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 Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. collected or disclosed his personal information in contravention of PIPA, and alleged that the organization's email practices failed to meet the standard of appropriate security arrangements required under section 34. The Adjudicator determined that the organization had consent to collect and disclose the complainant’s personal information as it did. The Adjudicator found that the organization did so in order to assess his disability claim, and did not collect or disclose more information than was reasonable to meet that purpose. The Adjudicator concluded that the amount of information included in an email subject line did not meet the requirements to make reasonable security arrangements to protect personal information. However, the Adjudicator found that the organization’s amended practices are sufficient to meet the standard in section 34.
An individual made an access request to the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo. The Adjudicator found that the RM of Wood Buffalo did not respond to the applicant within the time limit set out in the FOIP Act. The RM of Wood Buffalo did, however, respond to the applicant during the inquiry.
An individual made a request for his personal information from the Edmonton Catholic Separate School Division (ECSSD). The Adjudicator confirmed that ECSSD conducted a reasonable search for responsive records. The Adjudicator also confirmed ECSSD’s decision to sever information citing advice from officials (section 24(1)). The Adjudicator confirmed the decision of ECSSD to sever information regarding employee absences, but directed it to disclose to the applicant the remainder of the information to which ECSSD had applied disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17(1)).
An individual made a request for his personal information, and records containing information about his two children and his spouse, from Alberta Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). The Adjudicator determined that JSG properly withheld information citing disclosure harmful to individual or public safety (section 18(1)(a)). The Adjudicator found that JSG properly withheld information citing disclosure harmful to law enforcement (section 20(1)(m)). The Adjudicator decided to retain jurisdiction, however, regarding JSG's application of disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations (section 21(1)(b)), pending the appeal of Edmonton Police Service v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2021 ABQB 304.
The Calgary Police Service (CPS) requested authorization to disregard an access request from an individual. The Commissioner granted CPS' request to disregard the applicant's access request. The applicant's request was found to be repetitious as the records at issue had previously been provided to the applicant.
An applicant made a request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for information related to a specified CPS action number. CPS responded to the applicant, severing information under sections 17 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy), 20(1)(g) and (m) (disclosure harmful to law enforcement), and 24(1)(b) (advice from officials). The Adjudicator confirmed CPS' decision to apply section 17 to withhold information, but for cell phone numbers and direct lines of Crown prosecutors, which the Adjudicator considered were subject to section 25 (disclosure harmful to economic and other interests of a public body). The Adjudicator asked CPS to reconsider its decision to sever information regarding a Crown prosecutor’s exercise of discretion by taking into consideration the fact that the Crown prosecutor had communicated the substance of the severed information at an earlier date. The Adjudicator determined that information regarding the address of the CPS' spam folder and the information to which it had applied section 24(1)(b) was outside the scope of the access request and was non-responsive. As a result, the Adjudicator did not order disclosure of this information.
An individual complained that the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) collected medical information from him without his consent, and subsequently disclosed it without authority. The complainant also alleged that EPS collected personal information about him from a third party and used it in its file, without authority. The Adjudicator found that EPS had authority to collect the complainant’s personal information, to collect it indirectly, and to use the personal information for the purpose of investigating a complaint made by the complainant’s neighbour about his behaviour. This investigation fell within the definition of “law enforcement” in the Act. The Adjudicator found that EPS was also authorized to use the personal information to respond to complaints made by the complainant about the officers who investigated the neighbour’s complaint. This response also fell within the definition of “law enforcement”. The Adjudicator found that EPS was authorized to disclose the complainant’s personal information for the purpose of responding to the complainant’s complaint about the officers for the same reason.
An individual made an access request to the Town of Ponoka. The individual believed the Town of Ponoka had not responded to her within the time limit set out in the FOIP Act. The Adjudicator found that the Town of Ponoka made every reasonable effort to respond to the applicant’s request not later than 30 days after it received the request, as required by section 11 of the FOIP Act.
An individual made an access request to the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass. The applicant requested a review of the time taken by the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass to respond. The Adjudicator found that the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass responded to the applicant within the timeframe set out in the FOIP Act.
An individual believed additional records should have been provided to him in response to a request for specific medical records from Dr. Ryan Yau, a custodian under HIA. The Adjudicator found that Dr. Yau conducted an adequate search for records.
Copyright 2021 OIPC. All rights reserved.