OIPC Logo
  • Contact Us
  • Site Map
  • Privacy Policy

What's New

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.

Order F2018-24: Alberta Human Rights Commission
June 13, 2018

The applicant made an access request to the Alberta Human Rights Commission for records containing information about a human rights complaint she had made against the University of Calgary. Related to this order, on December 13, 2013, the OIPC issued Order F2013-51. That order directed the Alberta Human Rights Commission to disclose further information and to reconsider its reliance on the section pertaining to disclosure harmful to personal privacy. It was unclear whether the severed information was about an identifiable individual in some cases, or was about an individual acting in a personal capacity. The Alberta Human Rights Commission provided additional records, but it continued to rely on the section pertaining to disclosure harmful to personal privacy to withhold some information in the records from the applicant. The applicant requested a review of the Alberta Human Rights Commission's decision on the basis that it had not complied with Order F2013-51. The Alberta Human Rights Commission did not provide additional information during this inquiry. In the absence of additional evidence establishing context, the Adjudicator was bound by the decision in Order F2013-51 that it was not possible to determine whether the information in the records had a personal dimension. The Adjudicator ordered the Alberta Human Rights Commission to disclose the records to the Applicant, with the exception of contact information which the applicant had clarified she was not seeking.

Order F2018-23: Edmonton Police Service
June 8, 2018

An applicant made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service on February 19, 2018 for an audit log of who accessed his information and when it was accessed in information systems available to the Edmonton Police Service during a specified time period. The applicant requested a review of the time taken for the Edmonton Police Service to respond. The Edmonton Police Service responded during the inquiry. The Adjudicator found that the Edmonton Police Service did not respond to the applicant within the time limit set out in the FOIP Act.

Order F2018-22: Alberta Justice and Solicitor General
May 31, 2018

An applicant made an access request on July 9, 2015 to Alberta Justice and Solicitor General. The applicant requested a review of the time taken by Alberta Justice and Solicitor General to respond. Alberta Justice and Solicitor General acknowledged that it did not comply with the FOIP Act. The Adjudicator ordered Alberta Justice and Solicitor General to respond to the applicant in accordance with its remaining duties under the FOIP Act.

News Release: Mandatory Breach Reporting Coming to Health Sector
May 24, 2018

Alberta’s health custodians will soon be required to notify Albertans whose health information has been subject to a privacy breach. The mandatory breach reporting requirements under the Health Information Act come into force on August 31, 2018. “This is good news for the privacy of Albertans. I’m pleased that individuals affected by a health information breach will now have the right to be notified, which will bring Alberta in line with a majority of Canadian provinces and territories,” said Information and Privacy Commissioner Jill Clayton. “Health information is among the most sensitive of personal details anyone can share. When health information is breached, it’s important that people know so that they can take steps to protect themselves from potential harm.”

Order F2018-18: Alberta Labour
May 23, 2018

The applicant made an access request from Alberta Labour for records that documented his dealings with Alberta Labour over a specified period of time. Alberta Labour provided some records to the applicant, but withheld others. Much of the withheld information had already been dealt with in earlier orders and directions to Alberta Labour. In the most recent order, Order F2017-65, the Adjudicator concluded that many of the records contained information which Alberta Labour used to make decisions, and on this account they fell under the section pertaining to advice from officials. However, the Adjudicator asked Alberta Labour to take into account in exercising its discretion that some of the emails conveyed information about events in which the applicant was involved and of which he would be aware, and therefore, it was not clear what interest recognized in the FOIP Act would be served by withholding them. Alberta Labour, however, continued to withhold the emails, and said that it believes the emails are subject to solicitor-client privilege. The applicant asked for a review of this decision. The Adjudicator agreed with Alberta Labour's decision to withhold the emails on the basis that the information was covered by solicitor-client privilege, both where the information was in itself part of a communication involving a request for legal advice, and also where disclosure of the information at issue would reveal information that was privileged in the context of other communications.

Order F2018-21: Alberta Environment and Parks
May 23, 2018

The applicant requested from Alberta Environment and Parks information concerning the eligibility of groups or individuals to appear at hearings of the Alberta Energy Regulator. Alberta Environment and Parks responded but withheld some information citing sections related to advice from officials and privileged information. Given the recent Court of Appeal decision, Calgary (Police Service) v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2018 ABCA 114 (Order F2016-35), the Adjudicator decided to hold this inquiry in two parts. This is the order for the second part of the inquiry, which deals with the records to which the section related to privileged information was applied. In this order, the Adjudicator found that Alberta Environment and Parks properly applied a privileged information exception to certain pages of the records at issue, but did not meet its burden to show that it properly claimed solicitor-client privilege and another privileged information exception to other pages of the records at issue.

Order F2018-19: Alberta Agriculture and Forestry
May 14, 2018

The applicant requested from Alberta Agriculture and Forestry information related to a report on caribou recovery and caribou range plans between a specified timeframe. Alberta Agriculture and Forestry extended the time for responding to the applicant, but did not respond to the applicant. The Adjudicator ordered Alberta Agriculture and Forestry to respond to the applicant.

Order F2018-20: Alberta Environment and Parks
May 14, 2018

The applicant requested from Alberta Environment and Parks information concerning the eligibility of groups or individuals to appear at hearings of the Alberta Energy Regulator. Alberta Environment and Parks responded but withheld some information citing sections related to advice from officials and privileged information. Given the recent Court of Appeal decision, Calgary (Police Service) v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2018 ABCA 114 (Order F2016-35), the Adjudicator decided to hold this inquiry in two parts. This is the order for the first part of the inquiry, which deals with the records to which the section related to advice from officials was applied. In this order, the Adjudicator found that Alberta Environment and Parks properly applied the advice from officials exceptions to the records at issue.

Order F2018-14: City of Calgary
May 10, 2018

The applicant requested copies of two reports created for the City of Calgary by an outside consultant in 2014. The records at issue consisted of a document described by the City of Calgary as a legal opinion (pages 1-22) and a Whistleblower Investigative Report (pages 23-32). The City of Calgary refused to disclose the reports citing sections related to invasion of third party privacy, confidential source of law enforcement information and privileged information. Prior to the start of this inquiry that was requested by the applicant, the City of Calgary also applied sections related to local public body confidences and advice from officials to the whistleblower report. The Adjudicator upheld the City of Calgary's claim of solicitor-client privilege. The City of Calgary submitted two in camera affidavits sworn by individuals with direct knowledge of the legal opinion (pages 1-22). The Adjudicator noted it was helpful that the City of Calgary provided sworn statements from individuals with direct knowledge of the records, especially the source of the claimed legal advice, to satisfy the Adjudicator that pages 1-22 of the records at issue were a legal opinion subject to solicitor-client privilege. The Adjudicator did not, however, accept the City of Calgary's claim of public interest privilege over any of the information in the whistleblower report. The Adjudicator determined that local public body confidences did not apply to any of the information in the records at issue, as it did not reveal the substance of in camera deliberations of the Calgary City Council. While the whistleblower report appeared to have been discussed by city council, revealing only the subject matter of a discussion is not the same as revealing the substance of the discussion. The Adjudicator found that the City of Calgary properly withheld some advice from officials but did not apply to background facts. The Adjudicator determined that the section pertaining to invasion of third party privacy required the City of Calgary to withhold information of subjects of the investigations, complainants and witnesses. Finally, the Adjudicator determined that the information that could reveal a confidential source of law enforcement information was properly withheld as an invasion of third party privacy. The Adjudicator ordered the City of Calgary to disclose some additional information in the whistleblower report to the applicant. A correction was made to and issued on this order on May 9, 2018.

Order F2018-17: Alberta Culture and Tourism
May 8, 2018

The applicant requested from Alberta Culture and Tourism correspondence records during a specified period of time between the Minister of Culture and Tourism and the Jubilee Auditoria of Alberta, Jubilee Society, Jubilee Auditoria Society Board, Occupational Health and Safety and/or a named individual relating to the Falun Dafa Association, Shen Yun, and/or safety nets located on top of orchestra pit. Alberta Culture and Tourism extended the time for responding twice. It then indicated that it would grant partial access. The Adjudicator noted that Alberta Culture and Tourism did not explain why only partial access was being granted, what it meant by partial access or what the section numbers were for the exceptions to access being applied to the information at issue. Alberta Culture and Tourism stated that it intended to respond on April 27, 2018. However, it did not notify the Adjudicator whether it had complied with its duties to respond on that date. The Adjudicator ordered Alberta Culture and Tourism to meet its duties under the FOIP Act to the applicant.

Page: of 31