Employment and Labour Law

An employee of a psychiatric hospital complained that her medical diagnosis was improperly disclosed to hospital staff during the process of arranging employment accommodation.

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

The Commissioner concluded that while disclosure to the Assistant Administrator was necessary and proper under section 42(d), disclosures to the Personnel department and the Director of Materials Management were not in accordance with the Act.

The Ministry was recommended to educate staff and establish guidelines for processing accommodation requests.

An employer filed a privacy complaint against the Ontario Labour Relations Board after the Board disclosed lists of employees to a union during certification proceedings.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the employee lists constituted 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 the Board obtained the lists for the purpose of reviewing the certification application, and disclosing them to the parties was consistent with that purpose.

An investigation was initiated following a complaint that the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services collected and disclosed personal information regarding employee attendance and sick time without proper notice or authority.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the attendance review letters and summary list contained personal information.

The Officer concluded that the Ministry failed to provide adequate notice of collection to employees hired before the implementation of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as relying on the Directory of Records was insufficient.

Furthermore, the disclosure of the summary list on a public notice board violated the disclosure provisions of the Act.

The Ministry was ordered to provide proper notice and update its policies.

The appellant requested access to records relating to an investigation of a complaint that he had sexually harassed a co-worker.

The Ministry of Health disclosed some records but withheld others under various exemptions.

The Inquiry Officer found that the withheld records contained personal information and that some were exempt under solicitor-client privilege.

The Officer also upheld the Ministry's decision to withhold other records on the basis that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the affected persons who provided information during the investigation.

The Ministry's search for records was deemed reasonable.

The Ministry of Health received a freedom of information request for records relating to a sexual harassment investigation.

The complainant objected to the disclosure of the records and appealed the Ministry's decision to grant partial access.

The Inquiry Officer found that the mandatory exemption for third-party information did not apply because the individuals involved were employees, not third parties.

The records contained the personal information of both the requester and the complainant.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision to disclose the records, finding that the complainant failed to demonstrate that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of her personal privacy.

The requester sought access to records relating to the investigation of her sexual harassment complaint against a co-worker.

The Ministry of Health granted partial access, denying access to some records under sections 13(1), 19, and 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Both the requester and the co-worker (affected person) appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that some records were exempt under section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) and section 21 (personal privacy), but ordered the disclosure of other records where the exemptions did not apply or where the Ministry failed to establish the requirements for section 13(1) (advice or recommendations).

An employee of a municipal ambulance service filed a privacy complaint alleging that their supervisor and a staff psychologist improperly collected and disclosed their personal medical information to the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) and to each other.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the collection of information and the psychologist's disclosure to the WCB were authorized, the supervisor's direct disclosure to the WCB and the psychologist's disclosure to the supervisor violated the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The municipality was ordered to implement policies ensuring staff awareness of disclosure limits and proper documentation of security measures for supervisor logs.

The complainant, an employee of a mental health centre operated by the Ministry of Health, alleged that the Ministry improperly disclosed his personal information during a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) investigation in which he was the respondent.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated four separate disclosures, including the sharing of the investigation summary report with management, the phrasing of interview questions, discussions with various individuals, and updates provided to the WDHP complainant.

The Compliance Review Officer concluded that while the records and discussions contained the complainant's personal information, all disclosures were made in accordance with sections 42(c) and 42(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as they were necessary for the performance of duties or for the purpose for which the information was obtained.

The complainant, an occasional teacher, alleged that a municipal school board breached his privacy by collecting and using personal information from a public arbitration decision to terminate his long-term occasional contract and remove him from its occasional teacher list.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the collection of the information was authorized, the Board failed to provide proper notice of collection.

Furthermore, the Board's use of the information to remove the complainant from the occasional teacher list was not for a consistent purpose, though its use to terminate the specific long-term contract was permissible.

The Board was ordered to implement proper notice and authorization procedures.

The complainant, an applicant for a firefighter position with a municipality, filed a privacy complaint regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of his personal information (race, sex, and social insurance number) on a test answer sheet.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the initial collection of pre-employment data on the application form was authorized for an employment equity program, the subsequent collection on the test answer sheet was not necessary and violated the Act.

The municipality also failed to provide proper notice of collection, and its use and disclosure of the data to a private testing company in California, including the disclosure of the complainant's SIN, were not in accordance with the Act.

The Assistant Commissioner issued recommendations to ensure future compliance.

The complainant, an employee of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, alleged three privacy breaches.

First, the amount of her WCB award was disclosed to staff.

Second, the award amount was allegedly disclosed improperly during a grievance meeting.

Third, she was allegedly depicted in a derogatory manner in a staff Christmas video after being unsuccessful in a job competition.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the WCB award and the video depiction constituted personal information.

While the exact method of disclosure during the grievance meeting could not be determined, the use of the complainant's personal information in the video violated section 41 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry was ordered to ensure future compliance.

The appellant requested access to an investigation report concerning her allegation of sexual harassment.

The Ministry of Education disclosed parts of the report but withheld the names and interview notes of the affected persons under the personal privacy exemption.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the withheld information qualified as personal information and its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected persons' personal privacy, particularly given their expectation of confidentiality.

The Ministry of Natural Resources denied a freedom of information request for a Stage 2 grievance report, claiming exemptions under sections 13(1), 17(1)(d), 18(1)(c), 19, and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The requester appealed.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the record did not qualify for exemption under section 18(1)(c) (economic interests) or section 19 (solicitor-client privilege).

However, certain parts of the record were found to contain advice or recommendations exempt under section 13(1), and personal information exempt under section 21(1).

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt portions of the record.

The appellant requested access to the correct answers for interview and written questions from three job competitions in which she was a candidate.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services denied access under sections 18(1)(f) and (g) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the correct answers had already been put into operation and were not part of proposed plans or policies.

Therefore, the exemptions did not apply, and the Ministry was ordered to disclose the records.

The requester appealed the Ministry of Correctional Services' decision to deny access to parts of a record relating to allegations of wrongdoing and discipline involving the requester.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 14(1)(f), 20, 49(a), and 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that section 14(1)(f) did not apply as the Ministry failed to demonstrate that disclosure would deprive anyone of a fair trial or impartial adjudication in an upcoming grievance hearing.

However, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the application of section 49(b) to certain pages, finding that their disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of other individuals, while ordering the disclosure of the remaining pages.

The appellant requested information from the City of Mississauga regarding its use of private investigators, specifically concerning an investigation into the appellant.

The City refused to confirm or deny the existence of the records under section 8(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming they would be exempt under law enforcement provisions.

The Commissioner found that the records related to an employment disciplinary matter, not 'law enforcement' as defined in the Act.

Therefore, the exemptions did not apply, and the City could not rely on section 8(3).

The Commissioner ordered the City to disclose the non-identifying portions of the records.

The appellant requested that the Ministry of Correctional Services correct his personal information contained in two employee separation and work performance records.

The Ministry denied the request, stating the information was not inaccurate, and invited the appellant to submit a statement of disagreement.

The appellant appealed.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while the information qualified as personal information, the requested changes amounted to a substitution of opinion rather than a correction of factual error.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Ministry's decision not to change the records was upheld.

The appellant requested access to his personnel file and documentation of allegations made against him that led to his dismissal.

The Ministry of Government Services denied access to portions of the records, citing exemptions for threats to health and safety and unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the records did not pose a serious threat to health or safety.

However, the Commissioner upheld the privacy exemption for a consultant's report containing highly sensitive information supplied in confidence by affected persons.

The Commissioner ordered the disclosure of summaries of a disciplinary hearing, as the appellant had a right to attend and cross-examine witnesses at that hearing, negating any expectation of confidentiality.

The appellant requested access to records, including statements made by three co-workers, which led to a letter of reprimand on his personnel file.

The Ministry of Health denied access to portions of the records under section 49(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, citing an unjustified invasion of the co-workers' personal privacy.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the decision, finding that the information was highly sensitive and supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The appellant requested a correction to his attendance records to change 'sick' days to 'WCB' days, reflecting decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board.

The Ministry of Correctional Services refused, arguing the WCB decisions were under appeal.

The Commissioner found the information was personal information and ordered the Ministry to attach a memorandum to the records reflecting the WCB's findings, as the WCB decisions had not been set aside.