|
|
Document
|
|
I93-037M
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
INVESTIGATION REPORT INVESTIGATION I93-037M 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's child (son) who has special needs is enroled in the Municipality's Early Intervention Services Program (EISP). The EISP is a home-based, comprehensive, early intervention service for the individual child with special needs and family members. The service is administered by the Municipality and is funded by the Provincial Government with no cost to the family. Families are the key decision makers and, with staff, set goals based on identified needs. Although the EISP is family-oriented, the complainant does not accept this family approach. She insists that the EISP deal only with her son's development. As a result, she stated that, when she reviewed her son's file, she was "shocked" to discover personal family information relating to her and to her younger son (her second son) on this file. She stated that the Municipality had wrongfully collected her personal information and had placed it on her son's file, contrary to the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). She also indicated that the Municipality had collected her second son's personal medical information and placed political briefing notes concerning her, on her son's file. She stated that all this personal family information contained in her son's file was accessible to the Municipality's EISP personnel. It was her view that the Municipality had no authority to collect the personal family information requested on the "Inventory of Social Support" form (the ISSF). If the Municipality did have such authority, she felt that there should be notice on the ISSF to indicate at least the purpose for which the personal information would be used. The complainant had filed four access requests for information concerning the EISP to the Municipality, pursuant to the provisions of the Act . She stated that the Municipality had wrongfully disclosed this personal information to the Municipality's Commissioner (the Commissioner) for the Community Services and Health Committee (the Committee). 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 collect the complainant's family personal information, in accordance with section 28(2) of the Act ? (C) Did the Municipality provide notice of this collection, in accordance with section 29(2) of the Act ? (D) Did the Municipality disclose the complainant's personal information to the Commissioner, and subsequently to the Community Services and Health Committee, 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: "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 the 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, (e) the personal opinions or views of the individual except if they relate to another 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; (renseignements personnels") We reviewed the Municipality's work file concerning the complainant's son. This file contained the son's name, age, address, some medical information, details on his special needs, comments and suggestions by the EISP specialists, and notes of discussions between the complainant and various EISP personnel. The work file also included limited medical information concerning the second son. The Municipality also maintained a file separate from the work file, which contained the complainant's correspondence with the Municipality and other government institutions concerning the EISP. This correspondence file contained briefing notes which the Municipality used to reply to her letters. It also contained an undated report (for a March 3, 1993 in camera meeting) which mentioned the complainant by name and the four access requests she had made. It is our view that the information contained in these records met the requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), (d), (e), (g), 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 collect the complainant's family personal information, in accordance with section 28(2) of the Act ? Section 28(2) of the Act states: No person shall collect personal information on behalf of an institution unless the collection is expressly authorized by statute, used for the purposes of law enforcement or necessary to the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity [emphasis added]. The Municipality informed us that this collection was necessary to the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity - to carry out its EISP. In order for a collection of personal information to fall under the third condition of section 28(2) of the Act , an institution must demonstrate that the information it collects is necessary to the proper administration of an activity which falls within its mandate. The Municipality has cited certain sections of the Municipal Act , The Regional Municipality of York Act , the Day Nurseries Act , and the Child and Family Services Act ( CFSA ) as its authority for carrying out the EISP. We have reviewed the specific legislation cited by the Municipality and are of the view that the applicable legislation is the CFSA . Section 7(1) of the CFSA states: The Minister may, ... (b) make agreements with persons, municipalities and agencies for the provision of services, and may make payments for those services and facilities out of legislative appropriations. According to the 1993 Annual Report of the Office of the Provincial Auditor, the Ministry of Community and Social Services (the Ministry) funds approximately 200 non-profit agencies under its Child and Family Intervention (CFI) program. Services provided include therapy, counselling, skills training, and education as well as residential services to children who require more intensive assistance. Funding for various children services is provided by the Ministry under the authority of the CFSA and Regulations. The Municipality advised us that its EISP followed the "Infant Development Program Guidelines" dated
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
MFIPPA
-
2(1) personal information
-
29(2)
-
Section 32
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Mar 28, 1994
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Privacy Complaint Report
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|