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 investigation under PIPA resulted in three findings and five recommendations to LifeLabs Inc.
The OIPC issued 16 findings and five recommendations under PIPA to Alcanna in relation to its use of Servall Data Systems’ Patronscan ID-scanning technology in liquor stores.
The OIPC issued 16 findings and five recommendations under the Personal PIPA to Alcanna in relation to its use of Servall Data Systems’ Patronscan ID-scanning technology in liquor stores.
A former employee of Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL) requested access to his personnel file, notes about phone conversations, email correspondence, and correspondence between managers, VPs and HR related to him. CNRL provided some responsive records but withheld others under sections 24(2)(a) (legal privilege) and 24(2)(c) (information collected for an investigation or legal proceeding). The Adjudicator concluded that much of the information in the records was not the applicant’s personal information, or contained only small snippets of personal information such that it was not reasonable to require CNRL to provide that information to the applicant. With respect to the applicant's personal information, the Adjudicator found that CNRL properly claimed solicitor-client privilege (section 24(2)(a), and determined other personal information if disclosed would reveal the identity of an individual who provided the information in confidence (section 24(3)(c)).
Two individuals complained that Luminos Consulting & Production Inc. (Luminos) had post personal information about them on its website, YouTube channel and Facebook page without authority under PIPA. The Adjudicator determined that the collection, use and disclosure of one of the complainant's personal information in a video that was posted online was for journalistic purposes within the terms of section 4(3)(c), and the Adjudicator did not have jurisdiction to review that collection, use or disclosure. The Adjudicator determined that Luminos did not have authority to collect, use or disclose either complainant's personal information in the image of a text message or the accompanying comment of Luminos that it posted online.
Individuals requested access to an Edmonton Police Service (EPS) file that had been opened to investigate the death of their daughter. The police investigation concluded that the applicants' daughter died by suicide. The applicants requested the file in order to learn more about the circumstances of their daughter’s death and to come to terms with it. EPS provided some information from the records on compassionate grounds, but withheld the remainder on the basis that it would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of the deceased and other third parties whose personal information was contained in the records. The Adjudicator determined that the interests of family members in coming to terms with their loss was a relevant consideration in determining whether personal information could be disclosed to the family members. In most cases, the Adjudicator found that this factor applied and outweighed the public interests that supported withholding the personal information of the deceased from the applicants. The Adjudicator found, however, that the public interest weighed in favour of withholding the personal information of individuals other than the deceased in the records. The Adjudicator directed EPS to disclose further personal information regarding the deceased, but confirmed its decisions regarding the remaining information.
An applicant made an access request to the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass. The municipality failed to make every reasonable effort to respond within the timelines in the FOIP Act. However, the municipality responded during the inquiry.
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)).
Copyright 2021 OIPC. All rights reserved.