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 applicant made three access requests to Covenant Health for her health records, as well as other records related to the standardized designated living option assessment process. The Adjudicator determined Covenant Health conducted an adequate search for records, and had no duty to create records the applicant felt Covenant Health ought to have or ought to create. The Adjudicator found that Covenant Health did not obtain agreement with the applicant to amalgamate the three requests. As a result, Covenant Health did not meet timelines in responding to the first request. Given that Covenant Health had provided all responsive records, there was nothing further to order.
On April 2, 2018, Calgary Police Service (CPS) requested authorization to disregard three access requests submitted by an applicant. The Commissioner determined that CPS met its burden to prove that the applicant’s access requests were systematic in nature and amount to an abuse of the right to make those access requests. Furthermore, considering the Court’s criteria for vexatious litigants, the applicant’s access requests were also determined to be vexatious. As a result, the Commissioner decided that CPS could disregard the three access requests. Although CPS did not specifically ask for authorization to disregard future access requests from the applicant, the Commissioner also decided that CPS could disregard future access requests from the applicant that relate to the issues for which the applicant has been making access requests to CPS since 2011.
An applicant requested records regarding NorQuest College's respectful workplace policy and a summary report that had been prepared by an investigator regarding the applicant's allegations of workplace bullying. NorQuest College severed most of the information in the records citing disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17(1) of the FOIP Act) and advice from officials (section 24). The Adjudicator found that NorQuest College had not demonstrated that it had applied section 17(1) properly and ordered it to make a new decision. In relation to NorQuest College's application of section 24(1), the Adjudicator found that it had applied this provision to information that was subject to section 24(2)(b). If a provision of section 24(2) applies to information, then section 24(1) cannot apply to it. The Adjudicator confirmed that some information was appropriately severed under section 24(1), but directed NorQuest College to disclose the remaining information to the applicant, subject to the order to make a new determination under section 17(1).
An applicant requested records related to communication between himself and staff of Edmonton Public School District No. 7 (school district). The school district responded to the access request. It provided some responsive information, but applied sections 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), 20 (disclosure harmful to law enforcement), 24(1)(b) (advice from officials) and 27 (privileged information) to sever information from the records. It also withheld information from the applicant as non-responsive. The applicant requested review of the school district's severing decisions with regard to section 24(1)(b). The Adjudicator confirmed the school district's decision to sever the information to which it had applied section 24(1)(b).
Individuals complained that NAL Resources Management Ltd. contravened PIPA when it instituted a policy that required contractors, such as the complainants, to have a GPS tracking device installed on their vehicles. The Adjudicator found that the information collected by the GPS tracking device was personal employee information within the terms of PIPA, as the organization collected and used it for the purpose of managing the employment relationship. The Adjudicator confirmed that the organization was not in contravention of PIPA.
On February 16, 2016, the applicant made an access request to Alberta Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG did not respond to the applicant. The Adjudicator directed JSG to respond.
An individual made an access request to the County of Two Hills No. 21 for records related to expense claims made by county council members from a specified period of time. The county provided the applicant with a fee estimate in the amount of $1,000. The applicant requested that the county waive the fee on the basis that the records were in the public interest. The county declined to waive the fee. The Applicant paid the fee but requested a review of the county’s decision. The Adjudicator found the county failed to substantiate that the $0.25 per page that it charged to the applicant for photocopying did not exceed the county’s actual costs as required by the FOIP Act. The county also did not provide sufficient information or evidence on how it calculated the estimated or actual cost of any of the additional items it charged the applicant for. As a result, the Adjudicator ordered the county to refund all fees that were paid by the applicant. Consequently, it was not necessary for the Adjudicator to determine whether payment of any of the fee should be refunded on the basis that the records related to a matter of public interest.
An applicant requested records related to all retreats and/or meetings attended by principals of Edmonton Catholic School District No. 7 that took place outside of Edmonton. A similar request for records regarding retreats or meetings attended by teachers was also made. The school district responded by providing a summary it had created for the purpose of responding to the access request. The Adjudicator found that manually creating a summary of information to respond to the access request was not a response contemplated by the FOIP Act. As a result, the Adjudicator found that the school district had not responded to the applicant. She directed the school district to respond to the applicant.
An individual complained that the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) disclosed his personal information in contravention of the FOIP Act when it sent his medical information and its reasons for refusing his claim to the company that employed him. The complainant also claimed that the information was subsequently disclosed to various people within WCB. The Adjudicator found that the disclosure was not authorized by a FOIP Act provision pertaining to disclosure of personal information (section 40(1)). She directed WCB not to disclose the complainant’s personal information in contravention of the FOIP Act in the future.
An individual complained that Servus Credit Union Ltd. disclosed his personal information, which was contained in a form entitled Personal Financial Statement, to his ex-wife, without the complainant's consent. The Adjudicator found that there was insufficient evidence to find that the information was disclosed by the organization.
Copyright 2019 OIPC. All rights reserved.