Category Archives: Privacy

Confidentiality versus Access to Information

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.

Continue reading →

One Person, Two Universities, Three Alberta Cases

 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.

Continue reading →

Supreme Court of Canada Saves Timing for the Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner

PDF version: Supreme Court of Canada Saves Timing for the Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner 

Decision considered: Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2011 SCC 61

This case has been followed closely by those interested in information and privacy procedures. The issues raised by the decision were discussed in my previous blog (see here). [Editor’s note, also see Alice Woolley’s ABlawg on this decision True Questions of Jurisdiction: Administrative Law’s Unicorns]

In sum, the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) received complaints that the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) had disclosed personal information in contravention of Alberta’s Personal Information Protection Act, SA 2003 c P-6.5 (PIPA). At the relevant time, subsection 50(5) provided that an inquiry must be completed within 90 days of the complaint being received, unless the IPC notified the parties that he or she was extending the time period. The IPC took 22 months from the initial complaint before extending the date on which the inquiry would be concluded. Then, seven months later, an adjudicator issued an order on behalf of the IPC, finding that ATA had contravened the PIPA. The ATA applied for judicial review, arguing for the first time that the IPC had lost jurisdiction for failing to extend the time period for the inquiry within 90 days of the complaint being received. The chambers judge quashed the adjudicator’s decision on the basis of timing, and the majority of the Court of Appeal upheld the chambers judge’s decision. As noted in the blog above, this decision prompted the rare move on the part of the IPC, who publicly expressed concern about the implications of the Court of Appeal ruling.

Continue reading →

“Amended Amended Redacted Document” Ordered Released to the Press and Public Fifteen Days after Judgment

 PDF version: “Amended Amended Redacted Document” Ordered Released to the Press and Public Fifteen Days after Judgment

Case considered: Globe & Mail v Alberta, 2011 ABQB 363 (“Globe and Mail“)

When the police want to obtain a search warrant, they file a document with a justice of the peace or judge called an “Information to Obtain a Search Warrant” or “ITO”. In this case, Judge J.D. Bascom had sealed the contents of an ITO filed on a case with respect to an “Unnamed Company”. The Globe and Mail applied to the Court of Queen’s Bench for access to the ITO (subject to some redactions).

Justice William Tilleman dealt with the application for access to the ITO, and noted that he had to “face the difficult task of balancing the sometimes competing rights to freedom of expression and the press, with the administration of justice, the protection of innocent persons, and the right to a fair trial” (Globe and Mail at para 2).

Continue reading →

There’s no right to absolute privacy when you want to build something in a city

PDF version: There’s no right to absolute privacy when you want to build something in a city 

Case commented on: Edmonton (City) v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2011 ABQB 226

There is no absolute right to privacy in the context of planning and development within a municipality. In a contest between the right to privacy and the right to enjoy one’s own property without interference from a neighbour, a balance must be struck. Otherwise, we’d be constantly in each other’s faces over actions such as one neighbour arbitrarily chopping down trees straddling the line between two homes or mowing down a line of bushes running between two houses. One person’s pleasure is another person’s annoyance – the source of such annoyance could be something as seemingly innocuous as an outdoor hot tub on a second floor balcony.

When an Edmonton property owner named Kim Mah read details about her application for a development permit in a community newsletter, she complained to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner that her privacy was breached. Rather oddly, in light of the fact that neighbouring property owners do have the right to know about such matters, a Commission adjudicator agreed. Even stranger, the Commissioner found that an appeal board with the independent power to review development proposals was instead a City of Edmonton department. Rather appropriately, the City’s legal department applied for a judicial review. Quite rightly, a Queen’s Bench judge read the relevant legislation against the facts, found that the Commissioner had erred, and sent Mah’s complaint back to the Privacy Commissioner to reconsider.

Continue reading →