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.
The applicant made a request to Alberta Health for all records related to a new laboratory model as referenced in a media article by the Minister of Health. The request was submitted on October 20, 2016. Alberta Health did not respond to the access request. Alberta Health indicated that its FOIP Office had inadequate staff and experience to be able to respond to the request before August 31, 2018. Alberta Health asked that an order not be made, as it believed this would mean that it would take longer to respond to the access requests from other requestors that it had received prior to the applicant's access request. The Adjudicator noted that the duty to make reasonable efforts to respond to an applicant lies with the head of a public body, in this case, the Minister of Health, rather than a FOIP Office. The Adjudicator required the Minister of Health to comply with the duty to make all reasonable efforts to respond to the applicant's access request. The Adjudicator also outlined examples of reasonable efforts in this case. Finally, the Adjudicator noted that Alberta Health had engaged in a late consultation process, and that it had not obtained the Commissioner's approval to extend the time for responding to engage in consultation.
The applicant made an access request to Alberta Human Services (now Alberta Community and Social Services) for all guidelines and policies for determining funding for Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped and Persons with Development Disabilities. The request was submitted on October 11, 2016. The public body acknowledged that it had received the access request and estimated a $250 fee for processing the request. On November 22, 2016, the applicant requested a fee waiver claiming the records related to a matter of public interest. On December 20, 2016, the public body granted the fee waiver. Among other developments, the Commissioner granted the public body an extension to the time for responding to the access request to March 27, 2017. However, the applicant did not receive a response to the access request. On September 13, 2017, the applicant requested a review by the Commissioner of the public body's failure to respond to the access request. The Adjudicator ordered Alberta Community and Social Services to respond to the access request.
Alberta Justice and Solicitor General submitted three requests to disregard a total of 13 access requests received from an individual between August 9, 2017 and November 8, 2017. The public body was authorized to disregard parts of or in their entirety four of the 13 access requests. The Commissioner did not authorize Alberta Justice and Solicitor General to disregard the remaining access requests of the applicant.
The applicant’s sister died suddenly while on a day trip with her caregivers. Representatives of the fire department came to the scene to supply emergency medical services. The applicant sought information regarding the circumstances of her sister’s death from the City of Edmonton. The city provided a copy of the requested report but severed the cell phone number of a person who had called 911, claiming disclosure is harmful to personal privacy. The Adjudicator found that there was insufficient information to determine that the cell phone number was personal information. The Adjudicator ordered the city to reconsider its decision to withhold the cell phone number by taking into account evidence that would enable it to determine whether the cell phone number was personal information.
The applicant made an access request to Alberta Justice and Solicitor General for records containing information that would assist her to understand the circumstances of her sister's death. Alberta Justice and Solicitor General provided records, but severed the name of its employees, the name of an apartment building, and the personal information of the Applicant’s sister from the records. The public body subsequently reconsidered its decision and provided some of the names of its employees, and also provided information about the applicant’s sister. However, it continued to sever the name of the sister from the records. The Adjudicator determined that the information about employees acting in a representative capacity was not personal information as it lacked a personal dimension. The apartment number was also determined not to be personal information. The Adjudicator concluded that the name of the applicant's sister was personal information and subject to a presumption that it would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy if the name were disclosed. However, the applicant's sister's name was inferable from the records and disclosure of the name would serve the compassionate purpose of enabling the applicant to understand the circumstances of her death. The Adjudicator ordered the disclosure of the records.
The applicant's sister died suddenly while on a day trip with support workers. The applicant made an access request to Alberta Health Services (AHS) for a copy of the 911 call that was made by a support worker during the trip. AHS provided a copy of the requested 911 call, but severed the cell phone number of a person who had called 911, claiming disclosure is harmful to personal privacy. The Adjudicator found that she had insufficient information to determine that the cell phone number was personal information. The Adjudicator ordered AHS to reconsider its decision to withhold the cell phone number by taking into account evidence that would enable it to determine whether the cell phone number was likely to be personal information.
The applicant requested their employment file from Alberta Treasury Board and Finance, and all information pertaining to pay and benefits from 1999 to the current date. The Adjudicator found that the public body did not respond to the applicant within the time limit set out in the FOIP Act, but responded to the applicant during the inquiry.
An individual complained that a detective of the Calgary Police Service had accessed his credit information from a credit reporting service in violation of the FOIP Act. The Adjudicator found that this collection of personal information was authorized by the FOIP Act as the collection was made for the purpose of law enforcement. She also found that the collection was expressly authorized by the Consumer Protection Act. The Adjudicator also found that the Calgary Police Service was not required by the FOIP Act to collect the credit information directly from the individual given that it was collected for a law enforcement purpose.
The applicant made an access request to Kroll Associates for records related to an investigation the organization conducted on behalf of the University of Calgary. The Commissioner identified a jurisdictional issue regarding whether the FOIP Act or PIPA applied to the records requested by the applicant. The Commissioner decided to hold an inquiry on the jurisdictional issue as a preliminary step for deciding whether to conduct an inquiry. The Adjudicator determined that any responsive records would be under the control of the university by virtue of a contract between it and the organization. As the applicant had previously made an access request to the university for records related to the investigation (Order F2003-005), the Adjudicator surmised that another access request would be unlikely to yield the records sought by the applicant. The Adjudicator noted that the applicant had come to a similar conclusion.
An applicant made an access request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) on September 13, 2017. CPS acknowledged receipt of the request but did not respond to the request within the time limit set out in the FOIP Act. CPS was ordered to respond to applicant's access request.
Copyright 2018 OIPC. All rights reserved.