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 City of Grande Prairie had a bylaw requiring owners of tattoo parlours to provide a physician's certificate and a criminal record check before a business licence was issued. The complainant had complied with these requirements before, but refused to do so in 2016. The Adjudicator found the FOIP Act did not apply to the complaint because complaints can only be brought when information is collected. The Adjudicator commented that the City of Grande Prairie's pre-2016 collection of the complainant's personal information was in compliance with the FOIP Act because it was authorized by a bylaw. The Adjudicator also commended the City of Grande Prairie on its review of the requirements of the bylaw regulations.
An applicant made an access request to Alberta Justice and Solicitor General on April 26, 2016. Alberta Justice and Solicitor General acknowledged receipt of the request but did not respond to the applicant as required under the FOIP Act. The Adjudicator ordered Alberta Justice and Solicitor General to respond to the applicant's access request.
An applicant made an access request to the Calgary Police Service related to a book entitled The Wolf and the Sheepdog. The applicant asked for records containing information that would answer the question of whether it had taken any steps regarding the book. The applicant provided his grounds for believing that the book was authored by a member of the Calgary Police Service. The Calgary Police Service refused to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records on the basis that doing so would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party's personal privacy. The Adjudicator ordered Calgary Police Service to respond to the applicant's request without relying on section 12(2), which allows a public body to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records on the basis that doing so would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party's personal privacy.
The complainant asserts the University of Calgary failed to comply with provisions of the FOIP Act. Correspondence was sent by the University of Calgary to incomplete or incorrect addresses. A provision related to accuracy and retention of personal information did not apply. However, the Adjudicator was not convinced the University of Calgary had met its obligations to protect personal information. The University of Calgary was ordered to implement policies establishing management of risk of disclosure of personal information when addressing mail.
An individual requested from Alberta Justice and Solicitor General all records relating to the investigation and prosecution of a complaint she had made against an individual, which ultimately resulted in his pleading guilty to a criminal offence. Alberta Justice and Solicitor General located 769 pages of responsive records and several DVDs, but severed much of the information under sections related to records to which the FOIP Act does not apply, disclosure harmful to personal privacy, disclosure harmful to law enforcement, disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations and privileged information. The Adjudicator dealt with part one of the inquiry in Order F2016-31. Part two of the inquiry resulted in this order in which the Adjudicator made a number of additional determinations.
A laptop was stolen from an employee of the organization. The personal information of the complainant and other individuals was stored in the laptop. The Adjudicator found that at the time of the theft, the organization had not been in compliance with provisions on the protection of information and retention and destruction of information under PIPA. The organization revised its policies regarding security measures to prevent risk of loss of personal information and retention of personal information. The Adjudicator found these revised policies were in compliance with PIPA. The organization was ordered to destroy the complainant's personal information.
On May 12, 2017, the Commissioner presented to the Alberta Education Curriculum Review Working Groups about embedding the education of privacy within Alberta's curriculum.
An applicant made an access request in June 2016. Treasury Board and Finance acknowledged receipt of the request, but did not respond to the request. The Adjudicator found that Treasury Board and Finance failed to make every reasonable effort to respond within the timelines provided in the FOIP Act. However, Treasury Board and Finance did respond to the applicant during the inquiry.
The applicant made an access to Alberta Justice and Solicitor General, but did not receive a response to the request. The Adjudicator found that Alberta Justice and Solicitor did not respond to the applicant within the time limit set out in the FOIP Act. Therefore, the Adjudicator ordered them to respond to request.
An individual complained that the Peace River School Division relied on inaccurate or incomplete personal information when deciding not to hire her for a position, because it determined the complainant's references were not supportive of hiring her for the position she had applied for. The Adjudicator found that the information the Peace River School Division relied on was accurate and complete.
Copyright 2017 OIPC. All rights reserved.