Category: Privacy Page 11 of 12

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.

Privacy and Video Surveillance on Campus

By Linda McKay-Panos

On October 19, 2009

In Privacy

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.

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

By Linda McKay-Panos

On June 16, 2009

In Administrative Law, Privacy

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.

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

By Brian Seaman

On June 12, 2009

In Administrative Law, Health Law, Privacy

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.

Privacy in Schools: Dogs, Lockers, Bodies and Backpacks

By Linda McKay-Panos

On March 19, 2009

In Constitutional, Criminal, Privacy

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.

Category: Privacy Page 11 of 12

Further Developments in the Cassels FOIPPA Matter

Privacy and Video Surveillance on Campus

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

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

Privacy in Schools: Dogs, Lockers, Bodies and Backpacks