Case considered: University of Alberta v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2010 ABQB 89

PDF version: Court Addresses the Duty of a University to Assist a Professor who was Seeking Information Related to his Teaching

In Alberta, universities are subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. F-25 (”FOIPA“). University of Alberta professor Dr. Mikhail Kovalyov applied to the University for access to two kinds of records (but only the first kind of record was the subject of the court case). His original access to information request asked for information pertaining to his proposal for changes to a math course provided to the Chair and Associate Chair of the Mathematical and Statistical Sciences Department (”Math Department”); in particular, he asked for “written complaints, notes of oral complaints and any and all other documentation including any email between the Chair and Associate Chair or anyone else pertaining to this matter” (at para. 2). The University asked for clarification of the request, and Dr. Kovalyov replied with additional information, including a CD containing an audio-recording of a conversation between unidentified individuals discussing the math course and related complaints. The University wrote to Dr. Kovalyov, replying that it understood that Dr. Kovalyov was also requesting the documents the Chair referred to at the end of the audio-record, as well as all other documents, emails, notes, phone records pertaining to any information related to it, including information about the identification of the person from the very top of the University that the Chair referred to in the recorded conversation. Dr. Kovalyov did not reply to the University’s clarification letter.

(more…)

Case considered: Alberta Teachers’ Association v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2010 ABCA 26

PDF version:  Court of Appeal Decision on Privacy Process Likely to Have Significant Impact on Office of Information and Privacy Commissioner

In a rare move, the Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner, Frank Work, issued a strongly worded news release in response to the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision in Alberta Teachers’ Association v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) (”ATA“). See January 29, 2010, “Commissioner Work expresses Grave Concern over Recent Court of Appeal Ruling.” Mr. Work said, “This decision may have dire implications for every tribunal in this province which has stipulated timelines. There should be a lot of concern on that front.” What prompted this comment?

(more…)

Case considered:  Edmonton Police Service v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2009 ABQB 593

PDF version: Further Developments in the Cassels FOIPPA Matter

Recent developments in the case of Cassels highlight a difficulty faced by many people who request access to information held by public bodies. Since one is hoping to gain access to the desired information, one has to “guess” wisely about what information to ask for, from which department and in which format (e.g., electronic or paper). The agencies from which one requests information are not obligated under the law to create new records from their information, nor to incur great inconvenience and expense in order to provide the requested information. Thus, the wording of the request becomes very important-even in the absence of specific knowledge about what information is available.

(more…)

PDF Version: Privacy and Video Surveillance on Campus

With thanks to Greg Hagen for his helpful suggestions on a draft of the blog.

Recently, I was walking across the campus at the University of Calgary and noticed that there was a display by an anti-abortion group (Campus Pro-Life Club). Because of a dispute over permission to have the display, the University had posted warning signs and barricades. One University sign indicated that the group was videotaping everyone who spoke to the display’s staffers and that this was contrary to the University’s Privacy Policy. Since I am aware that the University uses surveillance cameras, this incident caused me to wonder what rights students, staff and the public have with regard to video surveillance on campus, whether by the University or by others on campus.

(more…)

Case considered: Edmonton Police Service v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2009 ABQB 268

PDF version: Queen’s Bench Follows Business Watch rather than Kellogg, Brown and Root Regarding Jurisdiction of Privacy Commissioner

In an earlier post on Kellogg, Brown and Root (”KBR“), 2007 ABQB 499, I noted the unfortunate impact on a complainant when, as provided in the Personal Information Protection Act, R.S.A., 2000, c. 6.5 (”PIPA“), the Privacy Commissioner failed to launch an Inquiry within 90 days, and the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench held that PIPA s. 50(5) was mandatory. Thus, the Privacy Commissioner lost jurisdiction. The matter was appealed, and Alberta Court of Appeal did not deal with the issue, as the complainant had died, and the appeal was declared moot (see 2008 ABCA 384).

The Edmonton Police Service (”EPS”) case seems to indicate that the KBR decision may be distinguished and confined to its specific facts.

(more…)

Case considered: Lycka v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) and Jane Doe, 2009 ABQB 245

PDF version: Has a recent Queen’s Bench decision put the damper on future complaints of privacy breaches in Alberta, especially in the health care setting?

A Court of Queen’s Bench decision on April 20th to quash orders of the province’s Information and Privacy Commissioner (the Commissioner) should prove to be of little, if any, persuasive value outside of Alberta. However, in this province, it may be accorded weight - even precedential value since the decision has not been appealed - that it does not deserve. As a result of Lycka v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) and Jane Doe, the name of a person who complains to the Commissioner of a breach of privacy must be disclosed to the party alleged to have committed the breach. Consequently, Alberta residents may be reluctant to bring forward complaints about privacy breaches, especially when physicians are on the other side.

(more…)

Cases Considered: R. v. Kang-Brown, 2008 SCC 18,
R. v. A.M., 2008 SCC 19.

PDF Version: Privacy in Schools: Dogs, Lockers, Bodies and Backpacks

I would like to believe that teenagers are protected from all of the evils of the world when they are at school. At the same time, teenagers are growing into adults and do have rights, such as a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (”Charter“) s. 8 provides that:

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

(more…)

Cases considered: Kellogg Brown and Root Canada v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2008 ABCA 384, affirming Kellogg Brown and Root Canada v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2007 ABQB 499.

PDF Version: What happens to our “day in court” when someone else drops the ball?

This is a privacy case involving Kellogg Brown and Root’s (”KBR”) drug testing policy. (For earlier posts involving a human rights complaint against this company’s drug testing policy, in which the S.C.C. denied leave to appeal; see: http://ablawg.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/lmp_chiasson_jan2008.pdf and http://ablawg.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/dc_chiasson_march10.pdf). The case is relatively straightforward, but it does raise an interesting access to justice issue: What happens when the privacy commissioner fails to complete an inquiry on a complaint within the legislated time limit?

(more…)