What's New

The most recent website posts:

  • F2022-33
    August 4, 2022
    The applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) for copies of written communications between JSG employees about him regarding a talk given at a conference in Edmonton, and/or communications containing a particular attachment. JSG located 261 pages of responsive records but withheld them in their entirety, citing section 4(1)(a) of FOIP (records to which FOIP does not apply). At inquiry, JSG refused to provide records, stating that the records were not in its custody or control. The Adjudicator ordered JSG to provide the Adjudicator with the records at issue and/or an affidavit of records for any… Read More...
  • F2022-RTD-06
    August 4, 2022
    Children’s Services requested authorization under section 55(1) of FOIP to disregard an access request made by an applicant. Children's Services was authorized to disregard the applicant’s access request. Children's Servcies was also authorized to disregard any similar access requests from the applicant that it may receive in the future. Read More...
  • F2022-RTD-05
    August 4, 2022
    The Village of Carbon requested authorization under section 55(1) of FOIP to disregard an access request made by an applicant. The Village of Carbon’s application for authorization to disregard the applicant’s access request was dismissed, and it is required to respond to the applicant. The Village of Carbon’s request for authorization to disregard future access requests from the applicant was also dismissed. Read More...
  • F2022-RTD-04
    August 4, 2022
    The Village of Carbon requested authorization under section 55(1) of FOIP to disregard an access request made by an applicant. The Village of Carbon’s application for authorization to disregard the applicant’s access request was dismissed, and it is required to respond to the applicant. The Village of Carbon’s request for authorization to disregard future access requests from the applicant and from any individuals associated with the group Ratepayers of Carbon was also dismissed. Read More...
  • P2022-IR-02
    July 28, 2022
    The investigation into PORTpass’ protection of personal information under PIPA was opened after an individual made a complaint to the OIPC. During the investigation, PORTpass failed to demonstrate that it implemented any technical and administrative safeguards to protect personal information. The investigation found that PORTpass did not protect personal information in its custody or under its control in contravention of section 34 of PIPA. As PORTpass is now dissolved, there is no longer an “organization” as defined in PIPA to whom the Commissioner can make recommendations, or against whom an order compelling compliance can be issued. Read More...
  • PIPA Breach Report
    July 27, 2022
    The PIPA Breach Report analyzes nearly 2,000 breaches received by the OIPC since 2010 when mandatory breach reporting requirements came into force. The report offers guidance to help organizations and law firms specializing in privacy law decide whether there is a real risk of significant harm (RROSH) to an affected individual as a result of a breach. Based on information submitted by organizations when reporting a breach, the report analyzes how long it takes organizations to discover breaches, notify individuals and report to the OIPC. It also looks at whether malicious intent or deliberate action was involved in a breach,… Read More...
  • Decade of Privacy Breaches Analyzed in Commissioner's Report
    July 27, 2022
    The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) released a report today that analyzes nearly 2,000 breaches reported in Alberta over 11 years. In May 2010, requirements to report certain breaches to the OIPC and notify affected individuals came into force under Alberta’s Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). The report analyzes PIPA breaches from 2010-11 to 2020-21. Data show that organizations sent millions of notifications to people affected by breaches since the requirements came into force. The leading reason for notification to an affected individual has been unauthorized access to personal information, most often caused by a compromised electronic… Read More...
  • OIPC Changes Website Platform
    July 19, 2022
    The OIPC website has moved to a new platform (also known as a content management system). The look and feel of the “new” website remains, with minor changes to the website layout. Please note, most hyperlinks created from the old website will not work on this site and you will get an error webpage instead. For example, if you have links to orders, investigation reports or other types of decisions, those links will be broken and you will have to search for the document on the website. If you search for the document and still don’t find it, email the… Read More...
  • F2022-20
    July 13, 2022
    There was an application for judicial review on Order F2022-20. Read More...
  • F2022-18
    July 13, 2022
    There was an application for judicial review on Order F2022-18. Read More...
  • F2022-32
    July 11, 2022
    The applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton. The City of Edmonton extended its time to respond under section 14(1) of FOIP. The City of Edmonton did not respond to the applicant’s request within timelines set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered the City of Edmonton to respond to the applicant’s access request as required by FOIP. Read More...
  • P2022-07
    July 11, 2022
    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. Read More...
  • Inquiry Forms
    July 6, 2022
    Request for Inquiry Undisclosed Party Change of Contact or Address for Service: This form is intended to update contact information or address for service for a specific case file only. For an affected party to update their contact information or address for service for all of their case files, please send a letter to the OIPC. Do not use this form if you are wanting to update your contact information or address for service for all case files. Change of Contact or Address for Service: This form is intended to update contact information or address for service for a… Read More...
  • F2022-31
    July 4, 2022
    The applicant made an access request to the City of Edmonton for copies of nuisance complaints made about his dog. The City of Edmonton provided responsive records, but withheld information under section 4 (records to which this Act applies) and section 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The Adjudicator confirmed the City of Edmonton’s severing decisions. Read More...
  • F2022-30
    July 4, 2022
    On behalf of a teacher employed by Chinook's Edge School Division (CESD), the Alberta Teachers' Association made a complaint that CESD had collected the teacher’s personal information in contravention of FOIP when a physician disclosed information about the teacher to CESD. The Adjudicator found that CESD collected the complainant’s personal information in contravention of section 33 of FOIP. The Adjudicator found that the additional information provided by the physician was not necessary for managing the complainant’s employment. Read More...
  • H2022-07
    July 4, 2022
    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… Read More...
  • F2022-29
    July 4, 2022
    The applicant made an access request to Rocky View County for records relating to residential developments. The Adjudicator considered whether Rocky View County fulfilled the duty to assist under section 10(1) of FOIP when it responded to the access request. The Adjudicator found that Rocky View County failed to meet the duty to assist since it had not adequately explained why it believed no further records exist. In particular, Rocky View County failed to address the applicant’s concerns that under Rocky View County’s existing bylaws and published practices respecting residential developments there ought to be further responsive records than what… Read More...
  • P2022-06
    July 4, 2022
    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… Read More...
  • P2022-05
    July 4, 2022
    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… Read More...
  • F2022-28
    July 4, 2022
    The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for information related to his employment and termination of employment. AHS provided disclosure of some records, but severed information under sections 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), 19 (confidential evaluations), 24 (advice from officials) and 27 (privileged information) of FOIP. The inquiry proceeded on the issue of section 27 as a preliminary issue. For reasons set out in the order, the Adjudicator determined that there was inadequate evidence to support AHS' application of section 27(1)(a) to any of the information in the records. The Adjudicator also determined that AHS… Read More...