Susan Anthistle

The complainant, an employee of a Board of Education, alleged that her personal information was improperly disclosed during a job competition and that the Board improperly destroyed the competition records.

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

While the Officer could not conclude whether the information was improperly disclosed to other applicants or employees, she found that the Board failed to provide proper notice of collection and failed to retain the records for the required period.

The Board was ordered to implement recommendations to comply with the Act.

The complainant submitted a request for general records to a Municipality, explicitly asking that his identity remain confidential.

The Municipality's Freedom of Information Co-ordinator disclosed the complainant's letter, including his name and contact information, to the Director of Administration for the Community Services Department.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated and found that the information disclosed was 'personal information' under section 2(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner concluded that the disclosure was not in compliance with section 32 of the Act and recommended the Municipality take steps to ensure future compliance.

The complainant objected to a separate school board using her personal information, obtained from the municipal assessment roll, to solicit her tax support.

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

The Commissioner concluded that the information was personal information, but the board's use of it to advise Roman Catholic ratepayers of their right to direct taxes to the separate school system was consistent with the purpose for which it was obtained, and therefore complied with section 31 of the Act.

The complainant alleged that the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services improperly disclosed their personal information to a prospective employer in another province.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether the disclosure of the complainant's employment history and the former superintendent's opinion on rehire suitability violated the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The investigation concluded that while the information was personal information, its disclosure was for a consistent purpose under section 42(c) of the Act, as the complainant had signed an employment application acknowledging that references might be sought from unlisted sources.

The complainant made a freedom of information request to a board of education.

The board's Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator forwarded the access request form, which contained the complainant's name, address, and unlisted telephone number, by facsimile to the principal of the high school where the requested records were held.

The principal subsequently contacted the complainant to ask why the information was needed.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated and concluded that the information on the form constituted personal information under section 2(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner further found that the disclosure of this personal information to the principal was not necessary for the performance of his duties and therefore violated section 32 of the Act.

The Commissioner recommended changes to the board's procedures and pamphlet.

The complainant alleged that a Police Services Board improperly collected his medical information during a background check for a Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC) renewal.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the medical note collected by the Police constituted personal information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

However, the collection was authorized under section 28(2) of the Act because it was necessary for the proper administration of processing the FAC application under the Criminal Code, specifically to ensure the applicant's safety.

The complainant alleged that a school board trustee breached his privacy by disclosing during a televised debate that the board had spent substantial resources processing his access to information requests.

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

The Officer further concluded that the disclosure was not authorized under section 32 of the Act, as the complainant had not consented to the disclosure of this specific information, despite having previously spoken publicly about his access requests.

The Officer recommended that the board issue a guidance memorandum to staff and trustees regarding appropriate disclosures.

The complainant alleged that the Workers' Compensation Board improperly disclosed her claims file, including medical information and an unlisted telephone number, to her employer contrary to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

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

The disclosure of claims adjudicator memos, a claim summary, and the complainant's telephone number on a Form 6 was authorized by the Workers' Compensation Act and thus in accordance with the Act.

However, the disclosure of a walk-in clinic report without giving the complainant an opportunity to object was not in accordance with the Act.

The Board was recommended to remind staff to carefully review and correctly file incoming documents.

An employee of a community college filed a privacy complaint regarding the collection and retention of records containing personal information about his job performance, including a petition signed by co-workers, cautionary letters, and a psychiatric report.

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

The Officer concluded that the college collected the information in accordance with the Act, as it was necessary for the proper administration of human resources management.

The Officer also found that the college's retention of the records did not contravene the Act, as there is no maximum time limit for retention.

The complainant objected to a private issuer requesting his telephone number as a condition for accepting a cheque for a driver's licence renewal.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether the telephone number constituted personal information and whether its collection by the private issuer on behalf of the Ministry of Transportation complied with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Compliance Review Officer concluded that the telephone number was personal information and that its collection for cheque acceptance was not necessary to the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity, meaning it would violate section 38(2) of the Act.

The Ministry was recommended to issue an electronic bulletin clarifying its cheque acceptance policy.

The complainant objected to the Ministry of Natural Resources collecting their personal payroll and pension information to calculate retroactive compensation following a grievance settlement.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether the collection complied with section 38(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that the collection of gross pay, regular pay, overtime, pension payments, and unemployment insurance benefits was necessary to implement the settlement and therefore authorized.

However, the collection of Canada Pension Plan contribution information was unnecessary and violated the Act.

The Ministry acknowledged the error and agreed to enhance privacy training.

An employee complained that the City improperly disclosed his personal information to the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) after his claim for a back injury was denied.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether the records contained personal information and whether they were disclosed in accordance with section 32 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The investigation concluded that most of the disclosures, including medical records, sick leave records, and claim-related employee history, were authorized under the Act.

However, the disclosure of non-claim-related employee history, such as speeding suspensions, breached the Act.

The City was recommended to sever non-claim-related personal information from records provided to the WCB.

A complaint was filed against the Ministry of the Attorney General alleging that employee personal information, such as birth dates and marital status, was improperly disclosed to accounting staff via a salary budget database.

The Compliance Review Officer determined that the information constituted personal information under section 2(1) of the Act.

However, the Officer concluded that the disclosure of employees' names to the Director and Deputy Director of Finance for the preparation of the salary budget was necessary and proper in the discharge of the institution's functions, and was therefore permitted under section 42(d) of the Act.

The complainant alleged that the Workers' Compensation Board improperly disclosed his personal information to his spouse's employer.

The information was contained in a Non-economic Loss Assessment (NEL) related to his spouse's workers' compensation claim.

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

However, the disclosure was authorized under section 42(e) of the Act because section 42(12) of the Workers' Compensation Act required the Board to send a copy of the medical assessment to the accident employer.

The complainant objected to a municipality collecting and disclosing personal family information in relation to her son's enrolment in the Early Intervention Services Program.

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

The investigation concluded that while the municipality had the authority to collect the personal information as it was necessary for the program, it failed to provide proper notice of collection.

Furthermore, the municipality improperly disclosed the complainant's personal information (her identity as an access requester) to a municipal commissioner and a committee, contrary to section 32 of the Act.

The municipality was ordered to provide proper notice of collection on its forms.

The complainant alleged that the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations improperly disclosed her pre-adoptive surname to her husband when he requested their child's birth certificate.

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

The Officer also concluded that while the Ministry had defined and put in place reasonable measures to prevent unauthorized access, it had failed to document them as required by Regulation 460.

The Ministry was ordered to document its security measures.

A complainant alleged that the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) improperly collected personal information regarding her racial background during an investigation, contrary to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the information was personal information, but its collection was authorized under section 38(2) as it was for law enforcement purposes.

The Officer also found that no indirect collection occurred, rendering section 39(1) inapplicable.

The complainant alleged that the City improperly used his personal information from a freedom of information access request to deny his insurance claim.

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

The Officer concluded that the City's use of this information in considering the insurance claim appeal was not for the purpose for which it was obtained or a consistent purpose, thereby violating section 31 of the Act.

The Officer recommended the City take steps to ensure compliance with the Act.

A school board trustee complained that the board disclosed her personal information during an open meeting by publicly reprimanding her for leaking information from an in camera meeting.

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

The Commissioner concluded that the board's disclosure was not authorized by the Act and recommended that the board amend its policies to ensure compliance.

The complainant alleged that the Ministry of Health improperly disclosed her personal information to the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) when she received a targeted mailing.

The investigation found that the Ministry provided a list of names and addresses to Canada Post, which performed a mail merge with a form letter from the OBSP.

The Compliance Review Officer concluded that the information was 'personal information' under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, but that the disclosure to Canada Post was for a consistent purpose (health promotion) and therefore in accordance with section 42 of the Act.

The Ministry was recommended to sign confidentiality agreements directly in the future.