Susan Anthistle

The complainant, a divorced support payor, filed a privacy complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services after receiving a request to complete a financial statement to determine the adequacy of child support for his ex-wife, who was receiving Family Benefits.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the requested financial information constituted personal information under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer concluded that the Ministry's collection of this information was necessary for the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity, specifically determining eligibility for social assistance, and thus complied with section 38(2).

However, the Officer found that the Ministry's notice of collection was deficient under section 39(2) because it failed to cite the specific statutory provisions authorizing the collection and lacked the business address of the contact person.

The Ministry was ordered to amend its notice of collection accordingly.

The complainants filed a privacy complaint regarding a county's social services department requiring welfare applicants to obtain signatures from prospective employers on a job search form.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether this requirement resulted in the improper disclosure of personal information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The investigator concluded that the form constructively disclosed the applicants' status as welfare recipients to prospective employers.

The investigator found that the applicants' implicit consent to this disclosure was vitiated by economic duress, as they were told they would not receive benefits without the signatures.

The county was found to be in non-compliance with the Act and agreed to discontinue the practice and amend its forms.

The complainant, a sewage treatment plant manager, alleged that the Ministry of Environment and Energy improperly disclosed his personal information to a third party acting on behalf of a village mayor.

The Ministry had provided the third party with a copy of a letter sent to the complainant regarding his operator's license, which included his home address and employment history.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that while disclosing the status of the license was for a consistent purpose under section 42(c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, disclosing the letter itself containing additional personal information was not in compliance with the Act.

The complainant alleged that the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) improperly disclosed his personal information, including his claim file, to an insurance company without valid consent.

The WCB relied on an authorization signed by the complainant in 1994 for a separate long-term disability claim.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner's Compliance Review Officer found that the information disclosed constituted 'personal information' under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer concluded that the disclosure was not in compliance with section 42 of the Act, as the complainant had not identified the specific information to be disclosed nor consented to the disclosure of his entire WCB file.

The WCB was recommended to ensure future compliance with section 42.

A parent complained about a school board's collection of personal information (names and telephone numbers) on a survey regarding year-round education.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information collected was 'personal information' under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The collection was not expressly authorized by statute nor necessary to the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity, violating section 28(2).

Furthermore, the board failed to provide the required notice of collection under section 29(2).

The board was recommended to collect personal information only when necessary and to ensure future compliance.

The complainants alleged that a police officer improperly disclosed their written and videotaped witness statements to the plaintiff's lawyer in a civil lawsuit outside the discovery process.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the statements contained personal information under section 2(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer determined that section 51(1) did not apply because the disclosure occurred outside the formal litigation process.

Furthermore, the disclosure did not comply with any of the permitted exceptions under section 32 of the Act.

The Police Services Board subsequently implemented the Officer's recommendation to ensure future compliance.

A father complained that a separate school board improperly disclosed information from his son's Ontario Student Record to the police during an investigation into an assault.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act prevails over the confidentiality provisions of the Education Act.

The Officer concluded that the information disclosed was personal information, but that the school board disclosed it in compliance with section 32(g) of the Act to aid a law enforcement investigation.

The Officer recommended that the board review its protocol with the police to clarify the definition of personal information.

The complainant alleged that a regional police services board improperly collected and used personal information from his son's Ontario Student Record during an assault investigation.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act prevailed over the confidentiality provisions of the Education Act, and whether the police's collection and use of the information complied with the Act.

The Commissioner concluded that the Act prevailed over the Education Act's confidentiality provision, and that the police collected and used the personal information in compliance with the Act for law enforcement purposes.

The Commissioner recommended that the police review their protocol with the school board to clarify the definition of personal information.

A teacher complained that a Police Services Board breached the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by disclosing witness statements to a school board for a disciplinary hearing after the teacher was acquitted of criminal charges.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the witness statements contained the personal information of both the witnesses and the complainant.

While the witnesses' personal information was disclosed with their consent in compliance with section 32(b), the complainant's personal information was disclosed in contravention of section 32, as the disclosure was not required by the Education Act nor was it for a consistent purpose.

The complainant, a former employee of an agency funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, alleged that the Ministry improperly disclosed a letter containing her concerns about the agency's operations to the agency's Board of Directors.

The letter, signed by the complainant and others, was subsequently made public, leading to alleged harassment and job loss.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner's investigation concluded that the information in the letter constituted 'personal information' under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Furthermore, the disclosure to the Board without severing the signatories' names was not necessary to address the systemic concerns raised, and therefore was not in compliance with section 42(c) of the Act.

A student complained that a college disclosed their personal information to the student association and an insurance company without consent to administer a student health insurance plan.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information was 'personal information' under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer concluded that the disclosure was not in compliance with section 42 of the Act, as the student could not have reasonably expected the disclosure for this purpose when registering.

The Officer recommended that the college provide revised notices of collection and ensure only necessary information is disclosed.

The complainants alleged that the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services breached the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by disclosing unsevered witness statements and an occurrence report from an OPP arson investigation to their insurance company's adjuster.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the records contained personal information and that the disclosure to the private insurance adjuster was not for a consistent purpose under section 42(c) of the Act.

The Officer concluded that the disclosure was not in compliance with the Act and recommended that the Ministry advise the OPP of the findings to prevent future breaches.

A Ministry employee complained that a document outlining his grievance against management was disclosed without his consent to the Assistant to the Branch Director and subsequently to Human Resources staff.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the record contained the complainant's personal information under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer concluded that the Ministry failed to demonstrate that the disclosures were necessary and proper in the discharge of its functions under section 42(d) of the Act, and recommended the Ministry review its chain-of-command practices to ensure disclosure is only on a need-to-know basis.

The complainant, a former city employee, alleged that the City improperly collected her medical diagnosis on return-to-work forms in violation of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the forms contained personal information.

The collection of information on the 'Fitness Assessment - Return to Work' form was necessary for administering the short-term disability program and complied with the Act.

However, the collection of a medical diagnosis and treatment details on the 'Attending Physician's Statement' was not necessary and violated section 28(2).

The City also failed to provide proper notice of collection under section 29(2).

A complainant alleged that a town disclosed her personal information contrary to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The town's Chief Administrative Officer read the complainant's solicitor's letter aloud during an open committee meeting and distributed copies to the press.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information was personal information and that its disclosure to the press and public during an open session was not in compliance with section 32 of the Act.

The Officer recommended that the town amend the meeting minutes to remove the complainant's identity and take steps to ensure future compliance.

The complainant alleged that the Ministry of Finance improperly disclosed personal information about him and his wife.

The complainant's wife, a provincial government employee, used her employer's fax machine to send the complainant's access to information request to the Ministry.

A Ministry counsel subsequently contacted the wife's supervisor to advise that she had inappropriately used the fax machine for personal reasons, revealing the access request.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information disclosed constituted personal information under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer concluded that the disclosure to the supervisor was not for a consistent purpose under section 42(c), as the wife could not have reasonably expected such disclosure in the absence of a specific workplace policy prohibiting personal use of the fax machine.

The Ministry was found to have breached section 42 of the Act and was recommended to educate staff on the limited circumstances permitting disclosure.

The complainant, the mother of an autistic former student, filed a privacy complaint against a public Board of Education regarding anecdotal notes collected by school staff.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether the collection, notice, retention, and accuracy of the personal information complied with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information was personal information and was collected and retained in compliance with the Act, and that reasonable steps were taken to ensure its accuracy.

However, the Board failed to provide proper notice of collection to the complainant.

The Board was recommended to provide notice of collection for its special education programs.

The complainant filed a privacy complaint against a City after the Mayor required him to submit his municipal freedom of information requests directly to her office rather than the Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information in the access requests constituted personal information under section 2(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer concluded that the City breached section 3(2) of Ontario Regulation 823 because the Mayor was not the designated head under the Act and did not need the records for the performance of her duties.

The City was recommended to ensure access to such records is restricted to those who need them for their duties.

The complainant, a former nursing student, filed a privacy complaint against a College of Applied Arts and Technology.

The College had disclosed a letter written by the complainant to a psychiatric institute and requested a risk assessment regarding the complainant's potential for physical violence.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the College's actions violated the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Specifically, the collection of the risk assessment was not expressly authorized by statute, used for law enforcement, or necessary to the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity.

Furthermore, the College failed to provide proper notice of collection and improperly disclosed the complainant's personal information for an inconsistent purpose.

The Officer recommended that the College amend its policies to ensure compliance with the Act.

The complainant, a probationary constable, was dismissed by the Police Services Board.

The Board's Chair issued a news release to the media regarding the termination, attaching a letter detailing the complainant's alleged misconduct involving alcohol consumption.

The complainant alleged this disclosure breached his privacy.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the disclosed information constituted 'personal information' under section 2(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Furthermore, the disclosure to the media was not in compliance with any of the permitted exceptions under section 32 of the Act.

The Officer recommended the Board take steps to ensure future compliance.