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 complained that Peace River School Division No. 10 indirectly collected, used and disclosed their personal information contrary to the FOIP Act. The Adjudicator made several determinations regarding the collection, use and disclosure of the individual's personal information, and concluded that the school division complied with the FOIP Act.
An individual made a complaint that The Co-operators Group Limited had required him to provide a power of attorney when he attempted to cancel a motor vehicle insurance policy belonging to an ill family member. The organization rejected a power of attorney letter from the family member's doctor submitted by the complainant. The Adjudicator determined that the organization had required the power of attorney to satisfy itself that the complainant had standing to alter terms of a contract of insurance between the organization and an insured. It was determined that the organization had not collected more information than was necessary. The Adjudicator also determined that the organization did not need to obtain consent, as it was clearly in the best interests of the insured that the organization be satisfied that the complainant had the legal authority to make changes to the contract on behalf of the insured.
The OIPC's Annual Report 2018-19 summarized certain access and privacy trends and issues, including health information breaches, the importance of records management to the right of access to information and smart cities. The By the Numbers section showed that it was another record breaking year for cases opened and closed by the OIPC, especially breach reports. Annual Report 2018-19 was tabled in the legislature on November 19, 2019.
This addendum to the OIPC's Annual Report 2018-19 lists all privacy impact assessments (PIAs) accepted during the fiscal year. Statistics are for the period April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019. In total, there were 645 accepted PIAs during the reporting period, of which 99% (637) were from health custodians under HIA. PIAs are required to be submitted by health custodians for review and comment under section 64 of HIA.
This investigation was opened after Alberta Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) submitted three section 55 applications to disregard five access requests. All of the requests were for closed circuit television recordings at the Calgary Remand Centre. In its section 55 applications, JSG requested that the Commissioner advise them to secure the responsive video records if they were to be preserved. Upon discovering those statements, the Commissioner requested JSG to confirm whether it had preserved the responsive records. JSG informed the Commissioner that all responsive records had been overwritten. The Commissioner initiated this investigation in response. The investigation resulted in four findings and 10 recommendations.
An individual made an access request to Worley Parsons Canada for his personal file, in addition to other records regarding his insurance claim, and information documenting a litigation hold. The organization provided the applicant with his personal file and other information about his insurance claims. However, it refused to provide references contained in his personal file, draft calculations and information regarding documenting a litigation hold, on the basis that such information was outside the scope of PIPA. In his submissions for the inquiry, the applicant demanded records unrelated to those that were the subject of the requests for review and inquiry. He also made complaints against the organization, many of which were outside the scope of PIPA to address. The Adjudicator determined that the applicant had no interest in the subject matter of the inquiry and confirmed that the organization had responded appropriately to the applicant under PIPA.
In a joint resolution, Information and Privacy Ombudspersons and Commissioners from across Canada urged their governments to modernize access to information and privacy laws. “Most Canadian access and privacy laws have not been fundamentally changed since their passage, some more than 35 years ago,” the resolution says. “They have sadly fallen behind the laws of many other countries in the level of privacy protection provided to citizens.” Canada’s access to information and privacy guardians noted that along with its many benefits, the rapid advancement of technologies has had an impact on fundamental democratic principles and human rights, including access to information and privacy.
In a joint resolution, Information and Privacy Ombudspersons and Commissioners from across Canada urged their governments to modernize access to information and privacy laws.
An individual requested her entire human resources file, board meeting information regarding her employment, and copies of certain contracts, project, jobs, work and designs awarded to a particular trustee and any of his companies. The request was made to Grande Prairie Public School District #2357. The applicant requested a review of the school district's search for responsive records, as well as exceptions to access applied by the school district to withhold information. The Adjudicator determined that the school district conducted an adequate search for responsive records.
After receiving information from an access request, an individual submitted a complaint that Calgary Police Service (CPS) collected, used or disclosed his personal information in contravention of the FOIP Act. He complained that several accesses of his personal information – in particular by a police officer (referred to as AB), now married to the complainant’s former spouse, as well as by other CPS staff who had relationships with AB or with the complainant’s former spouse – contravened the FOIP Act. CPS acknowledged that AB had used the complainant’s personal information by accessing it from a CPS database and that this use was unauthorized. However, the Adjudicator found that there was insufficient evidence to determine that AB disclosed the personal information that was used (accessed) without authority.
Copyright 2019 OIPC. All rights reserved.