Other decisions include:
Although the OIPC makes every effort to ensure that all information posted on the website is accurate and complete, the OIPC cannot guarantee its integrity. If there is any discrepancy between the information posted on our website and the original paper versions, the original paper document is authoritative.
|F2020-D-01||Alberta Labour Relations Board||An individual participated in a proceeding before the Alberta Labour Relations Board (LRB). The LRB published the decision resulting from the proceeding on its website and included the individual’s name in the context of information about a complaint he had made. The individual asked the LRB to mask his name in the publicly available decision. The Adjudicator determined that the doctrine of issue estoppel or “res judicata” applied and that factors relevant to this doctrine weighed against exercising discretion to deciding the issue for inquiry.|
|P2020-D-01||Weinrich Contracting Ltd.||The Adjudicator determined that an agreement between the complainant and Weinrich Contracting Ltd, for which the complainant was a sole director and equal shareholder with his brother, does not preclude the Commissioner from conducting an inquiry into the issues raised by the complainant in a request for inquiry that the complainant had submitted.|
|F2018-D-03||City of Calgary||On August 4, 2017, an applicant made a request for records from the City of Calgary. The City of Calgary acknowledged that it did not respond to the applicant within the time limit set out in the FOIP Act, and said it expects to provide a response by October 31, 2018. The Adjudicator decided not to make an order, rather required the City of Calgary to provide the Adjudicator with a copy of its cover letter responding to the applicant when responding to him. The applicant may notify the Adjudicator if he does not receive a response by October 31, 2018. The Adjudicator reserved jurisdiction to make an order in relation to the time limit set out in the FOIP Act if the circumstances require it.|
|F2017-D-02||City of Calgary||The applicant wrote a letter to the City of Calgary on February 24, 2017. In the first three pages, the letter discussed prior access requests the applicant had made under the FOIP Act. However, at the bottom of the fourth page, she indicated that she was making an access request for records. The City of Calgary did not respond to this letter and the applicant requested a review of the City of Calgary's failure to respond to her access request. The City of Calgary informed the Adjudicator and the applicant that it now realized that the letter was an access request and it had begun processing it as of September 7, 2017. The City of Calgary also indicated that it would waive the initial fee. The Adjudicator decided not to make an order, because making an order would mean that the City of Calgary would be required to delay its response by 45 days in accordance with the FOIP Act. However, the Adjudicator reserved jurisdiction to make an order in relation to the timing of the City of Calgary’s response if it became necessary to do so.|
|F2017-D-01||University of Calgary||The applicant made a request to her former employer the University of Calgary for information about herself held in specified locations. The university located records and provided some of them, but withheld others in reliance on a number of exceptions to disclosure in the FOIP Act. With regard to records withheld in reliance privileged information (approximately 100 pages), the Adjudicator formerly hearing this matter decided he was unable to determine whether these records were covered by solicitor-client privilege without reviewing them, and he issued a notice to produce records to the university. The university brought an application for judicial review on the decision to issue the notice to produce on the basis the FOIP Act does not confer power on the Commissioner or delegated Adjudicators to compel records over which solicitor-client privilege has been claimed. The issue was ultimately resolved by the Supreme Court of Canada, which held which held, in Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. University of Calgary, 2016 SCC 53, that the Commissioner does not have the power to compel such records. As the inquiry in this matter had not been completed, the Commissioner delegated a different Adjudicator to decide the issue in the inquiry. The University of Calgary took the position that the question of whether the records had been properly withheld from an applicant by the University of Calgary in reliance on the exception of privileged information had already been decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. This decision addresses this position. The Adjudicator held that the Supreme Court had not already made a decision about whether privilege had been properly claimed over all the records at issue for a number of reasons set out in this decision.|
|F2015-D-01||Calgary Regional Partnership Inc.||The Calgary Regional Partnership Inc. found not subject to the FOIP Act.|
|F2014-D-01||Alberta Jobs, Skills, Labour and Training||The adjudicator concluded that a review of the application of section
16(1) of the FOIP Act to the requested information could proceed, so as to determine whether disclosure of the information would be harmful to the business interests of any third party. The applicant had requested information from Alberta Jobs, Skills, Labour and Training relating to the province's "highest-risk employers" in terms of compliance with occupational health and safety standards.
|F2013-D-01||Alberta Treasury Branches||
This decision provided supplementary reasons to Order F2012-09.
|P2013-D-01||Legal Aid Society of Alberta||The Adjudicator decided that the Legal Aid Society was subject to PIPA.|
|F2012-D-02, P2012-D-01 & M2012-D-01||Service Alberta & Sentinel Registry Ltd.||A jurisdictional issue related to a complaint against Sentinel Regisry Ltd. was found to be subject to the FOIP Act not PIPA.|
|F2012-D-01||Workers' Compensation Board||The Adjudicator decided notification of affected third parties was not practicable for the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB). Instead, the adjudicator decided to review the submissions of WCB and the applicant before considering whether any affected parties should be given notice.|
|Advance Ruling P2012-AR-01||AYSA Pharm Inc.||AYSA Pharm Inc. requested an advance ruling on whether it should release contact information about its employees to the union that had recently become certified to represent some of its employees. The Commissioner delegated authority to the British Columbia Information and Privacy Commissioner.|
|P2011-D-003||Davidson and Williams LLP||A law firm was ordered to respond in accordance with the OIPC's Solicitor-Client Adjudication Protocol.|
|F2011-D-002||Service Alberta||Adjudicator determined that the issues for inquiry had not been decided in Order F2009-024 and that there was jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry. Service Alberta had made a jurisdictional challenge of the adjudicator to conduct an inquiry.|
|P2011-D-001||Alberta Teachers' Association||The Adjudicator did not recuse himself from a matter regarding the Alberta Teachers' Association (ATA), and found that an inquiry into a complaint against the ATA was warranted.|
|F2010-D-003||Calgary Police Service||The Adjudicator decided not to conduct an inquiry in relation to the Calgary Police Service's decision to withhold information from the applicant in response to an access request.|
|F2010-D-002||Grande Yellowhead Public School Division||
A time extension to complete an inquiry was challenged based on a test set out in a Court of Appeal decision. The inquiry proceeded because delays had been occasioned by operational factors inherent to the inquiry process, as well as by positions taken by the parties involved.
|F2010-D-001||Edmonton Police Service||
Edmonton Police Service objected to an inquiry on the basis that the timelines had set out in the FOIP Act had been exceed, and that the inquiry must be terminated by reference to the test set out in a Court of Appeal decision. It was found that the court's decision did not apply in this case, and the inquiry could continue.
|P2010-D-001||Alberta Teachers' Association||
The Alberta Teachers' Association objected to the continuation of an inquiry on the basis of a Court of Appeal decision. It was found, however, that PIPA permitted more than one time extension. A "presumption of termination" had not arisen in this case.
This decision was subject to judicial review. It was quashed on other ground and remitted. Decision on remittance - see Order P2012-002 and Decision P2011-D-001.
|F2009-D-001||Alberta Solicitor General and Public Security||
The Adjudicator decided that there was no basis for accepting Alberta Solicitor General and Public Security's submissions and evidence "in camera". This decision was subject to judicial review.
|F2008-D-003||Edmonton Police Commission||The Adjudicator decided that the Edmonton Police Service Chief of Police was a person affected by a request for review.|
|F2008-D-002||Alberta Employment and Immigration||
The Adjudicator concluded that those employers that indicate that they wish to participate in the inquiry would be affected by the request for review, and that those employers would then be provided with a copy of the applicant's request for review.
|F2008-D-001||Alberta Employment and Immigration||
The Adjudicator determined that employers mentioned in records subject to inquiry were required to be notified of the applicant's request for review on a request for records from Alberta Employment and Immigration.
|Section 70 Decision (2003)||Alberta Municipal Affairs||
In a decision under section 70 of the FOIP Act, the Commissioner said that the subject matter of requests made had already been dealt with in Order 2001-007.
Copyright 2021 OIPC. All rights reserved.