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.
A lab assistant with Calgary Laboratory Services (CLS) pleaded guilty to and was fined $3,500 for accessing health information in violation of the Health Information Act (HIA) on January 15, 2019. The lab assistant was found to have inappropriately accessed the health records of 11 Albertans between July 18, 2016 and September 5, 2017.
An individual requested a correction to his personal information in a document related to an ongoing claim with the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB). The Adjudicator determined that WCB met its duty to make every reasonable effort to ensure the personal information was accurate and complete (section 35(a) of the FOIP Act). The Adjudicator also found that WCB responded properly to the applicant's request for correction of his personal information (section 36 of the FOIP Act).
An individual complained that a consultation request (a summary of the complainant's file) created by the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) and provided to a doctor contained inaccurate and irrelevant information. The consultation request was for the purpose of requesting an independent examination file review from a doctor. The individual also complained that it was inappropriate to provide a summary where this could have the effect that the requested file review report would not be based on a complete file review. The Adjudicator determined that WCB had authority to disclose the complainant's personal information to the doctor, and that it did not fail to ensure the accuracy and completeness of information as required by the FOIP Act (section 35(a)).
On October 1, 2018, an applicant made an access request to Alberta Health. The applicant requested a review of the time taken by Alberta Health to respond. The Adjudicator found that Alberta Health failed to make every reasonable effort to respond within the timelines provided in the FOIP Act. However, Alberta Health responded to the applicant's access request during the inquiry.
An applicant requested access to his deceased mother's health information from Alberta Health Services (AHS) in his capacity as the executor of her estate. The applicant provided descriptions of particular categories of records he was seeking from specific employees and assigned item numbers to these categories. With regard to two categories of records, AHS indicated that it considered the applicant did not have authority to request his mother's records and, even if he did, that the records were unnecessary for administering his mother's estate. The Adjudicator determined that the applicant, as the executor of his mother's will, was authorized to make an access request for the purpose of administering his mother's estate. The Adjudicator found that the access request, which had been made for the purpose of determining whether to bring legal action, had been made for the purpose of administering his mother's estate.
Data Privacy Day is an internationally recognized event dedicated to the protection of personal information. This morning forum in Edmonton focuses on mandatory breach reporting and smart cities.
Data Privacy Day is an internationally recognized event dedicated to the protection of personal information. This morning forum in Calgary focuses on smart cities and mandatory breach reporting under the Health Information Act.
The applicant requested and was given a meeting with the Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent of Peace River School Division No. 10 on September 4, 2013 to discuss her concerns. The applicant indicated she brought and left nine pages of notes on the table. The applicant subsequently made an access request on June 12, 2015 for any records or information that was used and given to a lawyer with the Alberta School Boards Association to write a response to the applicant's human rights complaint, including the information she provided to the Superintendent during the meeting on September 4, 2013. The school division withheld some information on the basis of solicitor-client privilege. It did not locate the notes the applicant indicated she had left on the table. The Adjudicator determined the school division met its duty to assist the applicant and was authorized to sever privileged information (section 27(1)(a) of the FOIP Act).
An individual made a complaint to the Commissioner that Maxim Research and Consulting Corporation Ltd. (Maxim) had collected, used and disclosed information about her employment history, as well as her motor vehicle registration and credit report information without her consent and in contravention of PIPA. She also complained that Maxim had provided this information to a law firm, which then collected and used the information in order to include it in an affidavit sworn by her spouse's former wife and filed in legal proceedings by the law firm. The Adjudicator found the collection, use and/or disclosure of the individual's personal information by Maxim and the law firm were reasonable for purposes of legal proceedings. As a result, the organizations did not require the individual's consent under PIPA. The Adjudicator also determined that section 4 of PIPA applied to the law firm's act of submitting the personal information into court, which meant that PIPA did not apply to that extent.
The applicant requested records from the Edmonton Police Commission related to a former employee. There were five categories of records requested. For two categories, the commission located 46 responsive records. It provided one record in its entirety, but severed the remaining records citing disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17). The commission refused to confirm or deny the existence of records for the remaining three categories of records (section 12(2)). The Adjudicator confirmed the decisions of the commission.
Copyright 2019 OIPC. All rights reserved.