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 an access request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS) for records related to disposition letters issued by CPS from complaints where the Chief determined the allegations in the complaint were not serious in nature. The applicant also requested a fee waiver, on the grounds that the records relate to a matter of public interest (section 93(4)(b)). The applicant requested a review of CPS' decision regarding fees. The Adjudicator concluded that in the circumstances it was appropriate to waive 50% of the fees for the request, and ordered CPS to refund the applicant that amount.
An applicant made an access request to the Calgary Police Service (CPS), including a request for contact information for an individual in order to serve him documents in a civil proceeding. CPS provided 13 responsive records withholding some information citing disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17), including the contact information the applicant sought. The Adjudicator determined some information was required to be withheld from the applicant. The Adjudicator ordered that some information be disclosed by CPS to the applicant.
The applicant (referred to as the complainant in this order) made an access request to the University of Alberta (U of A), and made a complaint that the U of A collected, used, and disclosed her information in contravention of the FOIP Act. The two matters were joined into one inquiry since the records at issue regarding the access request are relevant to the collection, use and disclosure issues. In order to avoid disclosing information that the U of A is entitled to withhold in response to an access request, as required by section 59(3)(a) of the FOIP Act, the Adjudicator dealt only with access issues in this order. A further order will follow once the scope of information that cannot be disclosed under section 59(3)(a) is known with finality.
An individual made a health information correction request to Dr. Aws Alherbish (custodian). The Adjudicator found that the custodian properly refused to correct health information that consisted of professional opinions and observations under section 13(6)(a) of HIA. The Adjudicator also found that, with regard to one requested correction, the applicant failed to establish that there was an error or omission in her health information under section 13(1) of HIA. For the one error identified, the Adjudicator concluded that the custodian properly refused to correct the applicant’s health information on the basis that there was little risk that the applicant’s medical history would be misunderstood, and that correcting or amending the information may deprive others viewing it of having a proper understanding of it.
The applicant had applied for a position with the Calgary Police Service (CPS). He subsequently made an access request for records relating to polygraph testing results and his HR file. CPS provided some records, withholding information under sections pertaining to confidential evaluations (section 19), disclosure harmful to law enforcement (section 20), and testing procedures, tests and audits (section 26).The Adjudicator determined that CPS properly applied section 19(1) to the scores and comments of employees who interviewed the applicant, as well as the interpretation of the polygraph test results. The Adjudicator upheld CPS' application of section 26(c) to the interview questions, and the instructions for the interviewers regarding how to assess the applicant. The Adjudicator found that this exception did not apply to the Scantron or ‘bubble’ sheets filled in by the applicant for multiple choice exams, as these sheets did not reveal the related exam questions.
PriceWaterhouseCoopersLLP (PWC) required an employee to fill out a form for independence testing, which asked for detailed information about the employee and his wife. The employee questioned whether his employer was entitled to his personal information and whether reasonable security arrangements were in place to protect the information it collected. The Adjudicator ordered PWC to undertake a review of its collection practices with respect to a few items of information collected for independence testing. The Adjudicator found PWC had reasonable security arrangements in place.
An individual complained that The Anglican Diocese of Calgary sent copies of a letter regarding him to clergy, retired clergy and Diocesan members. The Adjudicator determined that The Anglican Diocese of Calgary did not have authority to use or disclose the complainant's personal information.
An individual complained that the General Teamsters, Local Union No. 362 had collected her social insurance number contrary to PIPA. The Adjudicator found that the social insurance was collected in accordance with the collective agreement between the union and the individual's employer. The Adjudicator found that the union was acting as a certified bargaining agent for a bargaining unit in the federal sector when it collected the information and found that it was not an organization to which PIPA applied, for that reason.
An individual made a complaint that ABC Benefits Corporation, operating as Alberta Blue Cross (ABC), disclosed her personal information to the biological father of her two children, and his girlfriend, in contravention of PIPA. She also complained that ABC disclosed the personal information of her two children to their biological father in contravention of PIPA. The Adjudicator made several findings in relation to the complaint, including that ABC had complied with PIPA when it disclosed personal information related to benefit claims and statements.
An individual complained that his employer, Indigenous Relations, disclosed his personal information on two occasions contrary to the FOIP Act. The Adjudicator found that an email sent by an employee contained personal information that was disclosed in contravention of the FOIP Act (section 40). The Adjudicator also found that some of the complainant's personal information was disclosed by another employee during a staff meeting in contravention of the FOIP Act, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether a particular statement about the complainant had been made during the meeting.
Copyright 2021 OIPC. All rights reserved.