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 for records relating to a complaint that he made to the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General which he had also copied to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal of Alberta. Alberta Justice and Solicitor General responded but withheld some records pursuant to three sections of the FOIP Act, including claims of privileged information. The applicant requested a review of the timeliness of Alberta Justice and Solicitor General's response, its search, and its use of the exclusions and exemptions applied. The Adjudicator found that Alberta Justice and Solicitor General did not meet its timelines set out in the FOIP Act. However, the Adjudicator determined Alberta Justice and Solicitor General performed an adequate search and properly withheld records in response to the request.
An individual made an access request to Alberta Justice and Solicitor General for a list of personnel, their titles and the organizational structure of the Civil Forfeiture Office. In its response, Alberta Justice and Solicitor General withheld information under two sections of the FOIP Act, and the applicant requested a review of the response. The Adjudicator determined information identifying the Civil Forfeiture Office employees was properly withheld as release of those records could threaten the safety or health of an individual. This includes withholding the names, email addresses and direct phone lines of those employees. The Adjudicator determined that the remaining information at issue could not be withheld under any exception applied by Alberta Justice and Solicitor General, as disclosure would not threaten the safety or health of an individual, facilitate the commission of an unlawful act, or harm the security of property or a system. The remaining information consisted of the organization structure of the Civil Forfeiture Office, including the number of employees and position titles.
The applicants made separate access requests to Alberta Justice and Solicitor General for all records containing information relating to the requests for proposals and agreements with respect to awarding a contract for external legal services related to the recovery of health care costs associated with tobacco under the Crown's Right of Recovery Act. Part of this inquiry has been dealt with in Decision F2014-D-03/Order F2014-50. Alberta Justice and Solicitor General filed a judicial review of that decision/order. On June 10, 2016, unexpectedly, counsel for Alberta Justice and Solicitor General provided a small package of documents (some of which were a small sample of the records at issue). The provision of the documents complied in part with the decision/order under judicial review. The documents were provided as a result of counsel receiving new instructions from Alberta Justice and Solicitor General following the same documents being provided to the Ethics Commissioner following the release of the Report on the Independent Review Conducted by the Honourable Frank Iacobucci. The correspondence from Alberta Justice and Solicitor General disclosed several factors it had considered in defining the scope of the records at issue, which appeared to be considerations not known to the applicants. An exchange of submissions took place with respect to the new information disclosed by Alberta Justice and Solicitor General, which resulted in the issue of the scope of the records being referred to another forum and being removed as an issue in this phase of the inquiry. The External Adjudicator provided instructions to the parties on November 16, 2016 with respect to the adjudication of the June 10, 2016 package of documents. This phase of the inquiry was restricted to the 35 pages of documents provided by Alberta Justice and Solicitor General on June 10, 2016, and were reviewed based on the four sections of the FOIP Act that Alberta Justice and Solicitor General relied on to withhold the records at issue. The External Adjudicator made several determinations. The External Adjudicator made an order for reconsideration ordering Alberta Justice and Solicitor General to make a new decision with respect to relying on the discretionary exception of advice from officials and to provide reasons as to how it applied its discretion. In addition, if Alberta Justice and Solicitor General's reconsideration resulted in a decision to release some or all of the records, for those pages where there was information that fell under the terms of the harm to business interests mandatory exception, the External Adjudicator ordered Alberta Justice and Solicitor General to give notice to third party(ies) to enable them to provide their consent to the release of the records or to request a review. Finally, with respect to the applicants' submissions that the public interest override ought to apply, the External Adjudicator held that the issue be postponed for consideration until the main inquiry when the remaining 2,570 records at issue will be reviewed.
The Criminal Trial Lawyers' Association requested information about an investigation conducted in relation to a member of the Edmonton Police Service. Other than portions of a disciplinary decision, the Edmonton Police Service severed information from more than 1,200 records under various provisions of the FOIP Act, including the section pertaining to privileged information. For the purpose of deciding this matter, the Adjudicator issued a notice to produce to the Edmonton Police Service for some of the records to which it had claimed solicitor-client privilege. The Edmonton Police Service sought a judicial review of the Adjudicator's notice to produce records. The Adjudicator completed the parts of the inquiry for which she had the evidence of the records and issued Order F2013-13. Following the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in relation in Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. University of Calgary,  2 SCR 555, the Edmonton Police Service proposed that the Adjudicator complete the outstanding issues in the inquiry and the Adjudicator rescinded the notice to produce. The Adjudicator determined that the records over which the Edmonton Police Service claimed solicitor-client privilege were either not privileged or had not been demonstrated to be privileged. In arriving at this decision, the Adjudicator also found that she had jurisdiction to decide the issue of whether the records were privileged, or not, and determined that making this decision was not an infringement of the Edmonton Police Service’s constitutional rights. The Adjudicator also made determinations on records withheld under other provisions of the FOIP Act.
The Criminal Trial Lawyers' Association requested information relating to an investigation into the findings of misconduct by a judge against a member (Officer A) of the Edmonton Police Service. The Edmonton Police Service granted access to two records, and denied access to the remaining 514 responsive records under various sections of the FOIP Act, including the provision related to privileged information. The Adjudicator made a number of determinations. Regarding the Edmonton Police Service's claim of privilege over the records, the Adjudicator did not support the claim over the records for two reasons. First, the Adjudicator found that the records the Edmonton Police Service described as a legal opinion were a decision by a Crown prosecutor regarding conducting a prosecution. The Adjudicator determined that a Crown prosecutor does not act as a solicitor when making decisions of this kind. Second, the Adjudicator found that records created by the Edmonton Police Service’s legal services area, and which contained a description of the Crown prosecutor’s decision, had been provided to Officer A, who was opposed in interest to the Edmonton Police Service in regard to the matter that was the subject of the records. The Adjudicator determined that any privilege attaching to the records created by the legal services area had been lost. The Adjudicator determined prosecutorial discretion applied to the Crown prosecutor’s decision and to references to this decision in the records created by the legal services area.
The applicant made an access request to Alberta Justice and Solicitor General for video surveillance of an incident that occurred on his unit at the Calgary Remand Centre. Alberta Justice and Solicitor General located 10 closed circuit televised videos (CCTV), but withheld them in their entirety by applying sections pertaining to disclosure harmful to personal privacy and to public safety. The Adjudicator determined certain videos were properly withheld. She ordered Alberta Justice and Solicitor General to provide the applicant and his counsel access to view five CCTV recordings at the public body's premises.
The applicant made an access request to Alberta Justice and Solicitor General on March 15, 2016. Alberta Justice and Solicitor General acknowledged it did not respond to the applicant within the time limit set out in the FOIP Act. The Adjudicator ordered Alberta Justice and Solicitor General to comply with the Act.
An individual complained that Harcourt Personnel Inc. collected, used and/or disclosed his personal information in contravention of PIPA when it received a copy of his Worker's Compensation Board (WCB) file and provided it to its lawyer and was subsequently used in an affidavit filed in a civil claim. The Adjudicator found that the organization had the authority to collect, use and/or disclose the information in the complainant's WCB file pursuant to various sections of PIPA.
The applicant made a correction request to Alberta Health Services (AHS). He requested chart notes from a particular unit be deleted, replaced or his statements of disagreement be appended in their totality. AHS refused the applicant's correction request because it believed the notes constituted a professional opinion or observation made by a health care provider. The Adjudicator found that AHS properly exercised its discretion not to make the applicant's correction request. Further, because the applicant requested a review by the OIPC, AHS was not obligated to append the applicant's statements of disagreement to the records.
An applicant made an access request to Alberta Labour on October 4, 2016. The applicant received a receipt of his request that same day. The applicant requested a review of the time taken by Alberta Labour to respond. The Adjudicator found that Alberta Labour failed to make every reasonable effort to respond within the timelines provided in the FOIP Act.
Copyright 2017 OIPC. All rights reserved.