|
|
Document
|
|
I93-046M
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
INVESTIGATION REPORT INVESTIGATION I93-046M A MUNICIPALITY
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
INTRODUCTION Background of the Complaint This investigation was initiated as a result of a complaint concerning a named municipality (the Municipality). The complainant, an employee of the Municipality, had been in receipt of Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) benefits for a workplace injury suffered in September 1989. In December 1989, while he was off work recuperating from his injury, the complainant was in a car accident. This accident involved coincidentally a Municipality vehicle. The complainant subsequently filed a civil suit against the Municipality for damages. Since the accident involved one of its vehicles bumping the complainant's car, the Municipality contacted the insurance company which acted as its agent in third party claims involving Municipality vehicles. In a letter dated March 20, 1992 to the Municipality, the insurance company requested the opportunity of reviewing the complainant's personnel file - specifically any Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) claims. The insurance company stated that it was investigating a "bodily injury claim" submitted by the complainant against the Municipality. The insurance company was concerned that the complainant's claim for injuries might involve any prior and similar WCB injuries. In a letter dated April 23, 1992 to the insurance company, the Municipality provided the insurance company with documentation which it considered relevant to the complainant's September 1989 WCB claim. After the insurance company had asked the Municipality for a copy of the complainant's WCB claim but before the Municipality responded, the insurance company received a copy of the complainant's WCB file from the complainant's lawyer on April 7, 1992. The insurance company did not advise the Municipality that it had already received this copy of the complainant's WCB records. The complainant contended that the Municipality's disclosure of his WCB records to the insurance company was contrary to 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) Was the information in question "personal information", as defined in section 2(1) of the Act ? If yes, (B) Did the Municipality disclose the complainant's personal information, in accordance with section 32 of the Act ? RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION Issue A: Was the information in question "personal information", as defined in section 2(1) of the Act ? Section 2(1) of the Act defines "personal information", in part, as: recorded information about an identifiable individual, including, ... (c) any identifying number, symbol or other particular assigned to the individual, (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; ("renseignements personnels") We obtained a copy of the documentation which the Municipality had disclosed to the insurance company. This documentation consisted of records pertaining to the complainant's WCB claim dated September 10, 1989. These records contained, for example, information concerning the complainant's medical condition, his WCB claim number, his Social Insurance Number, his driver's licence number, his postal address, and information concerning a WCB overpayment. The documentation also included a record entitled "SKILLS INVENTORY" which outlined the following information concerning the complainant and eight other Municipality employees: various subjects that the employees had been trained in on a particular date, the fact that all of the employees had successfully completed the training, the dates that the employees were returning to "Operations", and whether they were returning on days or nights. It is our view that the information contained in the documentation forwarded to the insurance company met the requirements of paragraphs (c), (d) and (h) of the definition of "personal information", in section 2(1) of the Act . Conclusion: The information in question was "personal information", as defined in section 2(1) of the Act . Issue B: Did the Municipality disclose the complainant's personal information, in accordance with section 32 of the Act ? Initially, the Municipality stated that it had disclosed the complainant's WCB claim to the insurance company in accordance with section 32(c) of the Act . However, the Municipality subsequently stated that the personal information was not disclosed. It stated, instead, that the personal information was used for a "purpose reasonably compatible with the purpose for which it was obtained or compiled, in accordance with s.31(b) of the Act". Section 31 of the Act outlines the general rules for the use of personal information in the custody or control of an institution. In the circumstances of this case, it is our view that since the records containing the personal information in question were forwarded to an organization external to the institution, the disclosure provisions of the Act , instead of the use provisions, more appropriately apply. Section 32 of the Act prohibits the disclosure of personal information by an institution, except in certain circumstances. Section 32(c) of the Act , which the Municipality had originally relied upon, states: 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; In our view, one of the purposes for which the Municipality obtained the complainant's WCB claim was for WCB claims management. However, the Municipality disclosed the complainant's W
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Dec 31, 1993
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Privacy Complaint Report
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|