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.
An individual made a complaint that the City of Edmonton contravened the FOIP Act by using and disclosing her personal information in the course of prosecuting a municipal bylaw offence. The Adjudicator found that the records related to an ongoing prosecution (section 4(1)(k)) at the time of the use and disclosure. Therefore, the FOIP Act did not apply and the Adjudicator did not have jurisdiction to review the use or disclosure.
On June 21, 2019, the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) requested authorization to disregard two access requests submitted by an applicant. EPS also requested authorization to disregard any subsequent related requests and to have a period of two years in which it does not have to respond to any access requests from the applicant. The Commissioner determined that EPS met its burden to prove that the applicant’s access requests were repetitious or systematic in nature and amounted to an abuse of the right to make the request. The Commissioner also authorized EPS to disregard future access requests of a similar type. However, the Commissioner did not authorize EPS to disregard all access requests from the applicant for the requested two years.
An individual complained that Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, during the course of ongoing litigation, obtained his credit report from Equifax, and filed the credit report in court as evidence in support of an application for security for future costs. The primary issue before the Adjudicator was whether the collection, use and disclosure of the credit report in the absence of the complainant’s consent was permitted by sections 14(d), 17(d), and 20(m) of PIPA (collection, use and disclosure that is reasonable for the purposes of an investigation or legal proceeding). The Adjudicator made several determinations. Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP was ordered to cease collecting, using, and disclosing personal information in contravention of PIPA, and to destroy the complainant’s personal information, with the exception of the copy of the credit report contained in the court file and any copy made from such a copy.
An individual made an access request to Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) for an electronic copy of the complete staff directory for AER, including job titles, phone numbers, email addresses and organization structure. AER located 61 pages of responsive records, but withheld all information citing sections 17(1) (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) and 29 (information that is or will be available to the public). During the inquiry, AER made a decision to also apply section 18(1) (disclosure harmful to individual or public safety) to the information in the records. The Adjudicator determined that sufficient information was provided to indicate the possibility that section 18(1) applies to information of particular employees. Sixteen employees provided submissions to this part of the inquiry. The Adjudicator reviewed the submissions of the individual employees, as well as submissions made by AER and the applicant. The Adjudicator found that several employees met the test for the application of section 18(1)(a), but most did not. The Adjudicator provided a list to AER of employees whose information must be disclosed to the applicant.
The Commissioner issued a statement in response to the launch of Alberta Health’s AB TraceTogether contact tracing application.
Information and Privacy Commissioner Jill Clayton issued a statement in response to the Government of Alberta’s announcement about its contact tracing application.
An applicant requested that the Commissioner review a fee estimate calculated by the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). The Adjudicator found that EPS had estimated the fees for searching for and retrieving responsive records appropriately. The Adjudicator determined that she did not have sufficient evidence to confirm the EPS’ estimate for photocopying costs, and asked EPS to review the costs it had estimated for leasing a photocopier.
An individual made a complaint that his electronic health record (EHR) may have been accessed by Alberta Health Services (AHS) without authority. The Adjudicator applied the principles set out by the Alberta Court of Appeal in JK v. Gowrishankar to section 27(1)(a) in HIA (use of health information for providing health services). The Adjudicator determined that using health information to provide a health service includes using that information to defend the provision of the health service in a subsequent proceeding (see paras. 16-53 for the rationale, application, and limits of this interpretation). The Adjudicator also determined that each affiliate of AHS complained about had authority to access the complainant’s health information in the EHR.
The Commissioner launched investigations into the Babylon by Telus Health virtual healthcare app. The investigations were opened after concerns were identified in separate privacy impact assessments that a Calgary-based physician and Babylon Health Canada Limited had submitted on the app.
An applicant requested records from the University of Calgary relating to a named professor. The University of Calgary declined to search for records stating that the records related to the professor's volunteer role with the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. The Adjudicator determined that the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench decision in University of Alberta v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2012 ABQB 247 (CanLII) was directly relevant in this case, and found that the University of Calgary does not have custody or control of the records at issue.
Copyright 2020 OIPC. All rights reserved.