Susan Anthistle

An employee complained that the Ministry of Community and Social Services improperly destroyed handwritten notes taken during a meeting about his workplace harassment concerns.

The notes were used to prepare a memo, after which they were destroyed.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner's Compliance Review Officer found that the notes contained personal information and that the Ministry failed to retain them for the mandatory one-year period after use, as required by section 5(1) of Regulation 460 under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer recommended that the Ministry remind staff of the retention requirements.

The complainant, a college student, alleged that the College's Head of Security disclosed his class schedule and photograph to a department store employee without consent.

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

The Commissioner found that the information was personal information and that the disclosure to the store's security service or the employee was not in compliance with section 42(g), as the store was neither an institution nor a law enforcement agency under the Act.

The College was recommended to update its security manual and raise awareness regarding the limited circumstances for disclosing personal information.

A former employee of a municipality's housing corporation filed a privacy complaint alleging that the municipality improperly collected, disclosed, and failed to protect her personal information.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated and found that the information in question was personal information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner concluded that the proposed collection of a medical certificate and the disclosure of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision to Employment and Immigration Canada were in compliance with the Act.

Findings regarding the physical protection of employment letters and a pension statement were inconclusive due to conflicting accounts.

An employee filed a privacy complaint against the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, alleging that her personal information was improperly disclosed to an investigator assigned to review her workplace complaint against two directors.

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

However, the Officer concluded that the Ministry's disclosure of the letters to the investigator was in compliance with section 42(c) of the Act, as it was for the purpose for which the information was obtained or compiled—namely, to deal with and investigate the complaint.

The complainant, a former employee of the Municipality who had previously received General Welfare Assistance (GWA), filed a privacy complaint alleging that his personal information was improperly disclosed.

Following his termination for allegedly failing to declare assets while receiving GWA, the complainant grieved the dismissal.

He alleged that his GWA file was improperly disclosed to his Unit Manager and the Manager of Employee Relations.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information was personal information, but that its disclosure to both managers was in compliance with section 32(d) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as they needed the information in the performance of their duties related to the employment relationship and the grievance process.

The complainant, an employee of the Ministry of Housing, alleged that her manager disclosed her personal information to the Director and the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) Co-ordinator without her consent, in breach of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information was 'personal information' under the Act.

The disclosure to the WDHP Co-ordinator was not in compliance with section 42 of the Act, as the Co-ordinator did not need the complainant's identity at that initial stage.

However, the disclosure to the Director was in compliance with section 42(d), as the Director needed the information to consider the complainant's request for a transfer.

The complainants, parents of a student, filed a privacy complaint against a public board of education.

The father had provided a list of questions regarding school incidents to the Director of Education, requesting they not be distributed without permission.

The Director subsequently shared the questions with other board staff to obtain answers.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether this disclosure breached the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Compliance Review Officer found that while the questions contained personal information, the disclosure was permitted under sections 32(c) and (d) of the Act, as it was for the purpose for which the information was obtained and was necessary for employees to perform their duties.

The complainant, an employee of a Ministry youth detention centre, alleged that the Ministry improperly disclosed his personal information to a children's aid society (CAS) during an investigation into an assault on a CAS ward.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether the information disclosed—that the complainant missed two scheduled meetings and that his work performance should be monitored—constituted personal information and whether its disclosure violated the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner concluded that the information was personal information.

However, due to conflicting evidence regarding whether the meetings were actually scheduled and communicated to the complainant, the Commissioner was unable to determine if the disclosure was made for a consistent purpose in compliance with section 42 of the Act.

A parent complained that a public school board collected her daughter's personal information without consent through a psychological and personality test, allegedly contravening the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information was personal information under the Act.

However, the collection was in compliance with section 28(2) of the Act because it was necessary to the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity, namely identifying appropriate special education programs under the Education Act.

The complainant alleged that a Workers' Compensation Board physician improperly disclosed his personal medical information to the College of Physicians and Surgeons without consent.

The disclosure occurred after the complainant filed a complaint with the College regarding the physician's conduct and qualifications.

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

However, the disclosure was permitted under section 42(c) of the Act because it was for a consistent purpose, as the complainant should have reasonably expected the physician to disclose relevant medical records to the College to respond to the allegations.

The complainant, representing the Adult Protective Association of Ontario, filed a privacy complaint regarding the Ministry of Community and Social Services' collection of personal information from the files of developmentally challenged clients without their consent.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether the collection complied with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that while the collection of personal information was necessary for the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity under the Development Services Act, the Ministry failed to provide the required notice of collection under section 39(2) of the Act.

The Ministry was ordered to ensure proper notice is given for future collections.

An employee of the Ministry of Finance complained that the Ministry's collection of Social Insurance Numbers (SIN) on three internal forms violated the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the SIN is personal information under section 2(1) of the Act.

The collection of the SIN on the 'Request for Leave of Absence' form was found to comply with section 38(2) because it was necessary for payroll administration.

However, the collection of the SIN on the 'Statement of Travelling Expenses' and 'Request for Advance' forms was not necessary for the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity and therefore violated section 38(2).

The Ministry was recommended to cease collecting the SIN on the latter two forms.

The complainant alleged that a police services board improperly disclosed his personal information to his former employer.

The information was contained in an occurrence report prepared after an investigation initiated by the employer.

The complainant discovered the disclosure during a mediation hearing for a wrongful dismissal complaint, when the employer's lawyer provided an unsevered copy of the report.

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

The investigation further found that the police services board's disclosure of this information to the employer was not in compliance with section 32 of the Act.

The police services board was recommended to ensure future disclosures comply with the Act.

The complainant, an employee of the Ministry of Health, alleged that her personal medical information regarding a severe shellfish allergy and workplace accommodation requirements was disclosed to the Hospital's Director of Medical Services without her consent.

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

However, the disclosure was permitted under section 42(d) of the Act because the Director needed the information to ensure the complainant's accommodation needs were met while minimizing health and safety risks to patients.

The Ministry was recommended to clarify its procedures regarding the disclosure of personal information for employment accommodations.

The complainant, a surplus employee involved in a redeployment process, alleged that the Ministry of the Attorney General improperly disclosed his personal information when his employment profile was faxed to a courthouse and subsequently read by unauthorized staff.

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

The investigation concluded that the Ministry's disclosure was not in compliance with section 42 of the Act and that the Ministry failed to take reasonable measures to prevent unauthorized access to the faxed records.

The Ministry was directed to implement planned security and training measures.

The complainant alleged that the Ministry of the Attorney General improperly disclosed her personal information when a faxed letter was inadvertently given to the employee who was the subject of the letter.

The employee subsequently distributed copies of the letter at a regional centre.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information was personal information and that the initial disclosure by the Ministry violated section 42 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer also found that the Ministry failed to take reasonable measures to prevent unauthorized access to faxed records, and recommended the implementation of privacy guidelines and fax security procedures.

The complainant, a former Executive Director of a District Health Council, alleged that the Council improperly disclosed her personal information to the Ministry of Health, a local newspaper, committee members, and the public.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether these disclosures violated section 42 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information, which related to the complainant's termination, severance, and a freedom of information request, constituted personal information.

The investigation concluded that the Council's disclosures to the Ministry, in committee minutes, and to the public via resignation letters were not in compliance with section 42 of the Act.

The Council was recommended to educate its members and staff on the Act's disclosure provisions.

The complainant, a private in the Canadian Armed Forces, filed a privacy complaint against a regional police force after a police officer collected his Ministry of Transportation driver's licence number from the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) during a traffic stop.

The complainant had provided his military driver's licence but refused to provide his provincial licence.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether the collection and use of the complainant's personal information complied with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Compliance Review Officer concluded that the information was personal information, but its collection and use were authorized under the Act as they were for law enforcement purposes, specifically to check for driving suspensions and to issue a traffic ticket.

The complainant objected to the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade collecting her Social Insurance Number (SIN) on an application for a loan under the New Ventures program.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the SIN is personal information, but its collection was necessary to the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity (verifying that an applicant had not previously received a loan) and thus complied with section 38(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, the Ministry failed to provide proper notice of collection under section 39(2) because the application form did not include the contact information of a public official who could answer questions about the collection.

The complainant alleged that the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services improperly disclosed her identity and the fact that she had filed a complaint against a local Police Service to two individuals and the local Police Chief.

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

The Officer concluded that the disclosures to the two individuals and the Police Chief were not in compliance with section 42 of the Act, as they were not for a consistent purpose nor in aid of a law enforcement investigation.

The Ministry was recommended to take steps to ensure compliance with section 42.