|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
PC-000042-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
SUMMARY OF COMMISSIONER INITIATED COMPLAINT: The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (the IPC) received a letter, dated November 24, 2000, from the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Family Justice Services Division, setting out the circumstances surrounding the theft of a briefcase from an Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (the OPGT) investigator, resulting in the inadvertent disclosure of personal information. The letter indicated that the OPGT welcomed the IPC's advice and comments on this matter. On the basis of this letter, the IPC initiated an investigation under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) . Theft of the briefcase OPGT investigators conduct property inventories for OPGT clients (incapable adults for whom the OPGT acts as guardian of property, and estates of deceased persons where there is no one else available to administer the estate), and they also investigate allegations of abuse against incapable adults. The letter received from the Assistant Deputy Attorney General sets out the following information regarding this incident: On November 15, 2000, between the hours of 7:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., a car belonging to an investigator with the OPGT was broken into, and a briefcase was stolen. The briefcase contained personal information belonging to a number of individuals. Paper records were stolen that contained basic personal information such as names and phone numbers of persons connected with OPGT investigations. A computer disk containing identifying information belonging to a number of individuals was also stolen along with a dicta tape containing similar information. There were also unlabelled keys to a house owned by one OPGT client. The letter stated that the briefcase was locked in the back of a hatchback car, covered by a blanket and gym bag. The investigator had the information in his car because it was needed for his work duties the following day. At the time of the break-in, the investigator was attending on a personal errand. The letter also confirmed that the investigator had reported the theft to the police and that the police were investigating the matter, but that none of the stolen property had been recovered. Immediate steps taken by the OPGT In the case of the stolen keys, the OPGT acted to ensure that the locks to the client's house were changed and the property checked. The Public Guardian and Trustee prepared and circulated an internal memorandum to all staff, dated November 23, 2000, reminding staff of the duty to safeguard OPGT information and property by taking all precautions necessary. Staff were advised that they must not remove information from the office unless it is needed to perform work of the OPGT. Staff were reminded that OPGT property must not be left unattended, unless there is no alternative and all reasonable precautions are taken to keep it safe. The OPGT began the process of notifying two individuals whose personal information was contained in the stolen records. The OPGT made a decision not to notify the other ten individuals for the reason that they are either incapable and would not understand or appreciate the nature of the information and it may cause harm to their condition; or, that to do so would jeopardize the status of ongoing investigations and possibly put an incapable person at risk of personal or financial harm. DISCUSSION: The following issues were identified as arising from the investigation: Is the information "personal information" as defined in section 2(1) of the Act ? Section 2(1) of the Act states, in part: "Personal information means recorded information about an identifiable individual, including, (a) information relating to the race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation or marital or family status of the individual, (b) information relating to the education or medical, psychiatric, psychological , criminal or employment history of the individual or information relating to financial transactions in which the individual has been involved, (d) the address, telephone number , fingerprints or blood type of the individual, (h) the individual's name where it appears with other personal information relating to the individual or where the disclosure of the name would reveal other personal information about the individual. The OPGT confirmed that the names, addresses and telephone numbers, along with other information about twelve individuals (eight clients and four others) was inadvertently disclosed as a result of the theft of the briefcase. In particular, the briefcase contained: Computer disk containing identifying information on three guardianship investigations. Two paper files: One file is a new investigation file with minimal information regarding the allegation. The second file contains allegation information, the investigator's notes and copies of letters from the investigator to third parties requesting information. Two request for investigation memos pertaining to two clients for whom the OPGT is statutory guardian: One memo concerns a request to th
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Diane Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
May 25, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Privacy Complaint Report
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|