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.
This investigation was opened after the OIPC received a breach report that alleged unauthorized accesses and disclosures of health information at Consort and District Medical Society Clinic. The investigation found that certain employees accessed, used and disclosed health information in contravention of HIA. The investigation also found that the custodian failed to implement administrative safeguards and did not adhere to technical safeguards. There were four recommendations made, based on the findings.
An applicant requested personal information from the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (RM of Wood Buffalo), including communications with the Workers' Compensation Board and various departments involved in the accommodation process. The applicant requested a review of the RM of Wood Buffalo's fees and adequacy of search in responding to the access request. The Adjudicator found that the RM of Wood Buffalo performed an adequate search, with the exception of the search performed by an employee identified by the applicant as possibly having records. The Adjudicator also found that the RM of Wood Buffalo failed to substantiate that the $0.25 per page for photocopying that it charged to the applicant did not exceed the RM of Wood Buffalo’s actual costs, as required by the FOIP Act. The Adjudicator therefore ordered a refund of some of the fees.
An applicant requested records from Alberta Infrastructure related to a purchase of land by a third party, and records related to communications between Alberta Infrastructure and the applicant related to a specified project. Alberta Infrastructure provided responsive records with information withheld under sections pertaining to records to which the FOIP Act applies (section 4), disclosure harmful to business interests (section 16(1)), disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17(1)), advice to officials (section 24), disclosure harmful to economic and other interests of a public body (section 25(1)) and privileged information (section 27). Other information was withheld as non-responsive. The Adjudicator made several findings related to Alberta Infrastructure's application of sections 4, 16(1), 17(1), 24(1) and 27, and its characterization of records as non-responsive. Alberta Infrastructure withdrew its application of section 25 in the course of the inquiry.
An applicant requested an in-car digital video system recording for a specified period of time from the Calgary Police Service (CPS). CPS discovered the camera installed in the relevant police vehicle was non-operational. The Adjudicator determined that CPS had met its duty to assist the applicant.
An individual submitted a complaint that the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) disclosed without authorization details of a previous WCB injury claim to the physician she had seen regarding the new injury. The Adjudicator accepted WCB's argument that the information about the previous claim was relevant to the complainant's recent claim. The Adjudicator determined that WCB had authority to disclose the complainant's personal information regarding her prior claim to the physician under the FOIP Act (section 40(1)(l)).
On October 3, 2017, an applicant made an access request to Alberta Health. The Adjudicator found that Alberta Health failed to make every reasonable effort to respond within the timelines provided in the FOIP Act. Alberta Health was ordered to respond to the applicant.
This order is a reconsideration of Order F2013-47. On judicial review of that order, the Court of Queen’s Bench held that parts of the order by which the previous Adjudicator reasoned that the records did not meet the terms of disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party (section 16(1)(b)) were unreasonable. The court remitted the matter for reconsideration as to whether the withheld records meet the criteria of sections 16(1)(b) and 16(1)(c) of the FOIP Act. In this inquiry, heard by a different Adjudicator, Alberta Health provided further information about the records, including that some of them were already in the public realm. It also took the position for some of the records that Alberta Health rather than Alberta Blue Cross had been the source of the information contained in them. Based largely on the information provided by Alberta Health, the Adjudicator held she was unable to find that the records meet the criteria of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. In relation to the remaining records, the Adjudicator accepted, or in some cases assumed, that the criteria of section 16(1)(b) are met. However, the Adjudicator concluded that neither Alberta Blue Cross nor Alberta Health had established that any of the records meet the harms test set out in section 16(1)(c). The Adjudicator ordered that all the records be disclosed to the applicant.
On December 21, 2017, an applicant made an access request to Alberta Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). The Adjudicator found that JSG failed to make every reasonable effort to respond within the timelines provided in the FOIP Act. JSG was ordered to respond to the applicant.
On September 13, 2018, an applicant made an access request to Alberta Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). The Adjudicator found that JSG failed to make every reasonable effort to respond within the timelines provided in the FOIP Act. JSG was ordered to respond to the applicant.
On August 15, 2018, an applicant made an access request to Service Alberta. The Adjudicator found that Service Alberta failed to make every reasonable effort to respond within the timelines provided in the FOIP Act. Service Alberta was ordered to respond to the applicant.
Copyright 2019 OIPC. All rights reserved.