IPCO 1995

The appellant made a freedom of information request to Lakehead University for statistics on full-time and part-time faculty by department over an 11-year period.

The university denied access, claiming the information in its human resources databases was excluded under the employment or labour relations exclusion in section 65(6)3 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that producing the record would require extensive manual collation.

The adjudicator found that the raw data in the databases did not relate to specific communications about employment-related matters in which the university has an interest, and therefore the exclusion did not apply.

The adjudicator also found that the requested information constitutes a 'record' capable of being produced from machine-readable records without unreasonably interfering with the university's operations, and ordered the university to issue a new access decision.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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, 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 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 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.

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, 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 tenant complained that the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority (MTHA) improperly collected personal information by requiring proof of vehicle ownership to obtain a parking sticker.

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

However, the collection was authorized under section 38(2) as it was necessary for the proper administration of the MTHA's parking management program, which required proof of both residency and personal ownership.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the MTHA's form failed to provide the required notice of collection under section 39(2) and recommended that the form be amended.

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.

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.