Privacy – Page 10

Case Commented on: Imperial Oil Ltd v Calgary (City), 2013 ABQB 393.

Many people are concerned about what appears to be the lack of public access to government-held information. Ironically, in this case, the City of Calgary (a municipal government) is quite concerned about its lack of access to the Remediation Agreement reached between Alberta Environment and Imperial Oil Limited, which pertains to environmental remediation of lands contaminated by petroleum, hydrocarbon vapours and lead in Lynnview Ridge (a residential subdivision in Calgary).

Publication Bans in Police Mr. Big Operations

By Linda McKay-Panos

On July 25, 2013

In Criminal, Privacy

PDF version: Publication Bans in Police Mr. Big Operations013

Case commented on: R v NRR, 2013 ABQB 302.

NRR was a youth who was being charged with two counts of second degree murder, one count of possession of stolen property, and one count of break and enter. The Crown offered into evidence statements made by NRR during a Mr. Big undercover operation. This type of operation usually involves undercover members of the police posing as criminals, involving the suspect in what he or she thinks is a criminal gang in order to gain his or her trust and eventually obtain a confession for the actual crimes. The accused (NRR) objected to the admission of the RCMP evidence on the basis that his rights under Charter section 7 had been violated. The Crown applied for a publication ban on identifying information about the undercover police officers who participated in the investigation. The Crown argued that the publication ban should be for three years, and NRR and the Edmonton Journal argued that the ban should only be for one year.

New Developments in Long Running Alberta Privacy Case

By Linda McKay-Panos

On May 30, 2013

In Privacy

PDF version: New Developments in Long Running Alberta Privacy Case

Decision considered: Alberta Teachers’ Association v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2013 ABQB 106.

This case, which has a long judicial history, has been followed closely by those interested in information and privacy procedures. The issues raised by the decision were discussed in my previous ABlawg post “Supreme Court of Canada Saves Timing for the Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner” here. Also see Alice Woolley’s ABlawg post on this decision ‘True Questions of Jurisdiction: Administrative Law’s Unicorns” here. The current case is interesting because the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) now seeks to amend its Originating Application to the Court of Queen’s Bench to include a request for declarations that selected provisions of the Personal Information Protection Act SA 2003, c P-6.5 (PIPA) and the PIPA Regulation, Alta Reg 366/2003 are unconstitutional, or that the adjudicator’s order is unconstitutional.

Confidentiality versus Access to Information

By Dorab Colah

On December 20, 2012

In Privacy

PDF Version: Confidentiality versus Access to Information

Case commented on: Edmonton Police Service v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2012 ABQB 595

Introduction

In any society, a healthy balance is needed to protect personal and private information, whilst also allowing individuals and groups access to information that is in the public interest. In Alberta, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIPPA) sets out the rules that govern the collection, use or disclosure of personal information by public bodies. It also provides a method of requesting access to information which is not available through other means.

One Person, Two Universities, Three Alberta Cases

By Linda McKay-Panos

On May 15, 2012

In Administrative Law, Privacy

PDF version: One Person, Two Universities, Three Alberta Cases

Cases Considered: Oleynik v University of Calgary, 2012 ABQB 189 (Case #1); University of Alberta v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2012 ABQB 247 (Case #2); Association of Academic Staff of the University of Alberta v University of Alberta, 2012 ABQB 248 (Case #3)

These three cases involve personal privacy issues in the process of applying for a research grant from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). Two of the cases suggest that the access to information requests to Universities were being used to obtain evidence to support allegations of bias in decision-making.