
The applicant requested access from Education to records relating to provincial achievement test data. Education provide a fee estimate. The…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Education to records relating to provincial achievement test data. Education provide a fee estimate. The applicant requested a review of the fee estimate. The Commissioner found Education reasonably calculated the fee.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1999-13
|
September 2, 1999 |
Environmental Protection
The applicant requested access from Environmental Protection to records concerning loan and forest management agreements. Environmental Protection provided records but…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Environmental Protection to records concerning loan and forest management agreements. Environmental Protection provided records but withheld information under FOIP, citing records to which FOIP does not apply (section 4), cabinet confidences (section 21), advice from officials (section 23) and privileged information (section 26). The Commissioner found that Environmental Protection correctly applied sections 4, 21, 23 and 26 to the withheld information.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1999-12
|
May 11, 1999 |
Environmental Protection
The applicants requested access from Environmental Protection to a variety of records. Environmental Protection sent the applicants a fee estimate.…
[More]
The applicants requested access from Environmental Protection to a variety of records. Environmental Protection sent the applicants a fee estimate. The applicants requested a full fee waiver. The Commissioner confirmed Environmental Protection's fee estimate.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1999-11
|
August 18, 1999 |
Legislative Assembly Office
The applicant requested access from the Legislative Assembly Office (LAO) to records relating to the provision of health and other…
[More]
The applicant requested access from the Legislative Assembly Office (LAO) to records relating to the provision of health and other benefits for former MLAs and their families during a specified period. A fee estimate was issued by LAO to the applicant, and the applicant requested a review of the fees calculated. The Commissioner found that LAO did not use the correct methods of fee calculation, and ordered LAO to reduce the fee to a specified amount.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1999-10
|
August 5, 1999 |
Workers' Compensation Board
The applicant requested access from Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) to personal information obtained through a private investigation company hired by…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) to personal information obtained through a private investigation company hired by WCB. WCB provided access to records but withheld information under FOIP, citing disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16), investigative techniques and source of confidential information (section 19), records to which FOIP does not apply (section 4), privileged information (section 26) and disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party (section 15). The Commissioner found that WCB correctly applied some exceptions to access, but did not correctly apply sections 19 and 26 and was ordered to release some information to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1999-09
|
June 21, 1999 |
Workers' Compensation Board
The applicant requested access from Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) to personal information. WCB provided records but withheld information under FOIP,…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) to personal information. WCB provided records but withheld information under FOIP, citing disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16), disclosure harmful to individual or public safety (section 17), confidential evaluations (section 18), disclosure harmful to law enforcement (section 19) and advice from officials (section 23). WCB also said certain records were excluded under section 4 of FOIP. The Commissioner found WCB correctly applied section 4 to excluded records. The Commissioner upheld WCB's decisions to withhold information under sections 16, 17 and 23.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1999-08
|
April 27, 1999 |
Environmental Protection
The applicant requested access from Environmental Protection to records relating to a catering and support services agreement between Environmental Protection…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Environmental Protection to records relating to a catering and support services agreement between Environmental Protection and a third party. Environmental Protection sent a third party notice (section 29) to the third party stating that it was considering giving the applicant access to the agreement. The third party consented to the disclosure of most information, except monetary information found in part of the records at issue. Environmental Protection provided access to the records, except the information the third party objected to, citing disclosure harmful to the business interests of a third party (section 15). The applicant requested a review of the decision withhold information. The Commissioner found that Environmental Protection correctly applied section 15(1).
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1999-07
|
May 26, 1999 |
Treasury
The applicant requested access from Treasury to records related to a pulp mill project. Treasury provided records but withheld information,…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Treasury to records related to a pulp mill project. Treasury provided records but withheld information, citing disclosure harmful to the business interests of a third party (section 15). The Commissioner found that Treasury correctly applied section 15 to the information.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1999-06
|
July 6, 1999 |
Treasury
The applicant requested access from Treasury to records related to a pulp mill project. Treasury withheld some records and information,…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Treasury to records related to a pulp mill project. Treasury withheld some records and information, citing disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party (section 15) and advice from officials (section 23). The Commissioner upheld some decisions made by Treasury, but found Treasury did not properly claim exceptions to some information and ordered the release of that information.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1999-05
|
May 10, 1999 |
Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission
The applicant requested access from Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission (AGLC) to records relating to the introduction of video lottery…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission (AGLC) to records relating to the introduction of video lottery terminals (VLTs) in Alberta. The applicant requested a fee waiver in the public interest. AGLC also decided to withhold records, citing records to which FOIP does not apply (section 4), disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations (section 20) and privileged information (section 26). The Commissioner did not find it necessary to decide whether the records relate to a matter of public interest for a fee waiver. The Commissioner found that AGLC properly excluded records under section 4, and correctly applied sections 20 and 26 to the records.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1999-04
|
March 18, 1999 |
Alberta Treasury Branches
An individual made a complaint that Alberta Treasury Branches (ATB) accessed their personal information without authorization under FOIP. The Commissioner…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that Alberta Treasury Branches (ATB) accessed their personal information without authorization under FOIP. The Commissioner found that FOIP did not apply to the applicant's personal information.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1999-03
|
May 18, 1999 |
Treasury
The applicant requested access from Treasury to records relating to a pulp mill project credit agreement. Treasury provided some records…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Treasury to records relating to a pulp mill project credit agreement. Treasury provided some records but withheld others in part or in their entirety under FOIP, citing disclosure harmful to the business interests of a third party (section 15). The Commissioner found that Treasury correctly applied section 15 to the records.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1999-02
|
May 10, 1999 |
Treasury
The applicant requested access from Treasury to records relating to the construction of a paper mill. Treasury released some records…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Treasury to records relating to the construction of a paper mill. Treasury released some records but refused to release others under FOIP, citing cabinet confidences (section 21), disclosure harmful to the business interests of a third party (section 15) and advice from officials (section 23). The Commissioner found that the sections 21 and 15 were correctly applied, and the Commissioner did not need to consider section 23 as a result.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1999-01
|
January 28, 1999 |
Environmental Protection
The applicant requested access from Environmental Protection to records relating to a review of its Kananaskis Country recreational development policy.…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Environmental Protection to records relating to a review of its Kananaskis Country recreational development policy. Environmental Protection withheld some records in part or in their entirety under FOIP, citing advice from officials (section 23). The Commissioner found that Environmental Protection correctly applied section 23.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1998-21
|
July 15, 1999 |
Justice
The applicant requested access from Justice to a copy of a record containing reference checks of the applicant. Justice refused…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Justice to a copy of a record containing reference checks of the applicant. Justice refused to provide access to the record under FOIP, citing disclosure harmful to individual or public safety (section 17), confidential evaluations (section 18) and disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16). The Commissioner found section 18 applied to the record, and therefore did not need to consider sections 17 or 16.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1998-20
|
January 12, 1999 |
Family and Social Services
The applicant requested access from Family and Social Services to their personnel file and all audit reports issued by Family…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Family and Social Services to their personnel file and all audit reports issued by Family and Social Services' northwest regional office during a specified period. Family and Social Services responded to the request but withheld some audit reports relating to five First Nations that administer certain programs on their own. In withholding the records, Family and Social Services cited disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations (section 20) and disclosure harmful to the economic interests of a public body (section 24) under FOIP. The Commissioner found that Family and Social Services did not correctly apply sections 20 and 24, and ordered the disclosure of records, with the exception of severing personal information from the records.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1998-19
|
January 14, 1999 |
Treasury
The applicant requested access from Treasury to records relating to the feasibility of privatizing or selling the assets of Alberta…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Treasury to records relating to the feasibility of privatizing or selling the assets of Alberta Treasury Branches. Treasury disclosed responsive records but withheld information, citing advice from officials (section 23) and disclosure harmful to the economic interests of a public body (section 24). The Commissioner found that Treasury properly applied section 24 in withholding information, and therefore did not need to consider section 23.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1998-18
|
January 6, 1999 |
Environmental Protection
The applicant requested access from Environmental Protection to the names of Alberta residents who received a license to hunt grizzly…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Environmental Protection to the names of Alberta residents who received a license to hunt grizzly bears in Alberta during the 1998 hunting season. Three out of 151 individuals consented to the disclosure of their names, and Environmental Protection refused access to the names of the other 148 individuals who refused to consent to the disclosure of their names to the applicant. Environmental Protection cited disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16) in refusing to disclose those names. The Commissioner found that disclosure of the names would not be an unreasonable invasion of third party privacy, and ordered disclosure of the record to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1998-17
|
February 25, 1999 |
Environmental Protection
The applicant requested from Environmental Protection an assessment report concerning certain land. A third party provided the report to Environmental…
[More]
The applicant requested from Environmental Protection an assessment report concerning certain land. A third party provided the report to Environmental Protection. Environmental Protection decided to disclose the report to the applicant but the third party objected, citing privileged information (section 26) and disclosure harmful to the business interests of a third party (section 15). The Commissioner found section 26 applied to the report and determined that Environmental Protection must not disclose the report.
|
|
FOIP |
1999 |
|
1998-16
|
January 14, 1999 |
Justice
The applicant requested access from Justice for records relating to charges that had been made against the applicant. Justice denied…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Justice for records relating to charges that had been made against the applicant. Justice denied the request, citing records to which FOIP does not apply (section 4) and privileged information (section 26). The Commissioner found that Justice correctly applied section 26 to the records.
|
|
FOIP |
1998 |
|
1998-15
|
November 25, 1998 |
Treasury
The applicant requested access from Treasury for records related to the province’s financial interest in a pulp mill project. Treasury…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Treasury for records related to the province's financial interest in a pulp mill project. Treasury provided responsive records, withholding some information and denying access to certain records under FOIP, citing disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party (section 15). The Commissioner found that Treasury did not correctly apply section 15 to some of the records, and ordered the disclosure of the records to which section 15 did not apply.
|
|
FOIP |
1998 |
|
1998-14
|
December 10, 1998 |
Environmental Protection
The applicant requested access from Environmental Protection to a grazing lease contract held by a third party individual. Environmental Protection…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Environmental Protection to a grazing lease contract held by a third party individual. Environmental Protection decided to give the applicant access to the record, but the third party objected. The Commissioner upheld Environmental Protection's decision to give the applicant access to the record.
|
|
FOIP |
1998 |
JR
|
1998-13
|
October 20, 1998 |
Treasury
The applicant requested access from Treasury for records regarding the amount of interest accrued on a loan made by the…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Treasury for records regarding the amount of interest accrued on a loan made by the Alberta government to a corporation (third party), as well as the effective interest rate on the loan. Treasury denied the applicant's access request under FOIP, citing disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party (section 15) and disclosure harmful to the economic interests of a public body (section 24). Treasury incorrectly applied section 15 to some of the records and incorrectly applied section 24 to all of the records. Treasury was ordered to disclose some information to which section 15 did not apply.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
1998 |
|
1998-12
|
September 21, 1998 |
Office of the Premier
The applicant requested access from the Office of the Premier for all correspondence between the applicant and the Office of…
[More]
The applicant requested access from the Office of the Premier for all correspondence between the applicant and the Office of the Premier. After receiving responsive records, the applicant believed that some records still had not been provided. The Commissioner found that the Office of the Premier conducted an adequate search for records and made every reasonable effort to assist the applicant under FOIP (section 9).
|
|
FOIP |
1998 |
|
1998-11
|
September 1, 1998 |
Children's Services
The applicant requested access from Children’s Services to staff survey responses on the redesign of Children’s services. Children’s Services refused…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Children's Services to staff survey responses on the redesign of Children's services. Children's Services refused to disclose the transcribed survey responses in their entirety, citing advice from officials (section 23). The Commissioner found that section 23 did not apply to the records.
|
|
FOIP |
1998 |
|
1998-10
|
May 26, 1998 |
Workers' Compensation Board
An individual made a correction request and privacy complaint related to information in their Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) file. The…
[More]
An individual made a correction request and privacy complaint related to information in their Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) file. The Commissioner found WCB failed to seek clarification for one of the applicant's correction requests and improperly corrected a specified record; however, no order was made. With respect to other correction requests, the Commissioner found WCB acted in accordance with section 35 of FOIP. The Commissioner also found WCB did not improperly disclose personal information.
|
|
FOIP |
1998 |
|
1998-09
|
June 17, 1998 |
Family and Social Services
The applicant requested access from Family and Social Services to their own personal information that the applicant believed was contained…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Family and Social Services to their own personal information that the applicant believed was contained in their former spouse's Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped files. Family and Social Services refused to confirm or deny the exists of a record under FOIP (section 11(2)(b). The Commissioner found that Family and Social Services correctly applied section 11(2)(b) in responding to the request.
|
|
FOIP |
1998 |
|
1998-08
|
June 8, 1998 |
Municipal Affairs
The applicant requested access from Municipal Affairs to their own personnel file. Municipal Affairs provided records but withheld some information,…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Municipal Affairs to their own personnel file. Municipal Affairs provided records but withheld some information, citing disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16). The Commissioner found Municipal Affairs correctly applied section 16 to information in the records.
|
|
FOIP |
1998 |
|
1998-07
|
May 6, 1998 |
Family and Social Services
The applicant, acting as agent for their mother, requested access from Family and Social Services for any records regarding the…
[More]
The applicant, acting as agent for their mother, requested access from Family and Social Services for any records regarding the applicant's mother. Family and Social Services provided a record but withheld some information under FOIP, citing provisions of another act prevail (section 5) and disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16). The Commissioner found that section 5 was incorrectly applied and section 16 was correctly applied.
|
|
FOIP |
1998 |
|
1998-06
|
April 21, 1998 |
Energy
The applicant requested access from Alberta Energy to records relating to ethane extraction, refining and upgrading within Alberta. The responsive…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Alberta Energy to records relating to ethane extraction, refining and upgrading within Alberta. The responsive records included information relating to a third party. The third party objected to disclosure, citing disclosure harmful to business interests. Energy decided to disclose the records, notwithstanding the third party's objection. The Commissioner found that the third party had not met its burden of proof, as the information at issue could not be considered commercial, and upheld Energy's decision to disclose the records.
|
|
FOIP |
1998 |
|
1998-05
|
May 15, 1998 |
Transportation and Utilities
The applicant requested access from Transportation and Utilities to information related to the construction of a service road in the…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Transportation and Utilities to information related to the construction of a service road in the M.D. of Foothills. Transportation and Utilities refused to disclose the records, citing disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16) and disclosure harmful to economic interests of public body (section 24). The Commissioner ordered some of the information to which section 16 had been applied to be released and found that section 24 was improperly applied in the records.
|
|
FOIP |
1998 |
|
1998-04
|
November 25, 1998 |
Family and Social Services
The applicant requested access from Family and Social Services to his deceased sister’s records. Family and Social Services denied the…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Family and Social Services to his deceased sister's records. Family and Social Services denied the access request, citing disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16), applicant was not a personal representative of the deceased's estate (section 79) and deceased had not been dead for more than 25 years (section 16(4)(i)). The Commissioner made several determinations, and ordered Family and Social Services to disclose some personal information of the deceased sister to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
1998 |
|
1998-03
|
February 12, 1998 |
Family and Social Services
The applicant requested access from Family and Social Services to their personal information in child welfare and foster care records.…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Family and Social Services to their personal information in child welfare and foster care records. The applicant believed two specific records should have been included in Family and Social Services' response. Family and Social Services said it could not locate those records. The Commissioner found that Family and Social Services conducted an adequate search for records and met its duty to assist the applicant under FOIP (section 9).
|
|
FOIP |
1998 |
|
1998-02
|
July 8, 1998 |
Workers' Compensation Board
The applicant requested access from the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) to their own personal information. The issues reviewed under FOIP…
[More]
The applicant requested access from the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) to their own personal information. The issues reviewed under FOIP were duty to assist (section 9), time limits for responding (sections 10 and 13), and accuracy and completeness of personal information (section 34). An additional issue was the protection of personal information (section 36). The Acting Commissioner found that WCB met its duty to assist, failed to respond within time limits, failed to ensure the accuracy and completeness of personal information before making a decision, and failed to make reasonable security arrangements to protect personal information. WCB was ordered to obtain an accurate and complete transcription of a doctor's notes before using that personal information to make a decision about the individual. WCB was also ordered to make reasonable security arrangements against further risk of unauthorized collection, use or disclosure.
|
|
FOIP |
1998 |
|
1998-01
|
May 19, 1998 |
Justice
An individual made a complaint that he had not consented to disclosure of his personal information contained in a legal…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that he had not consented to disclosure of his personal information contained in a legal opinion and that Justice disclosed his personal information improperly. The individual also made a request for correction under FOIP (section 35). The Commissioner found that Justice did not disclose the complainant's personal information in breach of FOIP and it properly refused to correct or link the applicant's personal information under section 35.
|
|
FOIP |
1998 |
|
1997-20
|
May 5, 1998 |
Human Rights and Citizenship Commission
The applicant requested access from the Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (HRCC) to his own personal information. HRCC provided records…
[More]
The applicant requested access from the Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (HRCC) to his own personal information. HRCC provided records to the applicant, but removed information that was not the applicant's or agent's personal information. HRCC did not cite any FOIP exceptions when it removed the information. The applicant subsequently made a request to correct personal information. The Commissioner confirmed HRCC's decision not to correct personal information, but that it did not properly perform its duty to link the information with the correction that was requested but not made. HRCC was ordered to perform its duty to link or annotate information under challenge with the applicant's request for correction.
|
|
FOIP |
1998 |
|
1997-19
|
April 6, 1998 |
Environmental Protection
The applicants requested access from Environmental Protection for records relating to lease applications, a license of occupation application, and documents…
[More]
The applicants requested access from Environmental Protection for records relating to lease applications, a license of occupation application, and documents related to several committees, task forces and branches. The applicants also requested a review of fees charged. The Commissioner found that Environmental Protection correctly withheld some information, citing disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16). The Commissioner also found that Environmental Protection failed to provide the applicants with an estimate of the total fees payable over the course of the continuing request; however, Environmental Protection ended up waiving the fees.
|
|
FOIP |
1998 |
|
1997-18
|
February 12, 1998 |
Workers' Compensation Board
The applicant requested access from the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) to the “names and current addresses of all Workers’ Compensation…
[More]
The applicant requested access from the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) to the "names and current addresses of all Workers' Compensation Board widows who remarried prior to 1982". WCB denied the request, citing disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16). The Commissioner found that WCB correctly applied section 16 in withholding access to the personal information requested.
|
|
FOIP |
1998 |
|
1997-17
|
January 21, 1998 |
Legislative Assembly Office
The applicant requested access from the Legislative Assembly Office (LAO) for a series of expense records pertaining to a certain…
[More]
The applicant requested access from the Legislative Assembly Office (LAO) for a series of expense records pertaining to a certain MLA. LAO initially refused to provide access on the grounds that the records at issue were excluded from the application of FOIP under section 4(1)(k). The Commissioner found that section 4(1)(k) excludes the records, except the monthly Treasury reports, from FOIP. LAO was ordered to respond to the applicant as to what exceptions it says apply under FOIP to the monthly Treasury reports.
|
|
FOIP |
1998 |
|
1997-16
|
January 29, 1998 |
Environmental Protection
The applicant requested access from Environmental Protection to the names or organizations of nominators for an initiative involving specified public…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Environmental Protection to the names or organizations of nominators for an initiative involving specified public land sites in grasslands region. Of the 34 sites requested, Environmental Protection gave notice to all but one of the nominators and contact persons, requesting permission to disclose their personal information. Environmental Protection disclosed to the applicant the records containing the personal information of those individuals who consented to disclosure, but severed from the records the personal information of those individuals who refused to consent to disclosure of their personal information. Environmental Protection said it provided the applicant with unsevered records of sites which did not contain personal information, namely, sites nominated by corporations, organizations, or societies. The Commissioner upheld Environmental Protection's decision to refuse to disclose the personal information contained in certain pages of records.
|
|
FOIP |
1997 |
|
1997-15
|
October 15, 1997 |
Legislative Assembly Office
The applicant requested access from the Legislative Assembly Office (LAO) for a series of expense records pertaining to a certain…
[More]
The applicant requested access from the Legislative Assembly Office (LAO) for a series of expense records pertaining to a certain MLA. LAO initially refused to provide access on the grounds that the records at issue were excluded from the application of FOIP under section 4(1)(k). LAO then provided a series of sample of the types of records at issue in the inquiry, and the Commissioner found this met LAO's duty to assist the applicant. The inquiry continued after this finding. The related order is Order 1997-17.
|
|
FOIP |
1997 |
|
1997-14
|
December 22, 1997 |
Justice
The applicant, an employee, requested from Justice access to personal information. Justice disclosed records but withheld some information, citing disclosure…
[More]
The applicant, an employee, requested from Justice access to personal information. Justice disclosed records but withheld some information, citing disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16) and advice from officials (section 23). The Commissioner upheld Justice's decision to refuse access to severed information.
|
|
FOIP |
1997 |
|
1997-13
|
December 8, 1997 |
Public Works, Supply and Services
The applicant requested access from Public Works, Supply and Services (PWSS) to a proposal submitted to PWSS by a third…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Public Works, Supply and Services (PWSS) to a proposal submitted to PWSS by a third party contractor. PWSS agreed with the third party contractor that disclosure of most of the information in the records would harmful to the business interests of the third party (section 15). The Commissioner upheld the PWSS' decision to withhold access to the information severed in the records.
|
|
FOIP |
1997 |
|
1997-12
|
November 20, 1997 |
Justice
The applicant requested access from Justice to his file held by the Maintenance Enforcement Division. Justice refused access, citing disclosure…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Justice to his file held by the Maintenance Enforcement Division. Justice refused access, citing disclosure prohibited or restricted by another enactment (section 5). The Commissioner upheld Justice's decision to refuse access to the records.
|
|
FOIP |
1997 |
|
1997-11
|
September 11, 1997 |
Justice
The applicant requested access from Justice to records relating to named individuals. Justice provided a copy of the records but…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Justice to records relating to named individuals. Justice provided a copy of the records but withheld some information, citing disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16). The Commissioner upheld Justice's decision to refuse access to the personal information in the records.
|
|
FOIP |
1997 |
|
1997-10
|
October 29, 1997 |
Treasury and Community Development
The applicant requested access from Treasury and Community Development (the public bodies) to “any information about government funding or paying…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Treasury and Community Development (the public bodies) to "any information about government funding or paying for Expo 2005 (in Calgary) including memos to cabinet." The public bodies provided some of the records to the applicant but withheld some information, citing disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party (section 15), cabinet and treasury board confidences (section 21), advice from officials (section 23), disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations (section 20) and disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16). The Commissioner upheld the public bodies' decisions to refuse access. In a post script, the Commissioner noted that Calgary lost the bid to Japan. "Presumably, the potential for harm to the Third Party's position no longer exists." The Commissioner said the public bodies "may consider re-examining their discretion at this point in time".
|
|
FOIP |
1997 |
|
1997-09
|
October 28, 1997 |
Environmental Protection
The applicant requested access from Environmental Protection to copies of records relating to specified legal descriptions of land. Environmental Protection…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Environmental Protection to copies of records relating to specified legal descriptions of land. Environmental Protection released some records but refused access to others, citing disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party (section 15), disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16), disclosure harmful to law enforcement (section 19), advice from officials (section 23) and privileged information (section 26). The Commissioner upheld most decisions by Environmental Protection in refusing access to the records, and ordered the release of some information to which the advice from officials exception did not apply.
|
|
FOIP |
1997 |
|
1997-08
|
July 22, 1997 |
Environmental Protection
The applicant requested from Environmental Protection its response to a report and recommendations made to it by the Ombudsman. Environmental…
[More]
The applicant requested from Environmental Protection its response to a report and recommendations made to it by the Ombudsman. Environmental Protection refused access, citing records to which FOIP does not apply (section 4(1)(c)). The Commissioner found that Environmental Protection properly applied section 4(1)(c) in determining that the record requested is not subject to FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
1997 |
|
1997-07
|
May 12, 1997 |
Environmental Protection
The applicant requested from Environmental Protection all documents relating directly or indirectly to a gas plant, including all reports, studies,…
[More]
The applicant requested from Environmental Protection all documents relating directly or indirectly to a gas plant, including all reports, studies, reviews, memos and correspondence. Environmental Protection provided some of the documents, but withheld certain briefing notes, citing advice from officials (section 23). The Commissioner found that Environmental Protection incorrectly applied section 23 to the information withheld in the records, and ordered Environmental Protection to give the applicant access to that information.
|
|
FOIP |
1997 |
|
1997-06
|
June 25, 1997 |
Municipal Affairs
The applicant requested records from Municipal Affairs relating to the approval and inspection process of a condominium subdivision development. The…
[More]
The applicant requested records from Municipal Affairs relating to the approval and inspection process of a condominium subdivision development. The applicant stated that the “...information I received is incomplete, misleading, edited and does not address my request...” The Commissioner found that Municipal Affairs conducted an adequate search for records and met its duty to assist the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
1997 |
|
1997-05
|
June 12, 1997 |
Transportation and Utilities
The applicant requested from Transportation and Utilities any reports, maps, pit logs or other information regarding gravel or aggregate located…
[More]
The applicant requested from Transportation and Utilities any reports, maps, pit logs or other information regarding gravel or aggregate located on the applicant's lands lying in the vicinity of the Milk River. Transportation and Utilities provided the applicant access to the records, but withheld lab test results, field log notes and calculation sheeting, citing disclosure harmful to economic and other interests of a public body. The Commissioner ordered Transportation and Utilities to disclose the information as it failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of harm.
|
|
FOIP |
1997 |
|
1997-04
|
June 27, 1997 |
Credit Union Deposit Guarantee Corporation
An individual complained that the Credit Union Deposit Guarantee Corporation (CUDGC) disclosed personal information in violation of FOIP. The Commissioner…
[More]
An individual complained that the Credit Union Deposit Guarantee Corporation (CUDGC) disclosed personal information in violation of FOIP. The Commissioner found that FOIP does not retroactively apply to facts occurring before FOIP came into effect. As a result, no order was issued.
|
|
FOIP |
1997 |
|
1997-03
|
August 26, 1997 |
Credit Union Deposit Guarantee Corporation
The applicant requested access to the Credit Union Deposit Guarantee Corporation’s (CUDGC) policies and records to see if policies were…
[More]
The applicant requested access to the Credit Union Deposit Guarantee Corporation's (CUDGC) policies and records to see if policies were followed in deciding to sell judgments to a specified corporation. The Commissioner upheld CUDGC's decision to refuse access to all of the records it determined were excepted or excluded under FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
1997 |
|
1997-02
|
June 12, 1997 |
Family and Social Services
Applicants requested access to an investigation report from Family and Social Services. Family and Social Services withheld certain information, citing…
[More]
Applicants requested access to an investigation report from Family and Social Services. Family and Social Services withheld certain information, citing disclosure prohibited by another Act (section 5), disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 16), advice from officials (section 23) and privileged information (section 26). The Commissioner upheld Family and Social Services' decisions to withhold information in the records.
|
|
FOIP |
1997 |
|
1997-01
|
June 12, 1997 |
Labour
Alberta Labour was ordered to grant fee waiver in the public interest. The request related to information that was used…
[More]
Alberta Labour was ordered to grant fee waiver in the public interest. The request related to information that was used in a news broadcast.
|
|
FOIP |
1997 |
|
1996-22
|
February 5, 1997 |
Health
The applicant requested from Health access to policies and regulations of a specific hospital that were in effect in 1977.…
[More]
The applicant requested from Health access to policies and regulations of a specific hospital that were in effect in 1977. The applicant requested a review of the fee estimate and whether Health met its duty to assist the applicant. The Commissioner found Health failed in its duty to assist the applicant and ordered the applicant's application fee to be refunded. The Commissioner suggested that public bodies develop a process to deal with requests that may involve information located at the provincial archives.
|
|
FOIP |
1998 |
|
1996-21
|
January 9, 1998 |
Health
The applicant requested access to records concerning an investigation by Health. Health severed information in many of the records and…
[More]
The applicant requested access to records concerning an investigation by Health. Health severed information in many of the records and refused to disclose some records, citing several exceptions to disclosure set out in FOIP. The Commissioner upheld many of the decisions made by Health to sever or refuse to disclose records, but ordered the release of some information and records to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
1997 |
|
1996-20
|
December 15, 1997 |
Alberta Health Facilities Review Committee
The applicant requested access to records concerning an investigation by the Alberta Health Facilities Review Committee (AHFRC). AHFRC severed information…
[More]
The applicant requested access to records concerning an investigation by the Alberta Health Facilities Review Committee (AHFRC). AHFRC severed information in many of the records and refused to disclose some records, citing several exceptions to disclosure set out in FOIP. The Commissioner upheld many of the decisions made by AHFRC to sever or refuse to disclose records, but ordered the release of some information and records to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
1997 |
JR
|
1996-19
|
March 6, 1997 |
Municipal Affairs
The applicant requested from Municipal Affairs any information with respect to an investigation concerning the applicant’s involvement in a charitable…
[More]
The applicant requested from Municipal Affairs any information with respect to an investigation concerning the applicant's involvement in a charitable fundraising campaign conducted under the Public Contributions Act. Municipal Affairs released the records, but severed some information in some of the records, citing disclosure harmful to personal privacy, disclosure harmful to law enforcement, advice from officials and privileged information. The Commissioner upheld Municipal Affairs decisions, except ordered the release of a limited amount of information in one of the records to which disclosure harmful to personal privacy did not apply.
|
JR
|
FOIP |
1996 |
|
1996-18
|
December 3, 1996 |
Treasury
The applicant requested from Treasury records containing the details and background about a loan guarantee. One of the responsive records…
[More]
The applicant requested from Treasury records containing the details and background about a loan guarantee. One of the responsive records contained third party information, and Treasury notified the third party as set out in FOIP. The third party objected to disclosure, but Treasury decided to release the record to the applicant. The Commissioner upheld Treasury's decision to release the record to the applicant, subject to severing personal information as required by FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
1996 |
|
1996-17
|
December 19, 1996 |
Environmental Protection
The applicant requested Environmental Protection to provide access to records relating to an amendment made by order in council to…
[More]
The applicant requested Environmental Protection to provide access to records relating to an amendment made by order in council to the Waste Control Regulation, found under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act. Environmental Protection provided access to some documents but denied access to other records, citing privileged information and advice from officials. The Commissioner found that Environmental Protection correctly applied FOIP to the information contained in the record, but ordered the head to reconsider the decision with respect to 27 pages of records.
|
|
FOIP |
1996 |
|
1996-16
|
December 2, 1996 |
Environmental Protection
The applicant requested access to a report from Environmental Protection. Environmental Protection responded that it believed the report might affect…
[More]
The applicant requested access to a report from Environmental Protection. Environmental Protection responded that it believed the report might affect the business interests of third parties, and that it would provide notice to those third parties as set out in FOIP. The applicant then requested access to the identities of the third parties and copies of their responses to the applicant's request. Environmental Protection denied access to the report citing disclosure harmful to economic interests of a public body. The Commissioner disagreed with Environmental Protection and ordered the release of the report to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
1997 |
|
1996-15
|
April 24, 1997 |
Justice
The applicants requested access to records from Justice relating to an investigation and prosecution of a young person under the…
[More]
The applicants requested access to records from Justice relating to an investigation and prosecution of a young person under the Young Offenders Act (Canada). Justice refused to disclose all records because disclosure would be an offence under the Young Offenders Act and that privilege applied to the records. The Commissioner upheld Justice's decisions to withhold access, but ordered disclosure of a limited amount of information to which the disclosure harmful to law enforcement section did not apply.
|
|
FOIP |
1996 |
|
1996-13
|
October 15, 1996 |
Tire Recycling Management Board
The applicant made a request to the Tire Recycling Management Board (TRMB) for access to agreements made between TRMB and…
[More]
The applicant made a request to the Tire Recycling Management Board (TRMB) for access to agreements made between TRMB and a third party contractor. TRMB severed some information, citing disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party and disclosure harmful to economic and other interests of a public body. The Commissioner upheld TRMB's decisions to withhold in some instances, but ordered disclosure of some information to which the exceptions to disclosure cited did not apply.
|
|
FOIP |
1996 |
|
1996-12
|
November 19, 1996 |
Tire Recycling Management Board
The applicant requested access to minutes of all meetings of the Tire Recycling Management Board (TRMB). TRMB severed information from…
[More]
The applicant requested access to minutes of all meetings of the Tire Recycling Management Board (TRMB). TRMB severed information from the record, citing several sections of FOIP. The Commissioner upheld TRMB's decision to sever information and to refuse to disclose that information, with some exceptions. The Commissioner ordered TRMB to disclose some information to the applicant.
|
|
FOIP |
1996 |
|
1996-11
|
September 11, 1996 |
Environmental Protection
Environmental Protection refused to release a record in the public interest. The applicant requested the Commissioner to review the decision…
[More]
Environmental Protection refused to release a record in the public interest. The applicant requested the Commissioner to review the decision by Environmental Protection to not release the report in the public interest. The Commissioner reviewed whether there was jurisdiction to review a decision made by the head of a public body pursuant to section 31 (information must be disclosed if in the public interest). The Commissioner determined there was authority for the Commissioner to investigate or review a decision made by the head of a public body pursuant to section 31, when a request to do the investigation or review comes from a member of the public.
|
|
FOIP |
1996 |
|
1996-10
|
August 15, 1996 |
Municipal Affairs
The applicant requested that Municipal Affairs provide the applicant with records regarding a complaint made about their ability to safely…
[More]
The applicant requested that Municipal Affairs provide the applicant with records regarding a complaint made about their ability to safely operate a motor vehicle, including the identity of the person who made the complaint. Most records were released in their entirety to the applicant, but Municipal Affairs severed the name and address on the letter it received from the person who made the complaint. The Commissioner upheld Municipal Affairs' decision to refuse access to the personal information of the person who made the complaint.
|
|
FOIP |
1996 |
|
1996-09
|
September 10, 1996 |
Alberta Treasury Branches
The applicant requested that Alberta Treasury Branches (ATB) provide the applicant with the name of the person or persons who…
[More]
The applicant requested that Alberta Treasury Branches (ATB) provide the applicant with the name of the person or persons who approved loans to a certain individual or a certain company. ATB did not respond to the applicant within timelines set out in FOIP, and said it had not received the original request for access from the applicant. Upon receiving the request, ATB declined to give access. ATB said that the records were excluded from the Act (section 4(1)(m)). The Commissioner upheld ATB's finding that the records were not subject to FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
1996 |
|
1996-08
|
July 31, 1996 |
Justice
The applicant requested access from Justice to staff and inmate reports, and transcripts of staff and inmate statements regarding an…
[More]
The applicant requested access from Justice to staff and inmate reports, and transcripts of staff and inmate statements regarding an investigation that resulted in disciplinary action against the applicant. Justice refused to disclose the information, citing disclosure harmful to law enforcement and disclosure harmful to personal privacy. The Commissioner upheld Justice's decision to refuse access on the basis that disclosure would be harmful to personal privacy, but rejected the argument that the records related to a law enforcement matter.
|
|
FOIP |
1996 |
|
1996-07
|
June 5, 1996 |
Justice
An individual made a complaint that Justice had collected, used or disclosed in contravention of FOIP. Parts of the complaint…
[More]
An individual made a complaint that Justice had collected, used or disclosed in contravention of FOIP. Parts of the complaint occurred prior to the coming into force of the Act, and no order could be made in respect of them. For the remaining part of the complaint, the Commissioner found that disclosure of the complainant's personal information to other law enforcement agencies was authorized by FOIP.
|
|
FOIP |
1996 |
|
1996-06
|
July 9, 1996 |
Justice
The applicant requested written transcripts of an investigationand final findings into an attempted escape from the Edmonton Remand Centre. Records…
[More]
The applicant requested written transcripts of an investigation and final findings into an attempted escape from the Edmonton Remand Centre. Records were withheld citing disclosure harmful to personal privacy, disclosure harmful to law enforcement and advice from officials. The Commissioner found that not all the exceptions to disclosure applied, and ordered the release of certain records subject to severing employment history, names and information that could identify individuals.
|
|
FOIP |
1996 |
|
1996-05
|
May 13, 1996 |
Alberta Treasury Branches
The applicant sought information relating to amounts expended by Alberta Treasury Branches (ATB) on bankruptcy trustees and receiverships and, specifically,…
[More]
The applicant sought information relating to amounts expended by Alberta Treasury Branches (ATB) on bankruptcy trustees and receiverships and, specifically, amounts expended by ATB on files in which the applicant had involvement. ATB properly denied the request as the records were not subject to FOIP under section 4(1)(m).
|
|
FOIP |
1996 |
|
1996-04
|
April 18, 1996 |
Justice
Justice properly refused access to handwritten client contact records and case notes prepared by a probation officer.
[More]
Justice properly refused access to handwritten client contact records and case notes prepared by a probation officer.
|
|
FOIP |
1996 |
|
1996-03
|
April 16, 1996 |
Law Enforcement Review Board
Certain reports prepared by investigating officers were properly withheld by the Law Enforcement Review Board.
[More]
Certain reports prepared by investigating officers were properly withheld by the Law Enforcement Review Board.
|
|
FOIP |
1996 |
|
1996-02
|
March 21, 1996 |
Treasury
An applicant requested a fee waiver for an access request made to Treasury. The fee was not excused.
[More]
An applicant requested a fee waiver for an access request made to Treasury. The fee was not excused.
|
|
FOIP |
1996 |
|
1996-01
|
January 9, 1996 |
Justice
Alberta Justice was required by section 11 of the Maintenance Enforcement Act and section 5 of the Freedom of Information…
[More]
Alberta Justice was required by section 11 of the Maintenance Enforcement Act and section 5 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to refuse access as requested.
|
|