What's New

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.

Order F2020-27: Alberta Justice and Solicitor General
September 17, 2020

An individual made a complaint that Alberta Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) collected, used and disclosed his personal information in contravention of the FOIP Act when it posted an internal security bulletin containing a picture of the complainant and a statement that the complainant was gathering information about employees. The Adjudicator found that JSG's collection and use of the complainant's personal information was authorized by the FOIP Act, and determined that the information was not disclosed outside JSG.

News Release: Penalties Issued for Health Information Breaches
September 10, 2020

A former medical clinic employee pleaded guilty to breaching the health information of several individuals in contravention of the Health Information Act. The individual was fined $6,000, given three years probation including not being able to access health information, and is required to complete 180 hours of community service for the infractions.

Order F2020-25: Calgary Board of Education
September 10, 2020

An individual made an access request to his employer, the Calgary Board of Education (CBE), for records relating to him and CBE, including communications between CBE and outside or third parties. CBE responded to the request, with some information severed under sections pertaining to disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17), advice from officials (section 24) and disclosure harmful to economic and other interests of public body (section 25). The Adjudicator found that CBE's search for records was adequate, and it properly applied the exceptions to access.

Order F2020-26: Calgary Police Service
September 10, 2020

An individual made a complaint that his employer, the Calgary Police Service (CPS), collected, used and disclosed his personal information without authority under the FOIP Act. The complaint related to the CPS' collection of personal information from the Canadian Border Security Agency (CBSA). CBSA had contacted CPS to advise it that CBSA was investigating an allegation made against its employee. CPS' Security Operations Unit subsequently began its own investigation, and contacted the complainant's supervisor. The Adjudicator found that CPS collected the complainant's personal information for the purpose of determining how to deal with the report of the complainant's conduct. The Adjudicator determined that the provision of the complainant's information to his current supervisor was for the same purpose, and this use and disclosure was authorized.

Resource: Inquiry Procedures
September 1, 2020

This document outlines the procedures when a matter before the OIPC goes to inquiry. Published in May 2012, and updated in September 2020.

Resource: Inquiry: Preparing Submissions
September 1, 2020

This document outlines how to prepare submissions for an inquiry. There are also tips for providing evidence and arguments in a written submission. Published in September 2020, and replaced "Adjudication Practice Note 2: Evidence and Arguments for Inquiries".

Resource: Inquiry: Preparing Records at Issue
September 1, 2020

This document describes what respondents must do in preparing records at issue for an inquiry. Published in September 2020, and replaced "Adjudication Practice Note 1: Preparing Submissions, Records and Indexes for Inquiries".

Order F2020-23: Edmonton School Division
August 31, 2020

An applicant made an access request to the Board of Trustees of Edmonton School Division seeking information about her son, who was a student at one of its schools. The school division withheld some records and information as non-responsive, and under sections pertaining to disclosure harmful to personal privacy (section 17(1)), advice from officials (sections 24(1)(a) and (b)) and privileged information (section 27). The applicant believed that the school division did not meet its duty under section 10(1) of the FOIP Act, and failed to properly search for and provide all records responsive to the access request. The Adjudicator made several determinations, including that the school division failed to meet its duty to assist the applicant under section 10(1). The Adjudicator ordered the school division to release further information to the applicant and reconsider its use of discretion on some of the records it had withheld. The school division was also ordered to remove redactions to information that was withheld on one page but disclosed on another.

Order F2020-24: Alberta Justice and Solicitor General
August 31, 2020

An applicant made an access request to Alberta Justice and Solicitor General (JSG). JSG provided the applicant with a fee estimate of $650 to provide responsive records. The applicant sought a review of that decision. The Adjudicator found that JSG failed to establish that the $0.25 per page for photocopying it used in its fee estimate did not exceed its actual costs for photocopying, as required by the FOIP Act. The Adjudicator reduced the fees for photocopying responsive records to zero.

Order P2020-05: Divergent Health Care Limited
August 11, 2020

In the course of divorce proceedings, the complainant underwent paternity testing to determine if he was the father of his daughter. Divergent Health Care Limited performed the test. The complainant’s (now) former wife was his daughter’s legal guardian at the time of the test. Since his daughter was a minor, his former wife provided consent for his daughter to participate in the test. The lawyer representing the complainant’s former wife arranged the test with the organization. Per its standard practice, Divergent Health Care Limited released the results of the test to the complainant and his former wife, and further disclosed the results directly to the lawyer. The Adjudicator made several determinations in this order, including finding that genetic information was improperly disclosed and that the disclosure of genetic information in the circumstances was not reasonable.

Page: of 55