Category: Privacy Page 4 of 13

By: Drew Yewchuk

Decision Commented on: Freedom of Information Request to the Alberta Energy Regulator 2021-G-0025

PDF Version: Investigating the Orphan Fund Levy Using Freedom of Information Requests

This is a follow-up on an earlier ABlawg post from March 2022: “How is the Orphan Fund Levy Set? Alberta’s Oil and Gas Clean-up Costs in 2022”. That post was the result of work by the Public Interest Law Clinic on how Alberta’s oil and gas clean-up liabilities were being managed. That post tried to answer the question of how the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) was setting the amount of the Orphan Fund Levy.

The Alberta Energy Regulator and the Disclosure Without Delay Rule in FOIP

By Drew Yewchuk

On March 6, 2023

In Energy, Privacy

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: The Alberta Energy Regulator and the Disclosure Without Delay Rule in FOIP

The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) has been aware that industrial effluent has been seeping from a tailings pit at Imperial’s Kearl oilsands mine since May 2022. (They should not be called tailings ‘ponds’ – they may be pits or lakes, but ‘pond’ implies they are small, which they absolutely are not). The AER chose to make this information public on February 4, 2023, when an estimated 5,300 cubic meters of “[s]torage pond overflowed off lease” and the AER began investigating Imperial for “[f]ailure to comply with conditions of an approval and release of industrial watewater [sic] from an unapproved location” (AER compliance dashboard, incident number 20230311 and investigation number 2023-009).

An Example of How Government Delays Access to Information Requests: Pretending to not Understand Them

By Drew Yewchuk

On June 24, 2022

In Privacy

By: Drew Yewchuk

Decision Commented On: Re Health, 2022 CanLII 51351 (AB OIPC) (Order F2022-25)

PDF Version: An Example of How Government Delays Access to Information Requests: Pretending to not Understand Them

Re Health, Order F2022-25 is a decision from an adjudicator at the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) ordering Alberta Health to respond to an access request that Alberta Health had wrongly refused to process. The conduct of Alberta Health described in the decision is a good illustration of the strategies used by public bodies in Alberta to defeat access requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIP)

Procedural Fairness When Challenging Timeline Extensions for Freedom of Information Requests

By Drew Yewchuk

On May 2, 2022

In Energy, Oil & Gas, Privacy, Uncategorized

By: Drew Yewchuk

Decision Commented On: Re Energy, Order F2022-20, 2022 CanLII 29391 (AB OIPC)

PDF Version: Procedural Fairness When Challenging Timeline Extensions For Freedom of Information Requests

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) Order F2022-20 shows how easy it is for public bodies to drag the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIP) process out to prevent timely transparency, even where there is little or no plausible justification for the public body to withhold records.

F2022-20 relates to the same FOIP request as Blades v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2021 ABQB 725 (CanLII) (Blades), a decision I wrote about here. The request in question is an attempt to get government records explaining the Alberta government’s decision to revoke the 1976 Coal Development Policy for Alberta.

Canada’s Proposed New Consumer Privacy Protection Act: The Good, the Bad, the Missed Opportunities

By Emily Laidlaw

On November 30, 2020

In Internet Law, Privacy

By: Emily Laidlaw

PDF Version: Canada’s Proposed New Consumer Privacy Protection Act: The Good, the Bad, the Missed Opportunities

Bill Commented On: Bill C-11, Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020, 2nd Sess, 43rd Parl, 2020 (first reading 17 November 2020)

On November 17, 2020, the Federal Government unveiled the most sweeping consumer privacy law reform in the last twenty years with the proposed Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020 (Bill C-11). The Act would repeal and replace parts of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, SC 2000, c 5 (PIPEDA) with a new private sector privacy statute, the Consumer Privacy Protection Act (CPPA) (not to be confused with the well-known California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA)), and would enact the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act (Tribunal Act). The Bill makes good strides in modernizing Canada’s privacy legislation. It is also, in the end, a missed opportunity for more profound law reform.

If passed, it will necessitate modernization of Alberta’s Personal Information Protection Act, SA 2003, c P-6.5 (PIPA). PIPA is designated substantially similar legislation, meaning that PIPA rather than PIPEDA regulates personal information within our provincial borders (and through our ombudsman, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta). Without this designation, PIPEDA would apply to all consumer privacy transactions within Alberta. As will be detailed below, Bill C-11 fundamental revamps consumer privacy legislation and therefore unless Alberta follows suit, it is highly unlikely the substantially similar designation can be maintained.