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 made a request to the City of Calgary for the Calgary Fire Department Workplace Review conducted by a consultant. Initially, the City of Calgary responded that it did not find any records responsive to the applicant’s request. However, after conducting a subsequent search, it located a PowerPoint slideshow prepared by the consultant and an employee of the Calgary Fire Department, which was responsive to the applicant’s request. The applicant asserted that the consultant had created and provided the City of Calgary with a written report and the City of Calgary was not being truthful about having the report. The City of Calgary provided evidence to rebut the applicant's assertion that the consultant had created and provided the City of Calgary with a written report. The Adjudicator determined that the City of Calgary's subsequent search was adequate, and it had met its duty to assist the applicant under section 10(1) of the FOIP Act.
An individual made a request to the City of Calgary for specific records relating to his property. The City of Calgary located responsive records but withheld them in their entirety, citing sections relating to records to which the FOIP Act applies (section 4(1)), disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party (section 16(1)), disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17(1)), disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations (section 21(1)), advice from officials (section 24(1)), disclosure harmful to economic and other interests of a public body (section 25(1)) and privileged information (section 27(1)). The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order, including accepting the City of Calgary's claim of solicitor-client privilege, based on a thorough affidavit of records provided by the City of Calgary. The Adjudicator ordered the City of Calgary to exercise its discretion again in relation to its reliance on sections 24(1) and 27(1)(c).
The OIPC released a report on its review of the ABTraceTogether privacy impact assessment (PIA). The PIA was submitted by Alberta Health, and endorsed by Alberta Health Services, as required by Alberta’s Health Information Act. The OIPC accepted the ABTraceTogether PIA with recommendations.
The OIPC released a report on its review of the ABTraceTogether contact-tracing application privacy impact assessment (PIA), given the global attention focused on contact-tracing apps during the COVID-19 pandemic. The PIA was submitted by Alberta Health, and endorsed by Alberta Health Services. The OIPC accepted the PIA, with recommendations.
Clearview AI has advised Canadian privacy protection authorities that, in response to their joint investigation, it will cease offering its facial recognition services in Canada. The investigation of Clearview by privacy protection authorities for Canada, Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec remains open. The authorities still plan to issue findings in this matter given the importance of the issue for the privacy rights of Canadians.
A joint investigation among four Canadian Privacy Commissioners is looking into Tim Hortons and its mobile app, specifically geolocation tracking and other privacy practices. Numerous media reports about Tim Hortons’ app have raised questions and concerns among privacy authorities.
An individual made a request to the City of Edmonton for records relating to the downtown arena development in Edmonton. The City of Edmonton located responsive records but withheld them in their entirety, citing disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party (section 16(1)) and privileged information (section 27(1)(a)). The applicant also requested a review of the time taken by the City of Edmonton to respond to his request (section 11). The Adjudicator determined that the City of Edmonton's claim of privilege met the standard for as set out in Canadian Natural Resources Limited v. ShawCor Ltd., 2014 ABCA 289 (CanLII), and was consistent with case law regarding solicitor-client privilege. Following the Court’s direction in Edmonton Police Service v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2020 ABQB 10, the Adjudicator found that the City of Edmonton established its claim of privilege on a balance of probabilities. The Adjudicator also found that the City of Edmonton did not respond the applicant within the time limit set out in section 11.
An individual alleged that his employer, Alberta Environment and Parks, improperly used and disclosed his personal information when it used and disclosed his personal information in the course of addressing a respectful workplace complaint filed against him. The Adjudicator found that Alberta Environment and Parks collected the complainant’s personal information for the purpose of addressing the complaint, as part of its responsibility to manage and administer its personnel, and used the information for the same purpose. The use was authorized by section 39(1)(a) of the FOIP Act. The Adjudicator found that Alberta Environment and Parks disclosed information in order to permit its employees to carry out their duties or in order to manage or administer its personnel as authorized under sections 40(1)(h) and (x) of the FOIP Act, respectively.
An individual requested access to records related to a respectful workplace investigation. The applicant believed that further responsive records existed beyond what Alberta Environment and Parks provided in response to the access request. The Adjudicator found that the Alberta Environment and Parks failed to establish that it met its duty to assist the applicant. The Adjudicator also found that Alberta Environment and Parks omitted to search for the records of an individual who likely had responsive records, and that it had truncated a search for other possible responsive records.The Adjudicator ordered Alberta Environment and Parks to respond to the access request as required by section 10(1) of the FOIP Act.
An individual requested from Alberta Health Services access to data from the Alberta electronic health record regarding Netcare accesses by health services providers at specific locations. AHS responded to the applicant by stating that it did not have responsive records. It also explained that it could not create responsive records, given the nature of the database. The Adjudicator confirmed that AHS had met its duty to assist the applicant under the FOIP Act. The Adjudicator noted that the information in Netcare is health information subject to the Health Information Act (HIA). The FOIP Act excludes health information, such as that stored in Netcare, from its scope. Moreover, AHS lacked authority under HIA to access health information in Netcare for the purpose of responding to an access request. As the information requested could not be accessed under the FOIP Act, and as AHS lacked authority to access the requested information, the Adjudicator confirmed that AHS had met its duties in relation to the access request.
Copyright 2020 OIPC. All rights reserved.