|
|
Document
|
|
I94-012M
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
INVESTIGATION I94-012M A MUNICIPALITY September 27, 1994
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
INTRODUCTION Background of the Complaint This investigation was initiated as a result of a complaint concerning a Municipality. The complainants were three part-time firefighters whose employment had been terminated by the Municipality. The complainants were of the view that they had been terminated unjustly. After they were terminated, they each made a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Municipality for access to general records and to their respective personnel files. In the process of objecting to their terminations to the Municipality's Council, the complainants were advised by the Mayor that additional records about them were in the possession of the Municipality's Fire Chief (the Chief). According to the complainants, the Mayor had referred to these records as being "a foot-thick file." The complainants later made further FOI requests for access to their personal information in the Chief's "secret" files, and subsequently received additional records contained in these files. The firefighters were concerned that the information in the Chief's files had been collected and used without their knowledge or consent. They also believed that the information itself was inaccurate and that the Municipality's actions had 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 complainants' "personal information" as defined in section 2(1) of the Act ? If yes, (B) Was the personal information collected in compliance with section 28(2) of the Act ? (C) Was the personal information collected in compliance with section 29(1) of the Act ? (D) Did the Municipality provide notice of collection of the complainants' personal information in compliance with section 29(2) of the Act ? (E) Did the Municipality use the complainants' personal information, in compliance with section 31 of the Act , to terminate the complainants' employment? (F) Did the Municipality take reasonable steps to ensure that the complainants' personal information was accurate and up-to-date, in compliance with section 30(2) of the Act , before using it to terminate the complainants' employment? (G) Did the Municipality retain the complainants' personal information, in compliance with section 30(1) of the Act ? RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION Issue A: Did the records in question contain the complainants' "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, ... (e) the personal opinions or views of the individual except if they relate to another 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, (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 contained in the Chief's files that were the subject of the "secret files" FOI requests. Many of the records consisted of the Chief's memos to file. These memos included minutes of meetings, procedures for a certain fire station, and conditions at that fire station. Other records included response procedures, notes concerning inspections at a certain fire station, and records of fire alarms responded to from that fire station. Attached to the records of alarms were notes indicating that one of the complainants had allegedly responded to the alarms with alcohol on his breath. Some of the memos to file concerned alleged derogatory remarks made by one of the complainants; others concerned allegations that one of the complainants had failed to place gear in an approved location, and failed to install memo pads, as requested. Some of the records were correspondence from individuals other than the complainants. The topics of this correspondence were the complainants' terminations, incidents at a certain fire station over the past two years, problems at a certain fire station, and concerns with the platooning system. There was also correspondence between the Municipality and a third party (a professional association) respecting the terminations. The file included internal correspondence from the Chief to the Municipality's Chief Administrative Officer recommending that the complainants' employment be terminated, and correspondence from the Municipality to the complainants respecting their terminations. There was also correspondence to one of the complainants respecting his demotion, and a memo signed by him indicating that he had read and understood the conditions of the attached letter. The file included an internal memo regarding the attendance of two of the complainants at fire drills. There were also records about an altercation between firefighters other than the complainants. Since the Act defines "personal information" as recorded information about an identifiable individual [emphasis added], we examined the above records with a view to determining whether they contained information which specifically identified the complainants. We found that in some of the records, the complainants were identified by name. However, in several instances, the records in the Chief's files did not identify the complainants by name; for example, in memos to personnel at a certain fire station, response procedures, minutes of some meetings, records of inspections at a certain fire station, and correspondence from third parties. In our discussions with the Municipality, the question of whether the records in question actually contained the "personal information" of the complainants was raised. It was the Municipality's view that despite the fact that certain records did not contain the names of the complainants, both the Chief and Deputy Chief were able to identify the individuals to whom the records referred. The Chief explained that his records, which had started out as a single information file, had been divided into three separate files, and that records were subsequently placed in each of the three files according to the identity of the individual. Therefore, it is our view that in the context in which the records were known to the Chief and Deputy Chief, namely that the complainants were "identifiable" to them, the records in question contained the complainants' "personal information," as defined in sections 2(1)(e), (g), and (h) of the Act . We are of the view that the records in question also contained the personal information of other individuals (i.e., third parties who corresponded with the Municipality or Chief; firefighters involved in an altercation), as defined in sections 2(1)(e), (f), (g), and (h) of the Act . (Our concerns about the lack of specific identifiers in the records are discussed under "Other Matters".) Conclusion: The records in question contained the complainants' and other individuals' "personal information", as defined in section 2(1) of the Act . <
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Sep 27, 1994
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Privacy Complaint Report
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|