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 |
|