Ann Cavoukian

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated a complaint regarding the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' bulk disclosure of land registration records on microfilm to the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation (OPAC).

The Commissioner found that the information on the microfilm, including the Affidavit of Residence and Value of Consideration, constitutes personal information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner concluded that the bulk disclosure of the entire microfilm to OPAC was not in compliance with section 42 of the Act, as it was not for a consistent purpose nor required by statute.

However, the disclosure of the Affidavit alone to OPAC was found to comply with section 42(c).

The Ministry was ordered to discontinue the bulk disclosure of the microfilmed records.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated a privacy breach at the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) of the Ministry of the Attorney General.

During a mail-out of cost of living allowance (COLA) adjustments, notices containing personal information of support payors and recipients were improperly sent to multiple employers and disclosed to unauthorized individuals.

The Commissioner found that the information was 'personal information' under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and that its disclosure was not in compliance with section 42 of the Act.

The breach was attributed to the use of window envelopes, inadequate procedures, and lack of training for temporary mail room staff.

The Commissioner made six recommendations to prevent future breaches, including tracking mail-outs, revising forms, and implementing written policies and training.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated a privacy breach involving the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care's administration of the Ontario Hepatitis C Assistance Plan.

An applicant received copies of her hospital records from the Ministry, which inadvertently included the medical records of another individual with the same name.

The Commissioner found that the records contained personal information and that the disclosure violated section 42 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Furthermore, the Ministry failed to take reasonable measures regarding the security and destruction of the records, contrary to the regulations.

The Commissioner issued ten recommendations to improve the Ministry's privacy practices and training.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to Ontario Hydro for records pertaining to its exemption from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Ontario Hydro denied access, stating no responsive records existed because it was still covered by the Act at the time.

During mediation, the appellant clarified the request included successor companies.

Ontario Hydro Services Company (OHSC) argued the request was specific to Ontario Hydro and no clarification was needed.

The Commissioner found that Ontario Hydro had an obligation under section 24(2) of the Act to seek clarification before narrowly interpreting the request.

The Commissioner ordered OHSC to issue a revised access decision encompassing records relating to the successor companies.

The complainant alleged that the Ministry of Health improperly disclosed his personal information to a university for a health survey without his consent.

The Ministry challenged the Commissioner's jurisdiction to investigate the complaint.

The Commissioner found she had jurisdiction under her general supervisory and reporting mandate.

On the merits, the Commissioner concluded that the disclosure of the complainant's name, address, and other details met the requirements for the research purpose exception under section 21(1)(e) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and therefore complied with section 42.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of Order M-1035, arguing that the Commissioner failed to consider letters supporting her position that she should not have been listed as a suspect for harassing telephone calls, as well as the fact that she was never charged.

The Commissioner denied the request, noting that the evidence had been considered in the original inquiry.

The Commissioner reiterated that under section 36(2) of the Act, a request to correct a record cannot be used to substitute one opinion for another, and the request did not meet the grounds for reconsideration under the IPC's policy.

The appellant requested a correction to a 'Security Clearance Request' form provided by the Halton Regional Police Services Board, seeking the removal of a reference indicating she was suspected of making harassing telephone calls.

The Police denied the correction but agreed to attach a statement of disagreement.

The Interim Commissioner upheld the Police's decision, finding that the information was not inexact, incomplete, or ambiguous, and that the requested correction would improperly substitute the appellant's opinion for that of the investigating officer.

The appellant requested access to records relating to the development of a film production project funded by the Ontario Film Development Corporation (OFDC).

The OFDC granted partial access but denied access to several records, claiming exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed.

The Interim Commissioner found that most of the withheld records contained confidential commercial and financial information supplied by a third party, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the third party's competitive position.

These records were held exempt under sections 17(1)(a) and (c).

One letter was ordered disclosed as it did not meet the exemption criteria.

The Commissioner also declined to order the exchange of representations or apply the public interest override.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated a privacy breach involving a municipal board of education after confidential student records were found in a dumpster and blown into a residential area.

The Commissioner determined that the records contained personal information, that the disclosure was not in compliance with section 32 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that the Board failed to dispose of the records in a secure manner.

The Commissioner recommended that the Board develop written guidelines for the destruction of personal information, consider purchasing shredders or secure containers, and maintain a formal disposal record.

The complainant alleged that the Management Board Secretariat improperly disclosed her personal information to a private collection agency to recover a social assistance overpayment.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether the information was 'personal information' under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and whether its disclosure complied with section 42.

The Commissioner concluded that the information was personal information, but its disclosure to the collection agency was for the same purpose for which it was obtained, and thus complied with the Act.

The Commissioner also found adequate safeguards were in place but recommended contractual improvements for future agreements.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated a complaint regarding the Ministry of Community and Social Services' use of a 'Residing With A Spouse' questionnaire to determine social assistance eligibility.

The Commissioner found that the information collected was 'personal information' under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner concluded that the collection of the applicant's personal information was necessary for the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity and thus complied with section 38 of the Act.

However, the Commissioner found that the indirect collection of a co-resident's personal information without consent did not comply with section 39(1) and recommended changes to the questionnaire.

The complainant, an employee of the County, alleged that the County breached her privacy by disclosing her suspension letter to union representatives and by collecting her personal financial information.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information was personal information.

The disclosure of the suspension letter to the supervisor and CAO was permitted, but the disclosure to the union representatives and the disclosure of her home address violated the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the collection of financial information, if it occurred, would have been permitted for law enforcement purposes.

The complainant alleged that the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) breached the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by publishing his name and criminal charges in a community newsletter posted at a local store.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information was personal information and that section 37 did not apply to exclude it from the privacy provisions.

However, the disclosure was permitted under section 42(c) as it was for a consistent purpose, namely notifying the public of law enforcement activities, which the complainant could have reasonably expected.

The complainant filed a privacy complaint alleging that a school board improperly disclosed his personal information, including details of his human rights complaint against the board and associated legal fees, in response to access requests and at public board meetings.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information was personal information and that the public record exclusion in section 27 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act did not apply.

The Assistant Commissioner concluded that the board's disclosures in response to the access requests and at public meetings were not in compliance with section 32 of the Act, as the board failed to notify the complainant before disclosure.

The Assistant Commissioner recommended that the board take precautions to ensure future compliance.

The complainant, a successful candidate in a job competition, filed a privacy complaint after the Ministry of Community and Social Services disclosed their resume and cover letter to the union (OPSEU) during a grievance process.

The Ministry argued the disclosure was permitted under section 42(e) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to comply with a disclosure agreement related to the collective agreement.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the records contained personal information and that the disclosure agreement did not expressly authorize the disclosure of resumes and cover letters.

The Commissioner concluded the disclosure violated section 42 of the Act and recommended the Ministry implement procedures to sever personal identifiers before disclosing such documents.

The complainant received letters from two regional municipalities requesting repayment of a Family Benefit overpayment, despite never having received social assistance.

The letters contained the complainant's address and last name, but a different first name, along with the actual recipient's case number and overpayment amount.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information constituted personal information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The investigation concluded that the municipality failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of the personal information before using it, and improperly disclosed the actual recipient's personal information to the complainant.

An individual complained that a Township disclosed a copy of an Appointment of Voting Proxy containing her personal information to the public.

The Township argued the proxy was a public record under section 27 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated and found that the proxy contained personal information, was not a public record, and that the disclosure violated section 32 of the Act.

The Commissioner recommended the Township cease disclosing copies of the proxy.

A teacher filed a privacy complaint against a separate school board after a trustee disclosed the teacher's personal information to the local Archbishop.

The information, which included student complaints about the teacher's remarks in class, had been provided to the trustee during an in-camera committee meeting.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the records contained personal information and that the disclosure to the Archbishop was not in compliance with section 32 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as it was neither necessary for the performance of duties nor for a consistent purpose.

The complainant alleged that the Municipality improperly disclosed their personal information to a municipal Councillor.

The complainant had been cited for a zoning by-law infraction and allegedly requested a deferral of the work order due to their upcoming candidacy in the municipal election.

The Municipality disclosed details of this request to the incumbent Councillor, who used it in campaign literature.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the property address and infractions were not personal information, the complainant's name and the details of their request were.

The disclosure to the Councillor was not for a consistent purpose under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and therefore contravened section 32.

The complainant alleged that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs improperly disclosed his personal information to the Interim Chair of the Ontario Municipal Board and to a Town employee via facsimile.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information constituted personal information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The disclosure to the Interim Chair was found to be for a consistent purpose and thus compliant with section 42 of the Act, as it allowed the Chair to respond to the complaint against him.

However, the disclosure to the Town was not for a consistent purpose and violated section 42.

The Ministry was recommended to ensure future compliance.