|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
PC-010008-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Environment
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINT: On March 7 and 8, 2001, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) received two letters dated February 20, 2001 from the complainant, the essence of which were that the Ministry had violated her privacy by disclosing her e-mail correspondence regarding the hauling of sludge, addressed to the Ministry, to two named companies and to two Sludge Co-coordinators who work in the Ministry's regional office but who are not provincial employees. In the course of clarifying the complaint with this office, the complainant also objected to the way in which a Ministry employee answered a telephone call. Disclosure to the company and the sludge hauler The complainant sent an e-mail to a District Manager stating that she understood that a named company was hauling sludge into a particular municipality, and asking the name of the facility it was being hauled to and for what purpose. The District Manager sent the complainant a reply e-mail and copied the reply e-mail to the named company. He also provided a hard copy of the e-mail to another named individual who was the sludge hauler. The reply e-mail included the original text of the complainant's e-mail, her name and her e-mail address. Disclosure to the Sludge Co-ordiantors The same e-mail was also copied to six internal recipients, two of whom held the positions of Sludge Co-ordinators. The complainant objects to the two Sludge Co-ordiantors receiving copies of the e-mail, claiming that these individuals were neither officers nor employees of the Ministry and were therefore not entitled to disclosure. Answering the complainants telephone call The complainant states that a Ministry employee answered a Ministry telephone extension with a greeting that included the complainant's first name [for example, "Hi, (complainant's name). The complainant feels that the employee's use of telephone call display (Caller ID) in that manner was an invasion of her privacy. DISCUSSION: The following issues were identified as arising from the investigation: Was the information disclosed in the e-mail "personal information" as defined in section 2(1) of the Act ? Section 2(1) of the Act states, in part, that "personal information" means recorded information about an identifiable individual, including: (c) any identifying number, symbol or other particular assigned to the individual; (f) correspondence sent to an institution by the individual that is implicitly or explicitly of a private or confidential nature, and replies to that correspondence that would reveal the contents of the original correspondence; and (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. I have reviewed the e-mail and reply. It includes the complainant's name and e-mail address in the form of "firstname.lastname@sympatico.ca" with no indication that the e-mail was sent on anyone else's behalf. The Ministry is of the view that the email did not contain the complainant's personal information: …[the complainant] makes requests of or provides information to the Ministry as a representative of specific organizations [named organizations], she is considered to have made the requests in her professional capacity as a consultant, not a private citizen…it is appropriate, and indeed consistent with the past practice and decisions of the IPC that [the complainant's] name not be considered personal information under FIPPA. The complainant gave no indication in the e-mail that the inquiry was being made in a professional capacity. The complainant's name and e-mail address in the form of "firstname.lastname@sympatico.ca" and the text of the e-mail itself gave no indication to the Ministry that the e-mail was sent on behalf of any organization. In my view, the information in the e-mail qualifies as the complainant's "personal information" under paragraphs (c), (f) and (h) in the definition of "personal information" at section 2(1) of the Act . Was the disclosure of the personal information by the Ministry in accordance with section 42 of the Act ? The disclosure of personal information is regulated by section 42 of the Act , which states, in part: 42. An institution shall not disclose personal information in its custody or under its control except, (c) for the purpose for which it was obtained or compiled or for a consistent purpose; (d) where the disclosure is made to an officer or employee of the institution who needs the record in the performance of his or her duties where disclosure is necessary and proper in the discharge of the institution's functions. Disclosure to the Sludge Co-ordinators I will begin this analysis by considering whether the disclosure to the Sludge Co-ordinators is permitted under section 42(c). In interpreting this section, it is important to note the provisions of section 43 of the Act , which states: Where personal information has been directly collected from the individual to whom the information relates, the purpose of a use or disclosure of that information is a consistent purpose under clauses 41(b) and 42(c) only if the individual might have reasonably expected such a use. The complainant's original e-mail to the Ministry was an inquiry regarding the purpose for hauling sludge produced by the company into a particular municipality, and seeking to identify the facility to which it was being hauled. It is clear that the Ministry's original purpose for obtainin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Kileen Dagg Centurione
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Oct 15, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Privacy Complaint Report
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|