OIPC Logo
  • Contact Us
  • Site Map
  • Privacy Policy

What's New

The following is a list of some of the most recent postings on the website, including Orders, Investigation Reports, news releases and resources. The dates below correspond to the date that each item was posted on the website.

8 Tips for Holiday Shopping Online
November 23, 2017

Here are some useful tips for any holiday shopping you may be doing online this year.

Letter: Commissioner Highlights Privacy Education Initiatives in Alberta
November 20, 2017

Following up on a letter to the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada from all federal, provincial and territorial privacy protection authorities, the Commissioner wrote to Alberta's Minister of Education to highlight some ongoing initiatives in Alberta to enhance privacy education. The letter was sent to the Minister of Education on November 8, 2017 during Media Literacy Week.

Order F2017-79: Edmonton Police Service
November 16, 2017

An individual requested from the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) a copy of a disciplinary decision involving a named constable. Prior to the inquiry, EPS claimed informer privilege over the information to which it had applied sections related to disclosure harmful to individual or public safety and disclosure harmful to law enforcement. EPS refused to provide that information to the Adjudicator for the inquiry. The inquiry proceeded in two parts. The first part of the inquiry resulted in Order F2015-30, which addressed EPS' application of the section pertaining to disclosure harmful to personal privacy and three names in the disciplinary decision; those names were withheld under that provision only. This order concludes the final part of the inquiry, which addresses EPS' application of informer privilege to the name of the detective appearing in the records at issue. The Adjudicator found that informer privilege applies to the name of the detective sought by the applicant. The law on informer privilege is clear that it must be applied broadly, to include information that could implicitly reveal the identity of the informer. Evidence provided by EPS in camera satisfied the Adjudicator that disclosing the name of the detective could lead to the identification of a confidential informant.

Order F2017-80: Edmonton Police Service
November 16, 2017

An applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) on June 21, 2017. The Adjudicator found that EPS failed to respond to the applicant within the timelines set out in the FOIP Act. However, EPS responded to the applicant during the inquiry.

Order F2017-81: Royal Canadian Mounted Police
November 16, 2017

An individual complained about a vulnerable sector check conducted by the Red Deer RCMP detachment. The complainant alleges that the collection, use and/or disclosure of certain personal information in the vulnerable sector check was not authorized under the FOIP Act. The Commissioner decided that this matter should proceed directly to inquiry to determine the preliminary issue as to whether the Commissioner has jurisdiction to review the use and/or disclosure of the complainant’s personal information by the Red Deer detachment of the RCMP. The Adjudicator found that the RCMP detachment is not subject to the FOIP Act even when providing policing services to the City of Red Deer. As such, the OIPC does not have jurisdiction to consider a complaint regarding the collection, use and/or disclosure of personal information by the RCMP detachment. The complainant was directed to make her complaint to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, as the oversight body for federal institutions, which includes the RCMP.

Order P2017-08: Bishop & McKenzie LLP
November 16, 2017

An individual complained 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 the organization 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.

Order P2017-09: CO-OP Taxi
November 16, 2017

An applicant requested a review of CO-OP Taxi's failure to respond to her three access requests. During the inquiry, the organization responded to the access request. The Adjudicator did not make an order but did recommend that the organization review its processes for responding to access requests.

Order F2017-74: Executive Council
November 15, 2017

An applicant made an access request to Executive Council on August 18, 2016 for records related to climate policies and plans. Executive Council began processing the access request but the applicant did not receive a response. Executive Council explained that workload and staffing issues were the reasons for the delay in responding to the access request. Executive Council advised the OIPC that it had responded to the access request during the inquiry process. The Adjudicator found that Executive Council did not respond to the applicant within the time limit set out in the FOIP Act.

Order F2017-75: Executive Council
November 15, 2017

An applicant made a request to Communications and Public Engagement, formerly the Public Affairs Bureau of Executive Council, on August 18, 2016 for records related to climate policies and plans. The applicant did not receive a response to the access request. Executive Council explained that workload, staffing issues, volume of records and consultation process were the reasons for the delay in responding to the access request. The Adjudicator found that Executive Council did not respond to the applicant within the time limit set out in the FOIP Act. The Adjudicator ordered Executive Council to respond to the applicant.

Order F2017-76: Executive Council
November 15, 2017

An applicant made an access request to Communications and Public Engagement, formerly the Public Affairs Bureau of Executive Council, on June 27, 2016 for records related to advertising for climate policies and plans. The applicant did not receive a response to the access request. Executive Council acknowledged that it had missed the deadline set out in the FOIP Act. It explained that workload, staffing issues, volume of records and consultation process were the reasons for the delay in responding to the applicant's access request. The Adjudicator found that Executive Council did not respond to the applicant within the time limit set out in the FOIP Act. The Adjudicator ordered Executive Council to respond to the applicant.

Page: of 27