IPC - Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario

Français

Site Map

Advanced Search

Subject Index Listing

Reconsideration Table

Judicial Review of Municipal Orders

Judicial Review of Provincial Orders

Judicial Review of Privacy Complaint Reports

The Acts

Recent Orders

I94-001M

Document		I94-001M


Institution/HIC		INVESTIGATION REPORT INVESTIGATION I94-001M A SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD September 14, 1994


Summary		INTRODUCTION Background of the Complaint This investigation was initiated as a result of a complaint concerning a named separate school board (the Board). The complainant, a teacher with the Board, said that after an incident at the school, she went on sick leave. While on sick leave, the Board sent her two forms for her signature. One form (form A) required the complainant to authorize the collection of her medical information from her own physician, including "any and all medical information, documents, records or history" which might be required by the Board's physician. The other form (form B) authorized the Board's physician to disclose his report based on his medical examination of the complainant to the Board's Superintendent of Education, Personnel Services (Superintendent) or to her designate, the Assistant Superintendent. The Board advised the complainant that these were standard consent forms. The complainant was reluctant to sign the consent forms which she considered to be invasive and in contravention of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). However, she received a letter from the Superintendent stating that she could not return to work until the Board's physician had received the completed consent forms and had sent his report to the Board (i.e., to the Assistant Superintendent). The complainant signed form B but revised form A, narrowing it to make it specific to the medical information related to the incident which had precipitated her sick leave. The Board accepted the complainant's revised form (form C). The complainant stated that she had signed forms B and C, thereby giving her consent to the collection and disclosure of her medical information, only "under coercion" -- in order that she could return to work. 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) Was the Board's proposed collection of personal information through form A in compliance with section 28(2) of the Act ? (C) Was the Board's collection of personal information through form C in compliance with section 28(2) of the Act ? (D) Was the Board's indirect collection of personal information in compliance with section 29(1) of the Act ? (E) Was the disclosure of personal information by the Board's physician to the Assistant Superintendent in compliance 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, (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, (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 medical report completed by the Board's physician contained the complainant's name and a description of her physical and emotional state, as well as the physician's opinion that she was physically able to return to her teaching duties. In our view, the personal information in the medical report met the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of the definition of "personal information" in section 2(1) of the Act . The information obtained by the Board through form C was medical information relating to the specific incident which resulted in the complainant's leave of absence. This information met the requirements of paragraph (h) of the definition of "personal information" in section 2(1) of the Act . The information that the Board had intended to obtain through form A was "any and all medical information, documents, records of history" in the possession of the complainant's doctor relating to the complainant, as required by the Board's physician for the purpose of completing his examination and writing his report. It is our view that this information would have met the requirements of paragraphs (b), (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: Was the Board's proposed collection of personal information through form A in compliance with section 28(2) of the Act ? While no personal information was actually collected through form A, the Board nonetheless intended (and normally collected) personal information using this form. In asking the complainant to sign it, the Board was seeking her consent to collect "any and all medical information, documents, records or history" relating to her as required by the Board's physician. Therefore, we examined whether the Board's intended collection of the complainant's personal information through form A would have been in compliance with section 28(2) of the Act . Section 28(2) of the Act states: (2) 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 Board cited section 171(1) of the Education Act , which states in part that a Board may: appoint and remove such teachers, as it considers expedient, determine the terms on which such officers, servants and teachers are to be employed, prescribe their duties and fix their salaries. The Board advised that it administered and funded employee sick leave benefits. The Board stated that its collection of the complainant's medical information was necessary to the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity, i.e. the administration of these employee benefits. It is our view that the Board's administration of employee benefits as part of its management of human resources was a lawfully authorized activity. However, it is also our view that the extremely broad wording contained in form A could have led to the collection of medical information that would not have been specifically related to the incident precipitating the complainant's sick leave, and for which sick benefits were being received. In this particular case, the Board accepted a narrower, more privacy-protective version of form A (form C) from the complainant, which only collected information related to the precipitating incident. The Board considered this to be su


Legislation		MFIPPA 2(1) personal information 29(1)(a) 32(c)


Subject Index		consent retention


Published		Sep 14, 1994


Type		Privacy Complaint Report


<< Back

Main Menu