Français
|
Contact Us
|
Site Map
|
Advanced Search
IPC Search
Google
Order/Report No.
Main Menu
> For the Public
Access Personal Information
Your Privacy Rights
Privacy Complaints
Protecting Your Privacy
> For Professional
Collecting Personal Information
Using Personal Information
Accessing Information
Disclosing Information
Retaining and Disposing Information
Stop. Think. Protect.
Toolkit
Privacy Emergency Kit
> Privacy by Design
Introduction to PbD
> Stop Bullying... by Design
Stop Bullying... by Design
What is Bullying
What To Do
Online Safety
Resources
> For the Public
Accessing Public Information
Accessing Personal Information
Complaints
Correction
Appeals
> For Professional
Openness with Information
Appeals
Toolkit
> Access by Design
Introduction to AbD
AbD in Action
Individual Ambassadors
Organizational Ambassadors
Right to Know
> Hospitals under FOI
For the Public
For Hospital Staff
Annual Reports
Best Practices and Professional Guidelines
Discussion Papers
Educational Material
Events
Forms
IPC Corporate
Legislation
Links
News Releases
Newsletters
Presentations and Speeches
Reports and Submissions
Browse All Decisions & Resolutions
Subject Index listing
Advanced Findings Search
Reconsideration Table
Judicial Review of Municipal Orders
Judicial Review of Provincial Orders
Judicial Review of Privacy Complaint Reports
The Acts
Recent Orders
About the Commissioner
Role and Mandate of the IPC Office
IPC Customer Service Standard
IPC Procedures
Annual Report
Newsletters
News Releases
Educational Resources
How to Reach Us
What's New
Home
|
Decisions and Resolutions
| PO-3050
E-mail
|
Print
|
Accessibility
|
Share:
|
Subject Index Listing
Reconsideration Table
Judicial Review of Municipal Orders
Judicial Review of Provincial Orders
Judicial Review of Privacy Complaint Reports
The Acts
Recent Orders
PO-3050
Document
PO-3050
/ifq?>
File #
PA10-390
Institution/HIC
Carleton University
Summary
The appellant sought records, including emails, held by Carleton University’s Department of Law. The appellant questioned the search performed by the university for responsive records. The university took the position that emails deleted by a particular professor were beyond the scope of the appellant’s request. This order finds the deleted emails were within the scope of the appellant’s request and that, as a result, an adequate search for responsive records had not been performed.
However, the adjudicator found that in general, an access request for emails does not require a routine search of backup tapes for deleted emails unless there is a reason to assume that responsive records may have been deleted or lost.
Legislation
FIPPA
Signed by
Brian Beamish
Published
Feb 09, 2012
Type
Order
Orders and Reports Considered
P-880
MO-1406
<< Back
Back to Top
Privacy
|
Access to Information
|
Resources
|
Decisions & Resolutions
|
About Us
Français
|
Contact Us
|
Site Map
|
Advanced Search
|
RSS
|
Accessibility
|
Twitter Policy
|
Privacy Policy
© Copyright 2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
To search for a specific word or phrase, use quotation marks around each search term. (Example: "smart meter")