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.
An individual complained that Alberta Health Services (AHS) improperly disclosed his personal and health information to the Lethbridge Police Department (LPD). The disclosure related to a complaint an AHS employee made about the individual to the LPD. The Adjudicator determined that the disclosure was done for the purpose of mitigating the risk of imminent harm to the mental and physical health of employees and was authorized by the FOIP Act (section 40(1)(ee)). The Adjudicator also determined that AHS had not disclosed any more personal information than was reasonably necessary for meeting its purpose in disclosing the information.
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.
An individual complained that the Standard Life Assurance Company (now Manulife) had collected and disclosed her personal information without her consent. 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. She directed Manulife to cease disclosing the individual’s personal information in contravention of PIPA.
The OIPC's "Request for Review/Complaint Form", "Request for Time Extension under Section 14 Form" and "Search Form (FOIP) Third Party Request for Review" have been updated to include new email addresses for submitting completed forms.
The OIPC has confirmed with LifeLabs that 21,670 Albertans were potentially affected by this breach. Anyone who believes that their personal or health information may have been affected by this breach is encouraged to contact LifeLabs for more information. LifeLabs has a dedicated phone line for responding to this incident, which can be contacted at 1-888-918-0467. LifeLabs also has more information on its website at customernotice.lifelabs.com.
A former Covenant Health employee pleaded guilty on Monday, Jan. 20 to knowingly accessing health information in contravention of the Health Information Act (HIA). The individual received a $3,000 fine and one year of probation, including no access to health information for one year.
The Commissioner submitted an op-ed to several Alberta media outlets for Data Privacy Day to reflect on privacy rights over the past decade and how to move privacy discussions forward over the next 10 years. The op-ed focused in particular on student privacy issues in the digital economy and the OIPC's support of The eQuality Project.
The Information and Privacy Commissioner is investigating Alcanna Inc. (Alcanna) and Patronscan’s pilot project to use identification-scanning technology to permit entry into liquor stores Alcanna operates. The investigation will determine whether the use of this technology in liquor stores is compliant with the Personal Information Protection Act, Alberta’s private sector privacy law.
This order is a reconsideration of Order F2017-54, which examined the response of the Alberta Emergency Management Agency to an access request under the FOIP Act. On judicial review of that order, the Court of Queen’s Bench held that parts of the order by which the previous adjudicator ordered disclosure of records to which section 24(1) had been applied was unreasonable. In that inquiry, the records had not been provided for the Adjudicator’s review as they were also withheld under a claim of privilege. The privilege claim was later withdrawn, and the Court directed that the records be provided to this OIPC for assessment by a different Adjudicator. In this reconsideration, the Alberta Emergency Management Agency applied sections pertaining to disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17), advice from officials (section24(1)) and privileged information (sections 27(1)(b) and/or (c)) to information in several pages of records. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this reconsideration, and ordered the disclosure to the applicant a limited amount of information to which section 24(1)(a) did not apply.
An individual complained that a bylaw officer employed by the City of Edmonton collected and disclosed her personal information in contravention of the FOIP Act. The Adjudicator found that the City of Edmonton did not collect the complainant’s personal information when the peace officer recorded the number of dogs she observed in a front window. The Adjudicator determined that this was not personal information of the complainant. The Adjudicator also determined that if the information was personal information, the City of Edmonton was authorized to collect it under sections 33(b) and (c). The City of Edmonton did record personal information of the complainant during the investigation of the bylaw complaint. The Adjudicator found that the information disclosed by the City of Edmonton to the Municipal Prosecutor in relation to the contravention of the Animal Licensing and Control Bylaw was the complainant’s personal information. The Adjudicator determined that this disclosure was authorized under the FOIP Act.
Copyright 2020 OIPC. All rights reserved.