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 complaint that the Grosvenor House Condominium Plan 772-2911 (organization) contravened PIPA when it posted a notice on a bulletin board inside the entrance of the condo complex where the complainant lived, that said he was in condo fee arrears. The organization posted the notice on a bulletin board in the entry way of the condo complex as the complainant had not paid his condo fees for several months. The Adjudicator determined that the organization did not have authority to disclose the complainant’s personal information without consent. The Adjudicator did not accept that the disclosure was necessary for the organization to collect the debt, because the complainant was already made aware that the fees were owed and so the disclosure could not be said to address the reasons for which the fees were unpaid. The Adjudicator also rejected the argument that the complainant was deemed to have consented to the disclosure because other condo owners had access to information showing the complainant owed fees.
The applicant made an access request to Health for studies, reports, statistics or other relevant information used to drive the decision to make mask wearing mandatory for children in school settings. Health did not respond to the access request within time limits set out in FOIP. The Adjudicator ordered Health to respond to the access request.
An individual made a complaint alleging the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA) collected, used and disclosed his personal information in contravention of PIPA. He also alleged that CPSA collected patient information without authority. The Adjudicator found it was unclear that the billing codes used by the complainant to bill for services constitute his personal information; however, if it is, the collection and use of that information was authorized. The Adjudicator made the same finding regarding a consultation letter authored by the complainant. The Adjudicator found that information about complaints made about the complainant to CPSA constitute the complainant’s personal information. However, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that CPSA disclosed this information. The Adjudicator found that CPSA was authorized to collect medical information of the complainant’s patients, for the purpose of conducting an investigation.
An applicant made a request to Environment and Parks (EP) for records relating to the capture of wild horses under the Stray Animals Act. EP responded to the request, stating that it did not locate any responsive records. In Order F2021-21, the Adjudicator directed EP to provide additional details regarding its search for records. EP conducted a new search for records, and provided a new response to the applicant. The applicant requested a review of the new response. The Adjudicator determined that EP met its duty to assist the applicant.
An individual made a complaint that the City of Calgary failed to take reasonable steps to determine the accuracy of a third party statement, alleging that the complainant threatened to kill the third party and her dog. The complainant also alleged that the city contravened the FOIP Act when it disclosed the statement to numerous employees. The Adjudicator found that the city was permitted to disclose the complainant's personal information to some, but not all, of the employees to whom the information had been disclosed under section 40(1)(h). The Adjudicator found that section 35(a) did not apply in this case, since the city had not used and had not retained to use the complainant’s personal information to make a decision directly affecting him. The Adjudicator ordered the city to cease disclosing the complainant’s personal information to employees to whom it was not permitted to disclose it.
On May 17, 2018, an applicant made an access request to Health. The applicant asked for the request to remain in effect for two years with a quarterly schedule of record disclosures. On March 24, 2021, the applicant requested a review, indicating that the time limit for responding to his request under the FOIP Act for four disclosure packages had expired and he had not received a response from Health. The Adjudicator found that Health did not comply with section 11 of the FOIP Act, and ordered Health to respond to the applicant.
On April 6, 2020, an applicant made an access request to Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond within the time limits set out in the FOIP Act. The Adjudicator ordered JSG to respond to the applicant.
The OIPC issued an order to Clearview AI. The order requires Clearview to cease offering all of the facial recognition services that have been the subject of this investigation to clients in Alberta; cease the collection, use and disclosure of images and biometric facial arrays collected from individuals in Alberta; and delete images and biometric facial arrays that have been collected from individuals in Alberta and that are in its possession. Clearview has 50 days to report to the Commissioner on the good faith steps that it has taken to comply with the order.
Clearview AI, Inc. was ordered to comply with PIPA after it refused to implement recommendations in Investigation Report P2021-IR-01. Clearview AI was ordered to cease offering all of the facial recognition services that have been the subject of this investigation to clients in Alberta; cease the collection, use and disclosure of images and biometric facial arrays collected from individuals in Alberta; and delete images and biometric facial arrays that have been collected from individuals in Alberta and that are in its possession.
An applicant made an access request to Alberta Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) on March 14, 2017. JSG acknowledged the request, and provided a fee estimate. The applicant requested a fee waiver from JSG. JSG denied the fee waiver request, and the applicant asked for an inquiry regarding that decision. That inquiry concluded in August 2020 (Order F2020-24). After Order F2020-24 was issued, JSG restarted processing the applicant’s request. It extended its time to respond to the applicant by 30 days, under section 14(1)(b) of the FOIP Act. The applicant requested a review of this extension, and subsequently an inquiry. Following its 30-day extension, JSG requested and received two further time extensions from the OIPC. The last extension expired in August 2021. On August 9, 2021, JSG requested a further extension of 90 days. The Commissioner denied this request. As such, and because JSG has not yet responded to the applicant, the Commissioner decided to hold an inquiry into JSG’s failure to respond to the applicant’s request. The Adjudicator ordered JSG to respond to the Applicant’s access request as required by the FOIP Act.
Copyright 2022 OIPC. All rights reserved.