|
Summary
|
|
INTRODUCTION Background of the Complaint This investigation was initiated as a result of a complaint concerning a City. The complainant, an employee of the City, made a claim to the Worker's Compensation Board (WCB) with respect to a back injury. His claim was denied, and later, when he made a request to WCB for access to his claim file, he found that the City had disclosed information about him to WCB. His view was that some of the information disclosed was not relevant to his claim, and that the disclosure of this information to WCB breached the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). Issues Arising from the Investigation The following issues were identified as arising from the investigation: (A) Did the records in question contain the complainant's "personal information", as defined in section 2(1) of the Act ? If yes, (B) Were the records in question disclosed in accordance with section 32 of the Act ? RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION Issue A: Did the records in question contain the complainant's "personal information", as defined in section 2(1) of the Act ? Section 2(1) of the Act defines "personal information" as 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 the medical, psychiatric, psychological, criminal or employment history of the individual or information relating to financial transactions in which the individual has been involved, (c) any identifying number, symbol or other particular assigned to the individual, ... (g) the views or opinions of another individual about the individual, and (h) the individual's name if 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 records in question were the complainant's Short Term Disability (STD) Report, Sick Leave Record, Employee History Record, two letters written by employees of the City to WCB, and the WCB Investigator's report. It is our view that the above records contained information about the complainant which met the requirements in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (g), and (h) of the definition of personal information in section 2(1) of the Act . Conclusion: The records in question contained information which was personal information, as defined in section 2(1) of the Act . Issue B: Were the records in question disclosed in accordance with section 32 of the Act ? The City stated that the complainant had signed a consent (i.e. a Medical Records Waiver) in accordance with section 31(a) of the Act for the release of information in his medical records. Section 31(a) of the Act states: An institution shall not use [emphasis added] personal information in its custody or under its control except, (a) if the person to whom the information relates has identified that information in particular and consented to its use; The issue in this case is the disclosure, rather than use of the complainant's personal information. Therefore, the relevant section of the Act is section 32. Section 32 of the Act prohibits the disclosure of personal information by an institution except in the circumstances listed in section 32(a) through (l). Section 32 states in part: An institution shall not disclose personal information in its custody or under its control except, ... (b) if the person to whom the information relates has identified that information in particular and consented to its disclosure; (c) for the purpose for which it was obtained or compiled or for a consistent purpose; ... (e) for the purpose of complying with an Act of the Legislature or an Act of Parliament, an agreement or arrangement under such an Act or treaty; ... The Medical Records Waiver provided to the City by WCB stated: This will be your authority to allow a representative of the Worker's Compensation Board of Ontario to have access to my medical [emphasis added] records and to receive copies thereof at [the City's] First Aid Dept. In our view, the section of the Act pertaining to the above consent form is section 32(b). The form indicates that the complainant specifically identified his medical records and authorized them to be disclosed to WCB by the City. Since the above consent form clearly applies to the disclosure of medical records only, it is our view that the City could not rely on the above consent form to authorize the disclosure of non-medical information about the complainant. We examined the remaining disclosure provisions of section 32 and determined that section 32(c) and 32(e) applied in the circumstances of this case. In our view, if the disclosures in question were made in accordance with sections 32(c) or (e) of the Act , it would not have been necessary for the City to obtain the complainant's consent for disclosure. Therefore, we considered sections 32(b),(c), and (e) in determining whether the Act had been breached by the City's disclosures to WCB. Short Term Disability Report The City stated that it was its view that the STD Report formed part of the complainant's medical record maintained by the City, and that the complainant had consented to the disclosure of this information, in accordance with section 31(a) [32(b)] of the Act when he signed the Medical Records Waiver. We agree with the City's view that the complainant's STD report, which contained his name, employee number, dates and term of his STD claim, and the amount of STD benefits paid to him formed part of the complainant's medical record with the City. Therefore, it is our view that complainant's
|